Elizabeth II / Charles III megathread

[Salus Maior]

I am in fact referring to the island which has for centuries been referred to by the name "Ireland" and not any political entity whose existence can be traced back to the last hundred years or so.

And the entire island, and whatever conceptions it carries with it, is irrelevant when it comes to the desires of the people of Northern Ireland.

[Suriyanakhon]

who are often characterized as "more Irish than the Irish",

A crass, ignorant, and disrespectful put down to an entire nation of people.

... you're just revealing how ignorant you are of Irish history. The term originates in historiography about the assimilation of the Norman aristocracy into Irish culture, and later in romantic nationalism that emphasized the unity of the Gaelic and Anglo-Scot Irish people. It's literally an inclusive slogan that rejects ethnicity as the sole grounds of nationhood.

[Sordhau]

This is pure nonsense lmao. You're basically saying that if we abolished the US Federal Government it would destroy White American culture, which is a mind-boggling take of astronomical proportions.

The US Federal Government is one institution among many. Again, you're proposing the destruction of the culture of the "settler colonial" population and all associated institutions. While a decent number of people conflate the term "institution" with the term "political organ", that's not wholly accurate. Political organs, such as the US Federal Government, are but a single type of institutions. Social conventions, social mores, ways of thinking, patterns of subsistence behavior, widespread epistemological paradigms, religious traditions, etc. all constitute institutions. So, yes, even if you're not aware of it, the phrases you've employed do propose cultural genocide.

Literally no one uses the word "institution" to describe what literally everyone else just calls "tradition" or "custom". You're arguing against a point I never made. That's bad faith, my dude.

They do, yes. Not usually in the span of thirty minutes though.

The last time I talked about decolonization with you (in regards to Israel) was several months ago, not a "span of thirty minutes".

My sister in Torah, it's literally an argument you made at the opening of this discussion.

I never mentioned how long the Ulster Scots have been in Ireland because it frankly wasn't irrelevant.

More of a commentary on how complete their assimilation into and contribution to the emerging early modern Irish culture was.

If they had "completely assimilated" into early modern Irish culture then there would be no existing distinction between Ulster Scots and the Irish. Given that there is in fact a clear distinction I would say that there has in fact not been any kind of "assimilation", certainly not a "complete" one. Unless you're using these words in a way I'm not familiar with.

Not really.

Yes really. Whites supporting the Haitian Revolution do not suddenly absolve the white settler-slaver-colonial class of it's culpability in the enslavement of Africans and the extermination of the native Taino people from Hispaniola. The same is true for the Ulster Scot settler-colonial class in regards to their culpability in the systematic erasure of Irish culture and the oppression of Irish people.

Almost every culture is a settler culture by that definition. The freakin' Lakota and Sami are settler cultures. The Bantu are a settler culture. The Pashtuns are a settler culture. The Gaelic-speaking Irish are a settler culture. What does the term even mean once it begins to describe almost every single culture in existence?

Not really. A settler culture ceases to be a settler culture when it no longer has a native culture to oppress. Historical tendencies were more often to either try and assimilate conquered peoples or otherwise vassalize them rather than try to exterminate them and colonize their lands. The latter became more common after the Enlightenment. Not that it didn't happen before, just that it wasn't as common. This is largely because large scale genocide was difficult to achieve prior to the invention of firearms.

And how do you propose we solve that problem without engaging in genocide and probably erasing even more traditional Irish culture in the process? Y'know... since the Hiberno-Normans and Anglo-Irish have been fairly integral to the process of creating a modern Irish culture.

I already explained that it requires mutual cooperation and tolerance leading to a melting pot of cultures, but somehow you interpreted this as genocide.

Yes, they were. How do you think Gaelic replaced the previously spoken Brythonic languages of Scotland? How do you think Romano-British clergymen wound up in Ireland? It was through a process of conquest, settlement, and enslavement. Which wasn't really out of pocket in that time period. The Danes and Norwegians did fairly similar things.

