On the day of the Queen’s burial, when both the British nation and the royal family are mourning their most valued member, German media released an assault on the monarch.
According to an opinion article authored by a writer for Der Spiegel, Her Majesty might have prevented Brexit despite the fact that she remained silent on the question of whether the UK should leave the EU or on any other political issue.
I think she could have gotten a majority for “remain,” said Nikolaus Blome, who acknowledges that he is not “acquainted” with the Royal Family, is not a monarchist, and is “puzzled” as to why people saw her function as “apolitical.”
She had a chance to make a difference in what was perhaps the most crucial situation of her term. She didn’t want to, however. She didn’t reach for the history cloak instead choosing to stay frozen in silence.
2,000 royals, heads of state, and 200 members of the public attended her burial at Westminster Abbey at 12:11 p.m. today (German time), when the article was published.
The New York Times last week also encountered waves of criticism for how it covered Queen Elizabeth’s burial, with some threatening to cancel their $17 monthly subscriptions.
The Queen was accused by Mr. Blome of acting in an almost ‘grotesque’ manner when she opened parliament in 2017 while wearing the EU flag’s blue and gold, a year after the UK voted to exit the bloc. It has long been believed that Her Majesty’s favorite color is blue.
When the Monarch is seen as a symbol for everyone to embrace in the UK, he continues, her choice to remain silent publicly on one of the most contentious and divisive subjects will drive young people to “turn their backs on the Crown.”
According to a poll, just 33% of people between the ages of 18 and 24 favor the monarchy. Anyone surprised by that? And is it also Elizabeth’s inheritance? stated Mr. Blome.
Though it is sometimes believed to be a matter of convention that Prime Ministers do not talk publicly about their encounters with the Queen, he believes she may have given a speech or advised them.
The burial expenses, which are expected to cost more than $6 million, would purportedly be covered by British taxpayers, according to another New York Times article.
In light of Britain’s high inflation, the article called it a “hefty price tag,” but readers weren’t amused by the piece and criticized the reporting’s tone about the late 70-year queen.
“Your newspaper has consistently been filled with sarcasm over a story that isn’t yours.” Disappointing,” said Dorren Wilson on Twitter.
I had a subscription for five years, but you’ve shown that I was wise to cancel it.
Wilson was not the only Twitter user to criticize the New York Times; Robert Corbishley added that the cost to taxpayers would still be less than the $7 paper.
He wrote, “Less per person than the cost of one copy of your “newspaper.”
Another Twitter user named Tom Harwood pointed out that the British government has previously committed billions of pounds to combating inflation.
According to Harwood, “The Queen’s funeral [cost] will be a fraction of a fraction of that.” You ghouls are absolute.
Show some respect to the woman who dedicated her whole life to service, said another Twitter user with the username Siamese5.
Laughingly praising the Times’ findings, another Twitter user named Dave Birty wrote: “Wow, wonderful news, I believed the Queen’s funeral was going to be paid for by American taxpayers.”
Many others online, like Twitter user Steve Chadwick, expressed their gratitude for contributions to the Queen’s funeral costs.
It had been 70 years since the previous one, and he wrote, “I believe we’ve got this.”
The outcry came a week after the newspaper received flak for an article by Harvard University history professor Maya Jasanoff, who focused on the history of Britain and the British Empire and argued that it was improper to “romanticize” the monarchy.
As other journalists around the country joined her in criticizing the late Queen’s rule, she stated, “The queen helped bury a terrible history of decolonization whose dimensions and legacies have yet to be truly recognized.”
The Cut from New York Magazine has been criticized the most for its coverage of the Queen’s passing and the British Royal Family.
The liberal publication that published a comprehensive interview with Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, in August has lately attacked King Charles in a new article that was posted online.
Days before the Queen’s burial, a report headlined “King Charles’ Reign of Fussiness Has Begun” was published.
According to the story, Charles reportedly had two “tantrums” in the days after the death of his mother. A pen allegedly spilled on him at a signing ceremony in Northern Ireland, according to one account, while another said that he rushed out of the event while “trussed up in tails and shouting at palace officials who failed to clear a pen tray off his table with proper speed.”
The monarch seemed to signal his helpers to clear some space off his crowded desk.
The Cut continues by citing a Guardian article that said Charles decided to inform over 100 staff that he was firing them while he was getting ready to move into Buckingham Palace and at a funeral ceremony for his mother.
Everyone is tremendously furious, especially the top team and private secretaries, a source told the publication.
The piece ends with one of Meghan Markle’s many unsubstantiated accusations against Charles, claiming he was prejudiced against her son Archie and accused him of treating his wife, Princess Diana, with “mundane brutality.”
Famously, The Cut ran a piece headlined “I Won’t Cry Over the Death of a Violent Oppressor” not long after the Queen passed away.
Uju Anya, a professor of linguistics at Carnegie Mellon, was interviewed for the essay. On Thursday, Anya tweeted: “I heard the main king of a thieving, raping, murderous empire is finally dying.”
May her suffering be unbearable.
The Queen, according to Anya, “represents the worship of white femininity,” according to the Cut.
Anya, a professor of applied linguistics at the University of Pittsburgh, was born in Trinidad to a Trinidadian mother and a Nigerian father.
She claimed to be “a child of colonialism” and said that Britain’s involvement in the Nigerian Civil War had impacted her worldview, according to NBC News.
My earliest recollections are of living in a war-torn environment, and even now, reconstruction is still ongoing, she said.
She defended her anti-monarchy comments and said that the Queen was not above the choices the British government made, which “she monitored.”
Anya said that “Queen Elizabeth was a symbol of the religion of white femininity.”
As if she resided in this location or area in the imagination, this public image, as someone who didn’t have a role in the slaughter of her Crown, there is this idea that she was this tiny-old-lady grandmother type with her little hats and bags and small dogs and everything.