Queen Victoria - Was she right or wrong? (Zulus in Portsmouth?)

[Konstantine]

Listen, I'm sorry guys. I'm not some capitalist troll, I just didn't really know what good or bad she brought. I just wanted your opinions, that's all. Now that I think of it, my post did sound pretty stupid. Forgive me for it, but remember, we all do ignorant things, but we learn from them. Without stupidity, we wouldn't have intelligence. ;)

[ed miliband]

Greatest monarch? That's like choosing a favourite cancer.

I don't really understand your question though - what are you asking whether Victoria was right or wrong about?

The answer is 'wrong', whatever the question is.

[Widerstand]

Imperialist as she was, I have respect for her, avoiding valiantly the corruption that comes with such power.

What the heck? I don't get this thread at all.

[Konstantine]

Just a theory. Queen Victoria was a capitalist and a monarch, BUT she brought great success to the country. However, what success did she bring to the people? Did she utilize capitalism in such a way that it actually was GOOD for the people? I'm just trying to theorize.

[Widerstand]

By "great success" are you refering to economical growth and bourgeois wealth, based on the exploitation of the domestic working class and colonies?

[Smokin']

I see a lot of people, sometimes justifiably, hating on the Royal Family. The only reason we are all here, is because we have opinions on what is better for the people. Regardless of our political stance, the only thing that matters is the general public and the fact is, under her rule, they were in a good position.

Even if I do disagree with capitalism, it's absolutely wrong to be against ANY form of government which helps the people.

[Konstantine]

By "great success" are you refering to economical growth and bourgeois wealth, based on the exploitation of the domestic working class and colonies?

Her rule also brought Proletariat success, mind you.

[Dimentio]

Queen Victoria hardly made any political decisions after purging up the rotten burroughs. Britain at that time was an oligarchy. The Queen was probably quite good since she in general was venerated, but constitutional monarchs in general tend to be well-liked by their subjects. As for Britain during that time, the living standards for the workers was starting to improve first in the 1890's.

[Widerstand]

Her rule also brought Proletariat success, mind you.

In what way do you think this happened, and how was she responsible for it?

[Volcanicity]

She was a capitalist and monarch .thats all you need to know! YOU SILLY.

[khad]

How positively national chauvinist of all you fools. Then I can only expect white Britons to care about white Britons. It's not like the people you imperialists were slaughtering all over the world were people.

[scarletghoul]

Queen Victoria was a great man, a great anti-imperialist fighter, who constructed perhaps the most egalitarian and free society the world has ever known. She saved the Irish from starvation, saved the Chinese from opium, stopped capitalism getting too out of hand. These are just some of her many heroic achievements.

[Volcanicity]

How positively national chauvinist of all you fools. Then I can only expect white Britons to care about white Britons. It's not like the people you imperialists were slaughtering all over the world were people.
:laugh::laugh:

[Obs]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

During the beginning of Victoria's reign there were horrendous famines in India caused by British imperialism, and later the Irish famine, atrocities committed in China and Africa. Not that it matters much but she seems to have had a rather unpleasant personality.

Oh, and she also had a lousy fashion sense-have you seen those photos of her and Albert from about 1850 or so?

Sounds like people have been listening to the Kinks song "Victoria" too much or reading League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

[Konstantine]

How positively national chauvinist of all you fools. Then I can only expect white Britons to care about white Britons. It's not like the people you imperialists were slaughtering all over the world were people.

You do realize in Africa and the Middle East we were attacked first, right? The Mahdists attacked us first, the Zulus attacked us first. In India, the rebellion started against us and the rebels proceeded to slaughter Britsh and Indan men, women, and children alike. We also protected the Middle East from a German onslaught in World War II. We also abolished human sacrificing and subsistance farming in India. We also abolished the Mughal and Marathan slaughter of all non-Muslims and non-Hindus respectively. We also drastically raised the life expectancy and living standards of the people of the empire.

[Obs]

Trotsky just woke up in his coffin and is trying to claw his way out of it to punch you in the face.