The Gaels were not the Irish, and vice-versa. These are related but distinct groups. Goidelic culture predates Irish culture by quite a few centuries and is responsible for the development of Irish, Scottish, and Manx culture.

What even is "traditional Irish culture" in your view? And why do you believe the Irish want it at present?

This is moving the goalposts. I'm referring to the distinct culture of the Republic of Ireland, in contrast to the culture of Northern Ireland. I use "traditional" for lack of a better word; as opposed to Anglo-Irish for the latter region's predominate culture.

[Sordhau]

I am in fact referring to the island which has for centuries been referred to by the name "Ireland" and not any political entity whose existence can be traced back to the last hundred years or so.

And the entire island, and whatever conceptions it carries with it, is irrelevant when it comes to the desires of the people of Northern Ireland.

This may shock you to learn but the people of Northern Ireland are not the only parties involved in the matter of Irish Unification.

A crass, ignorant, and disrespectful put down to an entire nation of people.

... you're just revealing how ignorant you are of Irish history. The term originates in historiography about the assimilation of the Norman aristocracy into Irish culture, and later in romantic nationalism that emphasized the unity of the Gaelic and Anglo-Scot Irish people. It's literally an inclusive slogan that rejects ethnicity as the sole grounds of nationhood.

I'm fully aware of it's origins; I'm pointing out how dated the term is.

[Zhong-guo]

Whoever suggested that Prince Phillip is of Greek origin? Wasn't Philip was born in Greece, into the Greek and Danish royal families, given his grouping were primarily of Danish/German/Prussian and Russian instead of Greek?

I send my condolences to the Royal Family of Great Britain.

[Salus Maior]

And the entire island, and whatever conceptions it carries with it, is irrelevant when it comes to the desires of the people of Northern Ireland.

This may shock you to learn but the people of Northern Ireland are not the only parties involved in the matter of Irish Unification.

I'm aware, but the Republic of Ireland doesn't have a right to Northern Ireland. No more than, say, Russia has a right to Ukraine.

It's all based off of a nationalist abstraction that the Republic has a right to a particular slice of land, and not the reality of what the people want. The people had their chance to join with the rest of Ireland in independence and the majority decided to stick with Britain. So what the Republic and its nationalists want simply does not matter, they don't get the province they want.

[Forsher]

what that Aboriginal title consists of, ie is it just to the stewardship and use of the land, or is it actual sovereignty, as one would expect with entities who were otherwise annexed in treaties in a nation-to-nation manner.

I don't follow... annexed nations cease to be sovereign? That's sort of the point of annexation.

In this context that means ethnically cleansed of non-Irish Catholics.

Not necessarily. A region can be decolonized without removing the settler population by removing the settler culture and institutions.

This is a Nationalist talking point.

And? Left-wing nationalism is quite based.

You literally just advocated genocide.

I'm going to assume replying was somewhat pointless because you've probably been banned... EDIT: it's not actionable. Not sure if that's because the mods disagree that it's genocide (it is, it really, really is) or because the way you advanced it was completely dry. Doesn't really matter, I suppose.

On a related point:

Obviously the people of Northern Ireland must all become Catholic before the island can be united into one Bishopric of Ireland.

This is actual shitposting.

I think Sordhau calling it "decolonisation" is giving people the wrong idea,

Sordhau's version of decolonisation is literal genocide, which people seem to have understood.

Maybe there's an argument to be made that the decolonisation absent political dependence is inherently genocidal... just as counter-revolution and revolution are both revolution... but Sordhau is going way further than "getting rid of Western government institutions is decolonisation".

[The Alma Mater]

Soo.. Trump apparantly is claiming the Queen knighted him in a secret ceremony...

[El Lazaro]

In this context that means ethnically cleansed of non-Irish Catholics.

Not necessarily. A region can be decolonized without removing the settler population by removing the settler culture and institutions.

This is a Nationalist talking point.

And? Left-wing nationalism is quite based.

Ah, the people’s cultural genocide. Didn’t you say that Ukraine was evil because of Kremlinite propaganda about removing Russian culture from their country? I guess it’s no longer ok if the imperialists are also fascists.

