Posted on 06/05/2012 5:53:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It rained on the grand flotilla on the Thames marking the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II. How appropriate. It meant that at the center of all the pageantry of the 1,000-boat extravaganza, an 86-year-old woman stood in the elements and waved to her subjects for hours, without betraying a hint of discomfort or complaint.
Queen Elizabeth is a miracle of dutifulness. In an era of irresponsibility, she always does what is expected of her. In an age of self-expression, she has subsumed herself in her institution. In a time of informality and ill manners, she observes all the rules, with grace and dignity.
Who knew that the British monarchy would assert its continued relevance by remaining so admirably out of step? The queen personifies almost everything disdained in our hyperdemocratic times when the “new new thing” is always celebrated. She is tradition incarnate, and — despite, by all accounts, a dry wit — unfailingly abides by the unwritten command that she never do or say anything interesting.
No PR person, no politician would ever counsel acting like the queen. A stuffy devotion to propriety isn’t supposed to sell. Yet her approval ratings in Britain are nearly 80 percent. She is adored throughout the other 15 countries she formally rules. The Thames flotilla drew 1 million people, and her jubilee was the slightly jarring spectacle of a 21st-century celebration of a centuries-old institution.
In the 1990s, Prime Minister Tony Blair wanted to nudge aside the timeless Britain represented by the queen with his “Cool Britannia,” a new, hipper Britain held together less by the monarchy than by execrable shlock. Now, it is Blair’s formerly with-it projects that are fit for a time capsule. He claimed his Millennium Dome, a vast structure housing an exhibition to celebrate the advent of the third millennium, would be “a triumph of confidence over cynicism, boldness over blandness, excellence over mediocrity.” The dome turned out to be one of the world’s great white elephants, an expensive waste that demonstrated the essential callowness of its creators.
What the monarchy has that can’t be simulated or invented on the fly is legitimacy. It is the accomplishment of Queen Elizabeth to have preserved and marshaled it. She knows that she is a national symbol, “a living flag,” to use Lenin’s phrase in explaining why the Romanovs had to be eliminated as a standing threat to the Bolsheviks. Even Britain’s silly royal rituals — the queen owns all the mute swans on the Thames, which are tallied up for her every year — have a whiff of majesty on account of their ancient pedigree.
If the makers of the European Union and its misbegotten experiment of a common currency had studied the British monarchy, they might have quit their foolhardy exercise in seat-of-the-pants nation-building long before they brought the Continent to the edge of the abyss. They might have understood the organic and distinctive nature of nations and the limits of deracinated bureaucratic rule, with no meaningful symbols, no long-standing traditions, no hard-earned legitimacy.
None of this is a brief against change. The British monarchy has lasted so long because it has been so supple and adaptive, in an expression of the pragmatic British temper. Robert Filmer, the 17th-century theorist of the divine right of kings, would look on the diminished role of the British monarchy with contempt. Queen Victoria, dubbed “the grandmother of Europe” because her relations were spread around so many royal houses, would view the shrunken influence of the crown with alarm. But Elizabeth is still queen, and in a few years could pass Victoria as the longest-reigning monarch in British history.
That is a testament to her work — some 2 million hands shaken and countless ceremonies endured — and her devotion to the role appointed her by history. In other words, she did her duty. “God save the queen,” the British sing. In Elizabeth, they have a queen worthy of the saving.
— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2012 King Features Syndicate
George III did a lot of that, with his siblings and his children, and it didn't turn out any better than just letting the chips fall, as the Mountbatten-Windsors have done. Queen Victoria became Queen because there wasn't a legitimate male heir in the line.
I have a soft spot for Camilla - she's behaved with great dignity since marrying Charles, and Michael Yon, the "Milblogger," said she is exemplary in her personal support of the troops.
I can’t help but laugh.
A Queen? Really? What makes her so special?
Why do the British people, think that she has right to rule over them? The whole concept of monarchy should have been expunged centuries ago.
