Posted on 09/08/2022 10:36:13 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
She passed.
RIP
Thank you for the fascinating history of the painting. I like it very much.
:)
...
It was not within her power to refuse to grant Royal Assent.
Unlike America, the British head of state is NON-EXECUTIVE. Royal Assent isn’t done solely by the reigning monarch’s own hand - for decades it’s been little more than a rubber stamp that Privy Councillors can sign in the monarch’s stead.
The last time Royal Assent was refused by a reigning monarch was in 1708 when the government had passed the Scottish Militia bill all the way through Parliament. Its passing would’ve allow Scotland to set up militias. Its route to rubber-stamping was impeded by Queen Anne’s own hand, but because the government asked her to veto it!
(At the last minute by reports that the French were about to invade so the government bill, if given Royal Assent, would’ve endangered the realm - but by then the only thing preventing the bill from coming into effect was the lack of Royal Assent).
The only time since that a monarch has even been tempted to invoke the perogative to refuse assent, was resolved again through Parliamentary advice.
So, the Queen didn’t have the unilateral power to refuse assent without a darned good OBJECTIVE reason to deny it. Also, CofE powers are with the General Synod, so AGAIN the monarch serves a non-executive role. For all we know, she DID express stong objections to abortion - but even if she had, she couldn’t override the Synod and couldn’t veto the Bill.
So I don’t see why anyone need to pray for her soul or Britain’s.
Rather, us Brits should be praying for America’s soul.
Talk to us about a better model for a head of state when you’ve figured out a way of electing a POTUS that doesn’t result in half the country’s voting age population thinking the election was rigged, the wrong guy won, or the politics are all wrong...
Our system ain’t perfect here in Blighty, but we look at the “Lilliput versus Blefescu” setup you have in the UK, and thank the stars that we ended up with a setup that rarely provokes more than a good-humored pub argument.
When’s the last time America had a head of state who united the nation across the political divides for more than four weeks let alone four years? No matter who ends up the President, half the country loathes them. That defeats the object of even having a head of state.
This world is a lesser place without her.
Aye, especially the latter.
There was a biographer of Queen Elizabeth who made the point that the Monarch was a unifying factor no matter how the politics went - if you got mad at politicians, you voted them out; but you still sang ‘God Save the Queen’.
Having been born in ‘55, until today Elizabeth has been Queen my entire life.
I’m forever grateful that we broke from the Empire, but if she’d been Queen at the time, history might’ve been quite different.
Regardless, she was a patriot and a true lady.
If there’s anything after this life, I hope it’s good and that she has a well-deserved place there.
Yep, sounds right.
My father-in-law’s from an Orange Order Protestant loyalist family. My mother-in-law’s a Catholic republican.
They’ve had a picture of the Queen on the living room wall for years. What’s even more impressive is, the Catholic republican relatives from Northern Ireland are fine with it - even they didn’t see Liz as the enemy (British government, on the other hand...)
Can you imagine the reaction of a MAGA supporting Freeper seeing a portrait of Biden on the wall of a friend’s house and NOT being at all triggered by it?
If you could take the dynastic succession out of constitutional monarchy, or come up with a way of electing a president without talking about policies at all, it’d probably be better than electing a president.
One thing is irreplaceable and that’s experience. Before even working a day as King, Charles III has had over 50 years of training by Mater so by now he should have a pretty good idea how to avoid every possible diplomatic bear-trap going.
She’s an impossible act to follow, but I pray that he will do well.
May God bless her family and friends. Queen Elizabeth RIP.
That decision was quietly reversed about 2 years ago. There’s nothing to go back on.
CC
There was an agreement.
The House of Windsor reneged.
As for whether or not the Queen signed off on it, who the heck knows.
Even if she did, the promise was still broken.
Great way to start off your reign, Chuck, with a lie.
Louis XIV was King of France for 72 years.
FWIW, I’ll admit I have a bias.
My ancestors bugged out of Britain during the Laudian Reformation.
I share their opinion of royalty.
Her reign oversaw the decline of Great Britain from a great nation to one where only the wealthy elites live lives of ease. Native white people are all pushed to the side to make way for waves upon waves of colored people. Native Britain’s in London are fleeing in fear from the knives of the colored. They take solace in binge drinking and football. White teen girls are sexually exploited and pushed into prostitution by colored males. Anyone who dares complain is arrested and jailed for telling the truth. USA can look at Great Britain and see themselves in another 10-15 years. Thank you Queen Elizabeth—great job you did there.
“She was silent on flooding in migrants, silent on Paki rape grooming gangs. Silent on the Orwellian surveillance regime they live under today, the Brit intel interfering in US elections. She was silent as everything British was subverted to wokeism. She let the Church of England become a homo-advocacy group. Her family is prominent in every globalist entity extant, such as WEF, Bilderburgers, etc. She raised a rapist and an green idiot for sons, one of which will spread his buffoonery around the empire for decades to come. How exactly did she serve her country well?”
Exactly, and well said. Only a few voices are telling the truth, all the other sheeple are saying their “Rest in peace” whitewash.
DesertRhino said: “She was silent on flooding in migrants, silent on Paki rape grooming gangs. Silent on the Orwellian surveillance regime they live under today, the Brit intel interfering in US elections. She was silent as everything British was subverted to wokeism. She let the Church of England become a homo-advocacy group. Her family is prominent in every globalist entity extant, such as WEF, Bilderburgers, etc. She raised a rapist and an green idiot for sons, one of which will spread his buffoonery around the empire for decades to come.
How exactly did she serve her country well?”
********
From what I understand (and hope others will correct me if I have it wrong), a modern British Monarch may not comment on politics or political matters, nor interfere with the running of the government or church. She was expressly bound to keep her opinions about all things political to herself. What religious and cultural influence she was allowed was to serve as an exemplar of an ideal British citizen and Anglican. Also, it was within her purview to encourage the practice charity, promote the arts and sciences, to encourage the development of industry and commerce, and to show special care for and encourage respect for those serving the country in the military. All these things she did.
As an exemplar, she did her utmost, through word and deed, to embody graciousness, dignity, resoluteness, Christian charity and values, courage, fidelity, dutifulness, good humor, etc., etc, etc. She dutifully and tirelessly kept up a busy schedule of appointments ranging from charitable events to factory openings to operas to ceremonies honoring fallen soldiers. She represented her country well as the formal and ceremonial Head of State, acting as both gracious hostess to visiting heads of state and gracious visitor when in other other countries.
She understood her given role well. She was expected to be the embodiment of ideal British character and Anglican Christian and admirable symbol of her country all could be proud of, to be a sort of living statue. She was also expected to console her people in time of sorrow, encourage and comfort them in times of trouble, praise the heroic and the charitable, show steadfast courage in times of danger and so on. These things she did. She also remained faithful to her husband throughout her long marriage and attended church regularly.
Within the strict bounds allowed her, I think she did a great job. Not perfect, of course. No one is perfect. Did she attend to her duties at the expense of her children? Likely yes. Charles is insufferable. Andrew an arrogant philandering wastrel. Princess Anne just quietly carries on carrying out her duties, no matter how tiresome and mundane, and is admired and respected by her people.
William isn’t perfect either, but so far mostly so good, and the people of the UK seem to think he will make a good king. Catherine is a class act and has earned the love and respect of the people. Harry and Megan are both total disasters and despised by the great majority in the UK, but they do not stand to inherit the throne and are no longer working royals.
See also (short): https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4091807/posts?page=110#110
Who gets her iPod?
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.