[Thermodolia]

I want a Republic of England, Republic of Scotland, Republic of Wales, Republic of Cornwall, Republic of Mann, and United Ireland. But Cromwell messed that up.

While I'm sympathetic to a united Ireland, Ireland is divided from north and south because that is what the majority of people in the north wanted.

I don't see a reason to override the will of North Irelanders for the sake of a minority within their region, and nationalists in Ireland proper.

Keep in mind that this majority decided that over 100 years ago and times have changed to where both sides no long have the majority. There’s a plurality of people who want to remain in the Union but the nationalist side isn’t that far behind them.

So the Irish unification isn’t something like a fringe minority wanting control at the expense of the vast majority, it’s more like two near sized groups who can’t agree

[Thermodolia]

Except it really is comparable. It's almost identical to the white American culture that predominates the USA, with the exception of promoting native nationalism. Still the origins of the settler culture are virtually identical, as are the very real concerns of cultural erasure by the ruling demographic. The only real difference is that the settler culture in America is dominate whereas the settler culture in Ireland is the minority, making it more relatable to Apartheid South Africa or Rhodesia.

Those that identify as British are the majority in Northern Ireland, so no that's not true.

No they are not, only 37% of people in NI identify as pure British. With 46% of people identifying as some sort of British. So no those that identify as British are not the majority, they are a plurality but not the majority

[Farnhamia]

In this context that means ethnically cleansed of non-Irish Catholics.

Not necessarily. A region can be decolonized without removing the settler population by removing the settler culture and institutions.

This is a Nationalist talking point.

And? Left-wing nationalism is quite based.

*** 10 day ban for trolling and thread-jacking ***

It seems to me that the thread has drifted from reflections on the death of the Queen and the changes this will bring to Britain. Drop the decolonization theme.

[Thermodolia]

This may shock you to learn but the people of Northern Ireland are not the only parties involved in the matter of Irish Unification.

I'm aware, but the Republic of Ireland doesn't have a right to Northern Ireland. No more than, say, Russia has a right to Ukraine.

It's all based off of a nationalist abstraction that the Republic has a right to a particular slice of land, and not the reality of what the people want. The people had their chance to join with the rest of Ireland in independence and the majority decided to stick with Britain. So what the Republic and its nationalists want simply does not matter, they don't get the province they want.

This is wrong, the people of Northern Ireland have the ability to join the Republic if they so choose. If at any point in time there is a clear majority of people who want to join the republic then a border poll is to be called under the terms of the GFA.

Saying that the people of NI had their chance and that’s it is wrong. And you are framing the entire conversation in regards to Northern Ireland extremely incorrectly.

[Prima Scriptura]

I'm aware, but the Republic of Ireland doesn't have a right to Northern Ireland. No more than, say, Russia has a right to Ukraine.

It's all based off of a nationalist abstraction that the Republic has a right to a particular slice of land, and not the reality of what the people want. The people had their chance to join with the rest of Ireland in independence and the majority decided to stick with Britain. So what the Republic and its nationalists want simply does not matter, they don't get the province they want.

This is wrong, the people of Northern Ireland have the ability to join the Republic if they so choose. If at any point in time there is a clear majority of people who want to join the republic then a border poll is to be called under the terms of the GFA.

Saying that the people of NI had their chance and that’s it is wrong. And you are framing the entire conversation in regards to Northern Ireland extremely incorrectly.

It is my understanding that Republicans that live in northern Ireland can have citizenship in the Republic

[Thermodolia]

This is wrong, the people of Northern Ireland have the ability to join the Republic if they so choose. If at any point in time there is a clear majority of people who want to join the republic then a border poll is to be called under the terms of the GFA.

Saying that the people of NI had their chance and that’s it is wrong. And you are framing the entire conversation in regards to Northern Ireland extremely incorrectly.

It is my understanding that Republicans that live in northern Ireland can have citizenship in the Republic

Any person of Irish ancestry in NI can obtain Republican or British citizenship or both.