[Crux]

Just a theory. Queen Victoria was a capitalist and a monarch, BUT she brought great success to the country. However, what success did she bring to the people? Did she utilize capitalism in such a way that it actually was GOOD for the people? As many of you fellow Brits may know, Queen Victoria is frequently considered by historians as our greatest monarch in history. Her reign brought untold success and prosperity to both the Empire and to the British people themselves. Imperialist as she was, I have respect for her, as she avoided valiantly the corruption that comes with such power. But the tricky thing is her reign brought both success and pain to the people. Under her, the British people received a higher standard of living. People were more prosperous with the increased wealth and success of the nation. People were happier.

Just the same, slums were formed, child labour, sometimes deadly, went into full swing. Pollution occured. Expolitation happened to some degree. But it is true that no matter what government you have, there will always be, even if at an abysmal degree, poor people and exploitation.


So what do you think comrades? Did Queen Victoria's rule and her methods of capitalism bring more benefit than harm, or vice-versa?
Uhm what? No.What would even give you that idea?

[Robocommie]

You do realize in Africa and the Middle East we were attacked first, right? The Mahdists attacked us first, the Zulus attacked us first. In India, the rebellion started against us and the rebels proceeded to slaughter Britsh and Indan men, women, and children alike. We also protected the Middle East from a German onslaught in World War II. We also abolished human sacrificing and subsistance farming in India. We also abolished the Mughal and Marathan slaughter of all non-Muslims and non-Hindus respectively. We also drastically raised the life expectancy and living standards of the people of the empire.

...what the fuck

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Ah, the civilizing mission of the British.....

Now that they're gone, its up to the US to carry on alone, somehow, unappreciated, unloved....

[Volcanicity]

You do realize in Africa and the Middle East we were attacked first, right? The Mahdists attacked us first, the Zulus attacked us first. In India, the rebellion started against us and the rebels proceeded to slaughter Britsh and Indan men, women, and children alike. We also protected the Middle East from a German onslaught in World War II. We also abolished human sacrificing and subsistance farming in India. We also abolished the Mughal and Marathan slaughter of all non-Muslims and non-Hindus respectively. We also drastically raised the life expectancy and living standards of the people of the empire.
Do you even know what Imperialism is!what the fuck is going on here.

[Konstantine]

Is there no neutrality? I get persecuted to hell by bigoted idiots in one area, come here, and it's exactly the same, even with my own political group. No one is open to any sort of argument or theory. You people tormenting me for a theory are no better than the bigoted Americans in a previous forum who wanted to genocide the Arabs and communists. Now, I'm not even accepted by Leftists, but that's perfectly fine. I'll have my own beliefs regardless, you'd better damn well believe that.

Close-minded people like you should be ashamed.

[Crux]

You do realize in Africa and the Middle East we were attacked first, right? The Mahdists attacked us first, the Zulus attacked us first. In India, the rebellion started against us and the rebels proceeded to slaughter Britsh and Indan men, women, and children alike. We also protected the Middle East from a German onslaught in World War II. We also abolished human sacrificing and subsistance farming in India. We also abolished the Mughal and Marathan slaughter of all non-Muslims and non-Hindus respectively. We also drastically raised the life expectancy and living standards of the people of the empire.
Hahahah.How fucking noble of you. Are you really that clueless?

[Widerstand]

You do realize in Africa and the Middle East we were attacked first, right? The Mahdists attacked us first, the Zulus attacked us first. In India, the rebellion started against us and the rebels proceeded to slaughter Britsh and Indan men, women, and children alike. We also protected the Middle East from a German onslaught in World War II. We also abolished human sacrificing and subsistance farming in India. We also abolished the Mughal and Marathan slaughter of all non-Muslims and non-Hindus respectively. We also drastically raised the life expectancy and living standards of the people of the empire.

You should stop reading imperialist history.

[Konstantine]

I'M SO FUCKING SORRY I PRESENTED A THEORY TO YOU ALL. MY FUCKING BAD. GUESS THAT TEACHES ME BETTER THAN TO USE FREE THOUGHT. SORRY, SORRY.

Jesus, get off my back. :blink:

[Obs]

Is there no neutrality? I get persecuted to hell by bigoted idiots in one area, come here, and it's exactly the same, even with my own political group.
I think you're in the wrong place, this site is for leftists.

