Hell, most of us have to work for our livings, and there are aspects of our jobs which we would gladly do without. But then her job certainly had some awfully large upsides…
People talk about fishbowls. Yeah, there is some LARGE amount of that. But I wasn’t aware of live-streaming cameras inside the living quarters of the palaces. What was Balmoral - where she died? Something like 65 THOUSAND acres? That’s 101 sq miles. If that’s a fishbowl, it’s a damned big one.
And I’m more favorably inclined to Chuckle than I was to Liz. At least he seems to have some opinions about some significant issues.
But the same could be said of nearly everyone who gains fame or accomplishes great things. They were given opportunities that others were not. How many more great composers would we have if everyone was given music lessons at a young age and pushed hard to practice and succeed? How many more great sports figures would we have if everyone was pushed into little league teams and sent to sport camps when they showed potential? How many more great scientists would we have if everyone had an opportunity to go to college and graduate school? The list goes on.
Of course the great ones need talent and drive to succeed, but many others would succeed if given the same opportunities. I believe Elizabeth had the talent and drive to be a great and beloved queen. There were certainly many monarchs throughout history that failed miserably at the job. Sure, many other people could have been great monarchs, but they didn’t have the opportunity to do so. Life’s not fair, but we do what we can in an unfair world. Celebrating (or mourning) those who succeed and are loved by many is the best we can do under the circumstances.
He’s the Head of State, but fortunately not the head of government. Thus, he does not appear on TV advocating his alternative medicine cures, which I’m sure is what has got your goat. (You may not have a goat, but if you did, I’m sure King Charles would have homeopathic recommendations for its health.) For instance, Charles has never recommended, in any capacity as the official head of government, that people inject bleach or shine UV light up their assholes as a way of combating COVID.
I give you some credit on this count. I guess my opinion is colored by my belief that the position of queen is pretty anachronistic and - um - unnecessary.
That isn’t the point, though. The point is that we humans need to interact with the world as a meaningful part of our existence. To cite just a random example that comes to mind, Charles and Diana could not ever go on vacation without media intruding on their every move. They couldn’t lie on a beach without having telephoto lenses peering out at them from boats, from behind bushes, from rooftops, or wherever. That really is a fishbowl.
In a different context, I think there’s a cultural disconnect between Americans who are so accustomed to living in a republic, and the residents of constitutional monarchies, Canada in particular, which is otherwise culturally so similar.
On one hand, I think Americans often fail to realize how tightly ingrained the monarchy is to our system of constitutional monarchy and to the Westminster parliamentary system common to the UK and most Commonwealth nations. Canadians (and others) might sometimes fail to realize that, in the absence of a monarchy, the status of the American president as Head of State as well as head of the executive branch of government affords the president and his family an extraordinary status that is effectively that of royalty, but with almost boundless executive power at the same time.
I think this is dangerous. Boris Johnson was ousted for transgressions that were mere child’s play compared to Trump’s egregious criminality, yet Trump carries on with impunity and is a likely candidate for the 2024 presidental election. There is extreme reluctance to prosecute him for the most obvious crimes of obstruction of justice and even jeopardizing national security by wanton disregard for securing top national secrets, or worse. Why? Because – as pretty much explicitly stated by Trump-appointed Judge Loose Cannon – he is “an ex-president” – i.e.- de facto royalty.
So which is most damaging to a nation? Queen Elizabeth being a selfless and dedicated public servant while also being wealthy, or Trump being an unprincipled grifter and traitor who is quite possibly responsible, either willfully or through gross negligence, for the nation’s most sensitive secrets being revealed to the most dangerous enemies of the United States?
Not to mention carefully cultivated. I am not sure if there are any pictures or video of the Queen having a genuine moment. Anyone who has a small army of people ensuring they are presented without flaws is also likely to be put up on a pedestal.
We keep hearing about “public service” but what does that mean? Her job was to appear as figurehead of the royal family. Her carefully cultivated public image presented her as doing a good job at that. But I think a lot of myth has been baked into that public image over the years. What services did she do the public, aside from performing carefully scripted ceremonies?
Bullshit. There are lots and lots of examples that have been cited in the various threads here and throughout the news media about many genuine, spontaneous moments that revealed the Queen to be intelligent, well-educated, quick-witted, and with a well-honed and sometimes wicked sense of humour. Not the least of which was the famous prank call in which a Quebec radio DJ called Buckingham Palace and impersonated Prime Minister Chretien, and asked the Queen provocative questions. She handled herself with grace and dignity and later held no ill will against either the Prime Minister or her favourite Commonwealth country of Canada; later I believe she playfully said to the Prime Minister, “I thought you were drunk.”
Perhaps that is true, but if Elizabeth can be criticized for being born into a life of privilege, she can be forgiven for not having a choice in being born into an anachronistic job. Maybe being born with more height, a different gender, and pushed into a sports camp at an early age, she’d have made a fine NBA star.
I personally don’t believe it’s an anachronistic job as I mentioned upthread. I don’t know what percent of the average Brit’s taxes go toward maintaining the monarchy, but surely it’s worth something. If it’s too expensive, sell Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace and the Crown Jewels and stick the Royal Family in council housing with costume jewelry.
For the downtrodden, not given opportunities, they need help and support first and foremost. But, visits from people they love and admire, be it Queen Elizabeth or Princess Di (when she was alive) or Michael Jordan, is often an inspiration to them and that counts for something.
She was, in effect, our chief diplomat and ambassador. It should be clear from the tributes being paid to her that she was no show-room dummy. When she spoke to prime ministers they listened, they sought her advice. When she talked to world leaders, they listened. People such as Obama and Mandela didn’t have to maintain contact with her after their tenures but they did. They clearly thought she had worth.
I’ve no doubt she presided over the smoothing of many an international incident and prevented the escalation of others through the soft power I’ve mentioned previously.
You could make the case that you don’t need a monarchy to do that and I’d agree but there are times in this world where someone just happens to fit the role imposed on them and has the character to carry it out selflessly and with dignity and honour. Sure she was rich but no amount of money in the world could have compensated me for the hand that she was dealt.
As I understand it, she presided as queen over an empire during a time that the empire committed some pretty horrific actions in its colonies–yet she stayed dedicated to the “imperial family.”
A person in a position of authority in an oppressive institution is obligated to use that authority to push back against the institution’s violence. I don’t see that she did that; on the contrary, her “doing her job well” helped maintain the stability and power of a violent institution. At the very least, she should have used her podium to speak up loudly and often against the many human rights violations of the British empire.
I see her life as a great moral failure and tragedy of missed opportunity. She squandered a chance to do good.
Probably not enough, but she broke with the tradition of being apolitical by clashing with Thatcher that the UK should support sanctions on South Africa, not only because it was the moral thing to do, but specifically to support the commonwealth countries.
While a small drop in the bucket, it did represent a huge shift from the policy of neutrality and was considered quite controversial at the time.