BTW- British Parliament draws its authority from a grant from the queen, unlike the US government which draws its authority from the consent of the governed with powers delegated to the government from the people.
A mitigating factor, certainly...
Your children and grandchildren are your heirs - you are wrong right off the bat.
It goes without saying her kids are not suitable heirs. I mentioned William only to make the point that he is not suitable, either.
If you are a Christian, you have a duty to publicly decry evil, especially evil propragated in the name of God, such as giving official public approval and blessing to homosexual acts - and the homosexual acts of church leaders.
Elizabeth doesn’t “rule”, she has no real power. Her position is largely ceremonial and traditional, and I believe it’s the celebration of that history and tradition which makes the British people want to keep their royal family. It’s their choice.
I think she IS special in a sense, though, in that she is extremely dedicated to her duty in a manner not often seen these days. She’s a devout Christian woman who was anointed with holy oil and took an oath to God to serve her country until her death, and she takes it very seriously. That’s deserving of respect, IMO.
A woman who took such a special oath and had such a special annointing would publicly decry the evil that is the official prayer and policy of her own church.
She has failed miserably in that basic and simple duty to Christ and fellow Chritsians.
...except raise decent children. She’s a regal failure in primary duty.
1) she did not produce a suitable heir (even William openly shacked up with his future wife)
While imperfect, the Future Duke and Duchess were making the best of a bad situation. Had they just been a normal couple without the inherent problems of Royalty and modern celebrity culture on their relationship, they would have been married years ago.
2) she has lead her church to become a New Age multicultural gay yoga club
You can't put that on the Queen. While nominally apppointed by her, the bishops are actually nominated by a committee which sends a nominee to the Prime Minster, who then sends it to the Queen. She has no direct control of the process.
I agree with your sentiment!
To add a little thought here - The Kennedys should never have been given the title of the American Royalty! They are all losers, manipulators, and murderers!
You might want to read up on where British Parliament draws its authority to govern. It is from the Queen.
Any people that believe that the Queen is empowered or even approved by God to a position of authority over them deserve ridicule. (That is so 1700’s.)
RE: She has no direct control of the process.
In other words, her role is simply to rubber stamp the process, even if she personally disapproves of those nominated?
If the answer is yes, why can’t they just replace her with a robot?
A Queen? Really? What makes her so special?
Why do the British people, think that she has right to rule over them? The whole concept of monarchy should have been expunged centuries ago.
BTW- British Parliament draws its authority from a grant from the queen, unlike the US government which draws its authority from the consent of the governed with powers delegated to the government from the people.
Wrong, way wrong. Absolute monarchy died starting with the Magna Carta, when the first restrictions on Royal power were imposed by the Barons on King John.
An attempt to reassert Royal preogotives By King Charles I, led to a Civil War, the execution of Charles I, a republic, military dictatorship, the restoration of the Crown, and the deposing of a second King, James II & VII by Parliament and replacing him.
Parliament is sovereign, not the Queen, though the Queen is nominally part of Parliament along with the Lords and the Commons. Only the elected body, the House of Commons has any real power today. And the Queen must always act on the advise of her ministers, who must be supported by the House of Commons.
Her role today is as Head of State,,the symbolic leader of the nation, not the Head of Government (The Prime Minister), who actually sets policy.
“Elizabeth doesn’t “rule”, she has no real power. Her position is largely ceremonial and traditional”
Yes and no. The “Royal Assent” to bills passed by Parliament is a mere formality, but she does have the option of refusing to sign them. In this case there would be a showdown and she could essentially be fired from her job by the government. It’s the kind of thing that she would only do in the most dire emergency, like a coup d’état. King Juan Carlos of Spain had to do it once, and saved his country by doing do.
“Elizabeth doesn’t “rule”, she has no real power. Her position is largely ceremonial and traditional”
Yes and no. The “Royal Assent” to bills passed by Parliament is a mere formality, but she does have the option of refusing to sign them. In this case there would be a showdown and she could essentially be fired from her job by the government. It’s the kind of thing that she would only do in the most dire emergency, like a coup d’état. King Juan Carlos of Spain had to do it once, and saved his country by doing do.