[Crux]

Is there no neutrality? I get persecuted to hell by bigoted idiots in one area, come here, and it's exactly the same, even with my own political group. No one is open to any sort of argument or theory. You people tormenting me for a theory are no better than the bigoted Americans in a previous forum who wanted to genocide the Arabs and communists. Now, I'm not even accepted by Leftists, but that's perfectly fine. I'll have my own beliefs regardless, you'd better damn well believe that.

Close-minded people like you should be ashamed.
Your grand victorian civlizatory project of the savages is not "close-minded",bigoted even?

[Konstantine]

Your grand victorian civlizatory project of the savages is not "close-minded",bigoted even?

As I said, my bad for theorizing. My f*cking bad. Perhaps I need to realize no matter where I go, there's always bigoted individuals ready to snap like a mouse trap at the slightest unique idea.

[Widerstand]

I'M SO FUCKING SORRY I PRESENTED A THEORY TO YOU ALL. MY FUCKING BAD. GUESS THAT TEACHES ME BETTER THAN TO USE FREE THOUGHT. SORRY, SORRY.

Jesus, get off my back. :blink:

What theory? You asked if we think capitalism and imperialism are cool, we said no. In a very simplified way, that's what happened. The bad part is that it appears you think they are cool. And now you're attacking pretty much everyone ITT and putting yourself in a victim role. Gratz.

[Konstantine]

What theory? You asked if we think capitalism and imperialism are cool, we said no. In a very simplified way, that's what happened. The bad part is that it appears you think they are cool.

Let me revise ths, since you obviously can't read.

WAS THE WAY SHE USED THEM ANY GOOD. I DON'T AGREE WITH THE IDEAS THEMSELVES, BUT WAS THE WAY SHE USED THEM BENEFICIAL.

[Volcanicity]

Is there no neutrality? I get persecuted to hell by bigoted idiots in one area, come here, and it's exactly the same, even with my own political group. No one is open to any sort of argument or theory. You people tormenting me for a theory are no better than the bigoted Americans in a previous forum who wanted to genocide the Arabs and communists. Now, I'm not even accepted by Leftists, but that's perfectly fine. I'll have my own beliefs regardless, you'd better damn well believe that.

Close-minded people like you should be ashamed.
I refuse to believe you are serious.You come here and post the most dumbest post there has ever been and have the nerve to call us close-minded.your mind and your eyes have obviously never been open.

[Obs]

theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

[Konstantine]

Good Lord, stop bumping this thread. I SAID I WAS SORRY FOR SAYING ANYTHING, JUST STOP IT ALREADY.


I refuse to believe you are serious.You come here and post the most dumbest post there has ever been and have the nerve to call us close-minded.your mind and your eyes have obviously never been open.

Go to hell.

[Widerstand]

Let me revise ths, since you obviously can't read.

WAS THE WAY SHE USED THEM ANY GOOD. I DON'T AGREE WITH THE IDEAS THEMSELVES, BUT WAS THE WAY SHE USED THEM BENEFICIAL.

Let me revise my previous point: I think you'd get a better discussion of this theory on ***************.

Imperialism and capitalism are always exploiting a large number of people for the benefit of a few.

[Konstantine]

Imperialism and capitalism are always exploiting a large number of people for the benefit of a few.

Yes I know that, but I didn't really know for sure what exactly she brought.

Listen, I'm sorry guys. I'm not some capitalist troll, I just didn't really know what good or bad she brought. I just wanted your opinions, that's all. Now that I think of it, my post did sound pretty stupid. Forgive me for it, but remember, we all do ignorant things, but we learn from them. Without stupidity, we wouldn't have intelligence. ;)

[Crux]

Yes I know that, but I didn't really know for sure what exactly she brought.

Listen, I'm sorry guys. I'm not some capitalist troll, I just didn't really know what good or bad she brought. I just wanted your opinions, that's all. Now that I think of it, my post did sound pretty stupid. Forgive me for it, but remember, we all do ignorant things, but we learn from them. Without stupidity, we wouldn't have intelligence. ;)
What about your defence of brittish imperialism and colonialism?You were quite explicit.

[Obs]

This is going to get brought up every single time you post from now on, do you realise that?

[Volcanicity]

Yes I know that, but I didn't really know for sure what exactly she brought.

