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?
Well, I guess it's all relative.
She did it well inside the narrow confines of the monarchy.
She wasn’t embarrassing to have as a head of state. Something a lot of countries including this one can’t say.
Many of the UK’s worst evil doers against the US and the world, up until the end, were ensconced in her privy council.
I am glad to finally see a post from a Creeper who has not been entirely propagandists.
You know, much of that must be so. Perhaps her most meaningful contribution later in her reign could have been standing resolutely against - with good grace and manners, of course - in the face of the decidedly un-English changes roiling British life these last decades.
Freerepulbic needs a like button. I’d give you all my thumbs up. The gushing love fest for the elite ruling class is endlessly nauseating. But pomp, circumstance, and “Royalty” y’all... Blech!
Sad to have to agree with every word you posted. Then again, she is a figurehead and no real power.
The monarchy is not supposed to be involved in politics. Not publicly anyway. I hope Charles can distance himself from politics as he is supposed to.
By acceding to every stupid thing her subjects wished to do.
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
And if even half of “The Crown” is true, she and her entire family are a real piece of work.
“How exactly did she serve her country well?”
She lived as long as she could to keep her loser son from being king for long himself.
I felt comforted that her mom lived so long.