[Fahran]

Soo.. Trump apparantly is claiming the Queen knighted him in a secret ceremony...

The man remains a complete meme. At least it's funny. Usually.

Still, about as classless as we should expect.

[Neanderthaland]

Soo.. Trump apparantly is claiming the Queen knighted him in a secret ceremony...

What a coincidence. Me too!

[Perikuresu]

Soo.. Trump apparantly is claiming the Queen knighted him in a secret ceremony...

I want a source so I can laugh at it with my own mouth see it with my own eyes

[Prima Scriptura]

Soo.. Trump apparantly is claiming the Queen knighted him in a secret ceremony...

He probably actually believes it…

[The Alma Mater]

Soo.. Trump apparantly is claiming the Queen knighted him in a secret ceremony...

The man remains a complete meme. At least it's funny. Usually.

Still, about as classless as we should expect.

I am kinda hoping it is fake; but I can no longer access truth social to verify.

Still, since someone holding office is forbidden to accept a title of nobility - did Trump just state he was an illegitimate president (if the "tweet" was really his) ?

[Plus Nova Imperii]

It is my firm belief that His Majesty, the King, will serve his role with excellence and dignity, as his mother has taught him by her example. I pray to God to Rest the Queen, and for God to Save the King.

[Sedgistan]

Not necessarily. A region can be decolonized without removing the settler population by removing the settler culture and institutions.



And? Left-wing nationalism is quite based.

*** 10 day ban for trolling and thread-jacking ***

It seems to me that the thread has drifted from reflections on the death of the Queen and the changes this will bring to Britain. Drop the decolonization theme.

Posting to note that as per this, Sordhau's ban has been rescinded. However, Farn's back on topic reminder remains valid.

[Nilokeras]

what that Aboriginal title consists of, ie is it just to the stewardship and use of the land, or is it actual sovereignty, as one would expect with entities who were otherwise annexed in treaties in a nation-to-nation manner.

I don't follow... annexed nations cease to be sovereign? That's sort of the point of annexation.

The point is that these nations with unceded lands were never legally annexed, as part of a well-established process that goes back to the 1700s. That process has its roots, like so much of the Canadian constitution, in the royal family's filing cabinet, with various treaties signed between individual First Nations and the Crown. The most important of which is the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which reconciled the on paper conquest of New France with the realities of the fact that the British had no real hope at the time of being able to subdue and hold the mostly Indigenous territories they were now 'sovereign' over. Namely they did this by recognizing the de facto sovereignty of the Indigenous nations, under British 'protection'.

In large parts of Canada east of the Rocky Mountains, this acknowledged Indigenous sovereignty was diminished through subsequent treaties that restricted the First Nations' title to lands and other practices that lead to the development of reservations. West of the Rockies, no such treaty making process was done - they, on paper, retained all of their sovereignty as laid out in the 1763 treaty.

The sticky part now is interpreting what that sovereignty means. The Canadian government over the years has argued that the collection of legal concepts and precedents we call the Doctrine of Discovery meant that Indigenous sovereignty as individual autonomous 'states' in the European mold was invalidated upon the European conquest of the area, and that the rights laid out in the 1763 document were a grant of sovereignty from the Crown, and not a recognition of the First Nations' actually existing sovereignty. Hence the more limited definitions used by modern Canadian governments, which is that Aboriginal title refers only to a limited set of rights to stewardship and occupation of a given parcel of land, again emerging from colonial accountings of where a given Nation was at the time of conquest and how they used the land.

Charles repudiating that Doctrine or otherwise laying out a proclamation clarifying the meaning of the 1763 Proclamation would go a long way towards undermining the ways that the modern Canadian state uses to try and corral and contain Indigenous claims to sovereignty.

[Celritannia]

Protesters in Edinburgh boo proclamation of King Charles III

Heard this as my mum and I were watching the Royal proclamations before I set off for rehersals.

[Perikuresu]

Protesters in Edinburgh boo proclamation of King Charles III

Heard this as my mum and I were watching the Royal proclamations before I set off for rehersals.

R they republicans?