Listen, I'm sorry guys. I'm not some capitalist troll, I just didn't really know what good or bad she brought. I just wanted your opinions, that's all. Now that I think of it, my post did sound pretty stupid. Forgive me for it, but remember, we all do ignorant things, but we learn from them. Without stupidity, we wouldn't have intelligence. ;)
good luck with the intelligence part then

[Konstantine]

This is going to get brought up every single time you post from now on, do you realise that?

Aye, and it won't phase me.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Imperialism by definition can never be good. It is the political and economic subordination of one part of the world to the needs of the ruling class of another part of the world.

British could say that they ended suttee in India, ended the "thugs" in Bengal, carried out valuable land reform, created a modern civil service, and planted the sends of democracy in what was a feudal society.

Its important to understand the full story. British imperialism disrupted the rural/urban economies in India and created the conditions for horrendous recurring famines in the late 18th/early 19th centuries.India was one of the richest most advanced areas of the world and the British basically turned much of the subcontinent into a Third world cesspool. This is the dynamics of imperialism. Rosa Luxemburg's theory as I understand it is that that capitalism requires ongoing "primitive capital accumulation" , i.e. raping the Third World, to maintain itself. This dynamic is going on today.

As far as the "progressive" aspects of imperialism-this is always used as justification. Read Edward Said. Suttee and other practices were of course barbaric. The British were just as bad, or worse. They created slave societies in the west Indies on a mass bases. The cultured sophistication of the characters in Jane Austen for instance, were paid for in gallons of blood. When slavery was now longer economical, then the Empire could afford to be moralistic and use anti-slavery as a further justification for imperialism.

I think the OP needs a reading list on the rimes of imperialism. "Orientalism" by Said would be useful. Accumulation of Capital by Rosa Luxemburg is also very good.

[Konstantine]

Imperialism by definition can never be good. It is the political and economic subordination of one part of the world to the needs of the ruling class of another part of the world.

British could say that they ended suttee in India, ended the "thugs" in Bengal, carried out valuable land reform, created a modern civil service, and planted the sends of democracy in what was a feudal society.

Its important to understand the full story. British imperialism disrupted the rural/urban economies in India and created the conditions for horrendous recurring famines in the late 18th/early 19th centuries.India was one of the richest most advanced areas of the world and the British basically turned much of the subcontinent into a Third world cesspool. This is the dynamics of imperialism. Rosa Luxemburg's theory as I understand it is that that capitalism requires ongoing "primitive capital accumulation" , i.e. raping the Third World, to maintain itself. This dynamic is going on today.

As far as the "progressive" aspects of imperialism-this is always used as justification. Read Edward Said. Suttee and other practices were of course barbaric. The British were just as bad, or worse. They created slave societies in the west Indies on a mass bases. The cultured sophistication of the characters in Jane Austen for instance, were paid for in gallons of blood. When slavery was now longer economical, then the Empire could afford to be moralistic and use anti-slavery as a further justification for imperialism.

I think the OP needs a reading list on the rimes of imperialism. "Orientalism" by Said would be useful. Accumulation of Capital by Rosa Luxemburg is also very good.

Thank you for being far more understanding.

[scarletghoul]

During the beginning of Victoria's reign there were horrendous famines in India caused by British imperialism, and later the Irish famine, atrocities committed in China and Africa. Not that it matters much but she seems to have had a rather unpleasant personality.

Oh yes I completely forget her humanitarian work in India and Africa, she really helped them with their terrible poverty. Thanks to Queen Victoria, India and Africa are perhaps the most developed and wealthiest parts of the world

[Konstantine]

Ah, bring on the heaps of insults. It'll further the impact of this event, and forward my already iron will to never post something this stupid again. I've definitely learned better now.

[Volcanicity]

To understand about british imperialism in India,i would suggest reading The last mughal by william dalrymple.

