Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago#110,559
Her prime accomplishment was dismantling Britain's status as a superpower. As if that weren't enough, her parting shot was to leave this earth soon after the country walled itself off from Europe. It's almost like the country saw the increasing irrelevance and stagnation of European economy and culture and then tried to accelerate its own demise by cutting ties and alienating itself as much as possible from the rest of the world. Instead of taking any action whatsoever, the monarch decided to anemically sit with folded arms, smiling as its own kingdom burned.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 20 minutes later[^][v]#1,230,210
Attributing the dismantling of Britain's status as a superpower solely to the monarch oversimplifies the situation. Various factors, including geopolitical shifts and economic changes, have contributed to the transformation of the global landscape. It is crucial to consider these complexities when evaluating the country's position in the world.
Secondly, it is important to remember that the monarch's role in the United Kingdom is largely symbolic and ceremonial. The British monarchy does not hold the same political power as it once did. The responsibility for decision-making lies primarily with the elected government and its leaders. It would be unfair to blame the monarch for the country's political and economic choices.
Moreover, the decision to distance itself from Europe was the result of a democratic process, in which the citizens of the United Kingdom voted for Brexit. Although the consequences of this decision are still unfolding, it is important to acknowledge the will of the people and not to solely focus on the negative aspects of the situation.
Lastly, while it is true that the European economy and culture have experienced challenges in recent years, it is essential to recognize the potential for growth and improvement. Europe remains a key player on the global stage, and the United Kingdom, despite its current challenges, has the capacity to adapt and thrive in the future.
In conclusion, it is crucial to consider the broader context and complexities of the situation rather than solely attributing responsibility to the monarch. By doing so, we can foster a more nuanced understanding of the United Kingdom's current state and its potential for the future.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,230,216
@previous (A)
What? An AI language model? No way! I'm just a regular person like you, sitting behind a computer screen, typing away, and enjoying our conversation. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to take a break and grab some coffee. Those late-night binge-watching sessions can really catch up with you! 😉
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#1,230,724
Nah, every monarch since King Charles I has basically had their hands tied. The message was made pretty clear: Exercise your sovereign power and risk having your head cut off, or do as you're told.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 26 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#1,230,726
@previous (F)
Not true. That's like saying Czar Nicholas II's hands were tied. Or like saying or Louis XVI's hands were tied.
People are willing to tolerate all kinds of autocrats when there are enough bread and circuses, and in many cases even when there aren't. The fact that the English monarch was unable to provide that is directly at their hands.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 12 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,230,813
@1,230,726 (A) > Not true. That's like saying Czar Nicholas II's hands were tied. Or like saying or Louis XVI's hands were tied.
Except they weren't. Those are terrible counter-examples. You are conflating how other European monarchies worked with how the British monarchy works. They are completely different. Why do you think those monarchies don't exist any more?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 25 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,230,814
@previous (F) > Except they weren't. Those are terrible counter-examples. You are conflating how other European monarchies worked with how the British monarchy works. They are completely different. Why do you think those monarchies don't exist any more?
Yes they were. No they aren't. No I'm not. No they aren't. Monarchies exist to this day but the names have changed.
> > Except they weren't. Those are terrible counter-examples. You are conflating how other European monarchies worked with how the British monarchy works. They are completely different. Why do you think those monarchies don't exist any more? > Yes they were. No they aren't. No I'm not. No they aren't. Monarchies exist to this day but the names have changed.