I have read about it. Her authority is symbolic in nature. Parliament holds the power to make and enforce laws.
"Any people that believe that the Queen is empowered or even approved by God to a position of authority over them deserve ridicule. (That is so 1700’s.)"
Well, tell the British folks that you don't approve of their choices. They might listen.
Yes...from what I have read, if she refused to sign any of them, it would be considered a huge scandal. She remains politically neutral (officially).
From Yahoo! Answers UK and Ireland:
Technically in the UK the Queen has all the following powers:
In domestic matters, the Royal Prerogative covers
* the issuing and withdrawal of passports
* the appointment and dismissal of ministers
* the appointment of Queen’s Counsel
* the granting of honours
* the appointment and regulation of the civil service
* the commissioning of officers in the armed forces
* the dissolution of Parliament
* the calling of elections
In foreign affairs, it covers
* the declaration of war
* the making of treaties
* the recognition of foreign states
* the accreditation of diplomats
However in reality the Queen wields these powers on behalf of the government of the day and if she tried to use them by herself under normal circumstances then it would cause a constitutional crisis. However under the right conditions. Say the current coalition refused to step down at the end of their term and seized parliament. Then the Queen could officially sack the government and command the army to overthrown the coalition and then restoring democracy dissolve parliament and call a general election.
++++++++++++++++++++++
The “Crown” still holds the seeds of power in British Government. The armed forces swear an oath to the Queen.
” (your name), swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.”
Wanna go another round?
She didn’t do WWII service, that was a fake thing for publicity and propaganda.
That photo would have been taken during the three week Transportation course she took a short distance from Windsor Castle, largely isolated from others, she ‘enlisted’ just before turning 19, in March 1945. Hitler killed himself in April.
“She was enlisted as 230873 Second Subaltern Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor in the Auxiliary Territorial Service, the ATS, [March, 1945] and sent to train as a transport officer at Camberley. The course was three weeks and Princess Elizabeth did not associate too closely with her fellow trainees.
She lunched in the officers’ mess and slept the night at Windsor; 50 years later, her grandsons would eat cadet food, iron their own uniforms, polish their own boots and be shouted at on the drill square.
Despite her kid-glove treatment, Princess Elizabeth greatly appreciated her spell in the ATS, believing it gave her a confidence she had previously lacked
The war in Europe was now drawing to a close and on May 8, 1945, the two princesses were allowed out of the Palace with their Guards officer friends to mingle with the crowds in the Mall and join in the shouts of “We want the King”
The entire WWII experience as a military member for Princess Elizabeth seems to have consisted of weeks when she lived in Windsor Castle, enlisted as a Lieutenant, attended a personalized 3 week course, had some photos taken of her touching trucks, never left living at Windsor castle, was promoted to Captain and was quickly finished with the entire exercise.
She had been a Colonel before.
“In keeping with her power and status of high birth, on her 16th birthday she was appointed Colonel of the Grenadier Guards during WWII (during 1942).
The Grenadier Guards training element was stationed at her home, Windsor Castle as security and personal escorts for her.”
Yes, constitutionally she has to act on the advice of her ministers in all public acts.
But, She does serve two vital functions. As an impartial, non-political Head of State she "separates patriotism from politics". The Queen and the Royal Family, by being a living symbol of the constitution and the focus of national celebrations and mourning, prevents great and small ceremonial events from being politicized. She acts by her existence to give politicians some humility. The Prime Minster may be able to lauch nuclear weapons, set national policy and even modify the Constitution, but he just a politician, and must be respectful to the Queen.
Also, by virtue of her reserve powers she is the last resort in a constitutional crisis. In a true crisis, with the legitimacy of the goverment in doubt, she can dissolve Paliament and force an election, sending the issue to the people to decide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.