[RED DAVE]

Rudyard Kipling, The White Man's Burden, 1899


Take up the White Man;s burden--


Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!RED DAVE

[Volcanicity]

Ah, bring on the heaps of insults. It'll further the impact of this event, and forward my already iron will to never post something this stupid again. I've definitely learned better now.
You will never post something this stupid again.Its fucking impossible

[Konstantine]

You will never post something this stupid again.Its fucking impossible

Exactly, and I thank you all for making sure of that. :lol:

I just realized how stupid I sounded. I would've probably said the same things you all have. You see, I'm avidly communist, but I'm innately more open and calm with other views. I don't accept capitalism or imperialism, but I don't immediately snap at them. It's just how I am.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The OP's statement was dead wrong. He didn't know any better-this is what the US and UK educational systems teach.Its important to oppose imperialist ideas in any form but we have to be patient with people who've had to get their answers from our mis-education system. I've actually encountered a similar opinion from an Indian student (from a wealthy family). I was floored when she told me how progressive the British were. these ideas are becoming more widespread.

[Robocommie]

Let me revise ths, since you obviously can't read.

WAS THE WAY SHE USED THEM ANY GOOD. I DON'T AGREE WITH THE IDEAS THEMSELVES, BUT WAS THE WAY SHE USED THEM BENEFICIAL.

Dude, if you think the ideas were used beneficially, that's basically the same as supporting them. It's a de facto suggestion that they could be of benefit later on.

[dearest chuck]

she was worse than hitler.

[fa2991]

Sounds like people have been listening to the Kinks song "Victoria"

:laugh: That's exactly what I was thinking of the whole time I read this! I sort of doubt it, however - if you listen hard to the lyrics, they're incredibly sarcastic about the positive qualities of the "good queen."

[Volcanicity]

The OP's statement was dead wrong. He didn't know any better-this is what the US and UK educational systems teach.Its important to oppose imperialist ideas in any form but we have to be patient with people who've had to get their answers from our mis-education system. I've actually encountered a similar opinion from an Indian student (from a wealthy family). I was floored when she told me how progressive the British were. these ideas are becoming more widespread.
It doesnt matter how progressive the British were in India we should be opposing Imperialism at all times .Thats what we have all been saying.The OP said hes communist .This is pretty basic.

[Volcanicity]

she was worse than hitler.
no she was worse than MAO.

[bricolage]

You do realize in Africa and the Middle East we were attacked first, right? The Mahdists attacked us first, the Zulus attacked us first. In India, the rebellion started against us and the rebels proceeded to slaughter Britsh and Indan men, women, and children alike.

Quick hint, check the locations of all these conflicts (note, I just took all these straight off wikipedia);

Mahdist War; Sudan, Egypt, Uganda
Anglo-Zulu War; South Africa
Indian rebellion; India

Perhaps the reasons 'they' attacked the British is because none of those locations happen to be Britain...

[RedStarOverChina]

You do realize in Africa and the Middle East we were attacked first, right? The Mahdists attacked us first, the Zulus attacked us first. In India, the rebellion started against us and the rebels proceeded to slaughter Britsh and Indan men, women, and children alike. We also protected the Middle East from a German onslaught in World War II. We also abolished human sacrificing and subsistance farming in India. We also abolished the Mughal and Marathan slaughter of all non-Muslims and non-Hindus respectively. We also drastically raised the life expectancy and living standards of the people of the empire.
:w00t:
Is this what the British textbook says?

Here's a book recommendation: Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis

[khad]

Aye, and it won't phase me.
It's faze. Learn your own damn language, Brit.

[bricolage]

Is this what the British textbook says?

From what I can remember school history textbooks teach the different rationales used for colonialism, one of them being the civilising mission, or white mans burden. If you buy into that and take the position that Britain was not only right to follow the colonial project across the globe but also that it was intrinsically 'good' then it is pretty easy to talk of the illegitimacy of anti-colonial struggles. In that respect if the initial land grabs were 'good' and therefore not violent or oppressive they can't be construed as an 'attack' of sorts, so continuing that logic any resistance against them would have been the first attack.
It's all bullshit but hey...

[Andropov]

You do realize in Africa and the Middle East we were attacked first, right? The Mahdists attacked us first, the Zulus attacked us first. In India, the rebellion started against us and the rebels proceeded to slaughter Britsh and Indan men, women, and children alike. We also protected the Middle East from a German onslaught in World War II. We also abolished human sacrificing and subsistance farming in India. We also abolished the Mughal and Marathan slaughter of all non-Muslims and non-Hindus respectively. We also drastically raised the life expectancy and living standards of the people of the empire.
And whats her excuse in Ireland?
You know An Gorta Mor?
Where at least one million Irish people died of starvation, where at least another million were forced to emigrate out of a population of 8 million.
I suppose those damn savages in Ireland did start attacking and stealing the trade caravans of corn being exported out of Ireland on masse to the British Market.
I suppose poor old Queen Vic had her hand forced by those damn savages and was forced to deploy her regiments across Ireland to secure the food being exported to British markets while the Irish starved in a scale that was unparalleled on this Island.
Fuck sake.

[Dimentio]

You do realize in Africa and the Middle East we were attacked first, right? The Mahdists attacked us first, the Zulus attacked us first. In India, the rebellion started against us and the rebels proceeded to slaughter Britsh and Indan men, women, and children alike. We also protected the Middle East from a German onslaught in World War II. We also abolished human sacrificing and subsistance farming in India. We also abolished the Mughal and Marathan slaughter of all non-Muslims and non-Hindus respectively. We also drastically raised the life expectancy and living standards of the people of the empire.

If we say that the French army had marched into Britain and proclaimed French rule, how should the British people react?

It was hardly so that the Zulus invaded Portsmouth or the Indians landed in Glasgow in 1760.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Queen Victoria was awesome.

[Demogorgon]

Ignoring the previous discussion of what happened during her reign, she was a constitutional monarch who could only act on the advice of her Cabinet which was responsible to the House of Commons which was itself elected by male property owners. In other words she was only a figurehead. If you want to ask a question about the quality of Governance you should ask about her various Prime Ministers.

[RED DAVE]

Ignoring the previous discussion of what happened during her reign, she was a constitutional monarch who could only act on the advice of her Cabinet which was responsible to the House of Commons which was itself elected by male property owners. In other words she was only a figurehead. If you want to ask a question about the quality of Governance you should ask about her various Prime Ministers.On the other hand, nothing ever stopped her from speaking out on issues, which, of course, she never did.

RED DAVE

[Demogorgon]

On the other hand, nothing ever stopped her from speaking out on issues, which, of course, she never did.

RED DAVE
Well she probably couldn't actually. Certainly today a monarch who was caught saying something deemed to be too political would have to abdicate and that has been the case for a long time. Edward VIII for instance would almost certainly have found the Government a lot more sympathetic to his proposed marriage had he not embarrassed them when he was Prince of Wales.

Whether or not this would have applied so strongly to Victoria is hard to judge, but even then certainly the Government controlled what she said publicly.

Obviously this is not meant to defend her or anything, simply to point out that the British constitution does not permit the monarch to take party in active politics or in Governance (other than in an advisory position) except in extreme cases.

[RED DAVE]

On the other hand, nothing ever stopped her from speaking out on issues, which, of course, she never did.
Well she probably couldn't actually.Of course she could. She just would have had to pay a price that she, as a pampered aristocrat, was not willing to pay. Children were working in the mines, while she enjoyed immense luxury.


Certainly today a monarch who was caught saying something deemed to be too political would have to abdicate and that has been the case for a long time. Edward VIII for instance would almost certainly have found the Government a lot more sympathetic to his proposed marriage had he not embarrassed them when he was Prince of Wales.

Whether or not this would have applied so strongly to Victoria is hard to judge, but even then certainly the Government controlled what she said publicly.No one controlled her. Again, she could say what wanted. All she had to do was be willing to pay the price. Just like the rest of us.

RED DAVE

[Demogorgon]

Of course she could. She just would have had to pay a price that she, as a pampered aristocrat, was not willing to pay. Children were working in the mines, while she enjoyed immense luxury.

No one controlled her. Again, she could say what wanted. All she had to do was be willing to pay the price. Just like the rest of us.

RED DAVEWell if you are saying she could have abdicated and spoken out against the system, well yes she could have, but that is besides the point. I think we may be speaking at cross purposes here because you were referring to her personal views which were certainly largely accepting of the injustices in her country at the time but I was referring to the absurdity of attempting to judge a monarch by the quality of governance when the monarch does not govern.

The question at the start of this thread was not "was Queen Victoria a nice Lady?" it was whether her use of power was primarily for good or ill. I was pointing out that it is an absurd question because she did not have the power the thread starter and some others in this thread thought she did.

[RED DAVE]

Well if you are saying she could have abdicated and spoken out against the system, well yes she could have, but that is besides the point.Why would you, as a revolutionary, think it's beside the point?


I think we may be speaking at cross purposes here because you were referring to her personal views which were certainly largely accepting of the injustices in her country at the time but I was referring to the absurdity of attempting to judge a monarch by the quality of governance when the monarch does not govern.As a person of vast influence, she could have changed the quality of government. Just as an example, when England was flirting with supporting the South during the Civil War, had she spoken out, there would have been no possibility of this happening.


The question at the start of this thread was not "was Queen Victoria a nice Lady?" it was whether her use of power was primarily for good or ill. I was pointing out that it is an absurd question because she did not have the power the thread starter and some others in this thread thought she did.She actually had a lot of power, which she always chose not to use.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

She actually spoke on the issues once, when he gave her support to the reforms to abolish the rotten burroughs.

[CJCM]

Listen, I'm sorry guys. I'm not some capitalist troll, I just didn't really know what good or bad she brought. I just wanted your opinions, that's all. Now that I think of it, my post did sound pretty stupid. Forgive me for it, but remember, we all do ignorant things, but we learn from them. Without stupidity, we wouldn't have intelligence. ;)

Sarcasm troll?
Let me answer you rhetorically:

Hitler,
I just wanted to know if he was good or bad.
Sure he massacred a few million people for being inferior, and persecuted labor unions, and instated a policy that was only in favor of the wealthy bourgeois , and interfered in the democratic struggle, and invaded peaceful countries but at least he gave us highways with no speed limit so i guess he isn’t that bad. So what's your opinion?

[Demogorgon]

Why would you, as a revolutionary, think it's beside the point? Because the question was concerning how she should be regarded as Queen, and my answer was that it is a silly question because of the way the monarchy works in the British Constitution.

To say that she could have abdicated and made a point against the system is technically true, but it just does not happen, if members of the ruling class could be expected to see the light and make efforts to bring it down then we wouldn't still be stuck with class society I don't suppose.


As a person of vast influence, she could have changed the quality of government. Just as an example, when England was flirting with supporting the South during the Civil War, had she spoken out, there would have been no possibility of this happening.

She actually had a lot of power, which she always chose not to use.

RED DAVE
The British Monarch in addition to emergency powers is largely limited to providing private advice. The other power which you say she should have used is to abdicate on a point of principal. And yes if we are talking about a world where the ruling class can be expected to act in a proper manner she should have. I do not know of such a world however so that is unrealistic and therefore I think the best response to asking how Queen Victoria used her power is to say it is a stupid question because she did not Govern.

[Dimentio]

I'm still interested to hear about how the Zulus "needed" to be wiped out because they "savagely attacked the British in Zululand".

That's the thing as saying that Poland started WW1 by attacking the peaceful German army rolling over the Polish border. Those darn, darn Poles!

[Imposter Marxist]

Listen, I'm sorry guys. I'm not some capitalist troll, I just didn't really know what good or bad she brought. I just wanted your opinions, that's all. Now that I think of it, my post did sound pretty stupid. Forgive me for it, but remember, we all do ignorant things, but we learn from them. Without stupidity, we wouldn't have intelligence. ;)

Same Avatar as me? Must change avatar.

[CJCM]

That's the thing as saying that Poland started WW1 by attacking the peaceful German army rolling over the Polish border. Those darn, darn Poles!

Lolz, historical typo there :rolleyes:

[Barry Lyndon]

Is Konstantine a Stalinist troll planted to make Trotskyists and Luxemburgists look like pro-imperialist dupes and morons?

[Brother No. 1]

Is Konstantine a Stalinist troll planted to make Trotskyists and Luxemburgists look like pro-imperialist dupes and morons?

No, but you are an idiot.

[Sam_b]

Occupation
Historian - Writer

Are you sure there?

[Barry Lyndon]

No, but you are an idiot.

An admirer of Pol Pot calling me an idiot- classic!

[Brother No. 1]

An admirer of Pol Pot calling me an idiot- classic!

and yet he is able to tell a troll from a troll while you can't tell a political troll from just a troll. Interesting isnt it?