See, I’m instinctively skeptical of stuff like this. People who knew and worked with her tend to be personally and professionally in favour of the system she represents, so when they say that she offers valuable insight, advice and criticism, you have to ask: “what would they say if she didn’t read her briefing papers and rubber stamped everything?” They certainly wouldn’t tell us that.
How about some instances in which it was said/suggested that her private views strongly influenced subsequent government action?
A photo op w/ a shiny red box ain’t much more than that. I can well imagine many a competent administrator rolling their eyes over a tradition and protocol laden required visit to some rich old matron.
I agree, but the set of “things she could try that had even the faintest shadow of a chance of working” didn’t include a bully pulpit/threatening the end of the monarchy.
Maybe. She can read all the documents officials put in the red box, but she can’t read the ones that were never in there
(NB This is how you know we did some bad shit.)
Certainly. It’s also why I insist on speaking and writing grammatically correct English, which I assume is the other thing that annoys you. The truth is, I’m secretly the Queen’s bastard son, exiled and sworn to secrecy to protect her reputation, but with my snooty aristocratic demeanour intact!
Hey, let’s not get into another major snit over this disagreement. Your posts are usually intelligent and thoughtful. I’m genuinely surprised that you went irrationally off the deep end on this preposterous argument. I can only attribute it to a lack of genuine understanding of the structure and dynamics of a constitutional monarchy. I have absolutely no interest in “defending the aristocracy”.
My criticism is that she should’ve spoken up forcefully. Whether threatening to end the monarchy would’ve worked, I’ll give others more expertise on that–that was an example of my main criticism, not the criticism itself. As for a “bully pulpit,” I simply disagree that speaking up would have had no chance of success.
And I dread the fact that a crushing and exploitative economic system keeps me sitting for 40+ hours a week in front of a desk doing shit I’d rather not be doing year after year after year. And fear of being able to afford the medical care that is keeping members of my family alive will likely keep me here, miserable but trying to appreciate the silver linings, until I am old and infirm.
Yes, I understand that royalty might find themselves trapped and miserable because of the circumstances they inherit. But the position that they somehow deserve extra consideration because they are uniquely trapped in a status quo they cannot escape falls a bit flat. So are we all, sister, and I’ve got to figure out where next month’s rent is coming from on top of that!
Of course, people may have lied, omitted comments or been protective of her image. We have no way of knowing for sure.
Though I’ll point out that there has been no shortage of stories emerging over her 70 years that put many members of her direct family under the spotlight in many unfavourable ways. So the media in general are clearly not that much in thrall to her.
Had she been anything less than diligent and dedicated I suspect we would know it. The anecdotes and evidence from those that did work with her but do not hold any special love for monarchy seem to paint a consistent picture of knowledge, dedication and wise advice. These are people who do not depend on her patronage in any way.
The words of Barak Obama
“She listened deeply, thought strategically, and was responsible for considerable diplomatic achievements,”
Which are and have been echoed by many other world leaders past and present. In the face of such a consistent story we can of course still remain sceptical but I lean towards taking people at their word.
Not to sound unsympathetic, but the profoundly stupid health care system that afflicts America is a choice that you – not you personally, but the collective “you” as a nation – have made. Ridicule the British monarchy all you want, condemn the aristocracy, but they’ve had a universal national health care system over there since the end of the Second World War.
That’s a straw man. I never argued that they deserve “extra” consideration. I argued against the implication that they were “given everything” and thus must be enjoying a perfectly idyllic life of leisure. That’s far from the truth. They are physically comfortable but, I suspect, under a lot of psychological stress. It doesn’t help that their every move is scrutinized by hordes of anti-monarchy abolitionists, or just unprincipled paparazzi with telephoto lenses.
Anecdotal, so people can feel free to take it however they like, but in general conversation in the UK I find few people who actually envy the life that the major royals have and the scrutiny that they are put under.
The rewards are high but so are the expectations and for those such as the Queen they are seen as lifelong, inescapable and non-negotiable.
I always appreciate it when folk claim certain “implications”, when in fact they are relying on their own inferences which allow them to advance their pet positions. Not sure what anyone might have said that would’ve implied “a perfectly idyllic life of leisure.” But you are apparently the expert at straw men… 
How about describing the Queen’s 70 years of steadfast devotion to duty as “a rich old white lady who was given everything and lived a long full safe life”? You can interpret that phrase any way you like, I don’t care. To me, its derogatory implications are pretty damn clear.
No question, derogation was intended. But you chose to exaggerate the degree of derogation. Which is fine.
Which part of my statement do you disagree with? That she was “given everything”? That she was “rich and old” or that her life was “long, full and safe”?
I assume (correct me if I am wrong) it is the “given everything” part. Because once she was born into a position of immense wealth and privilege, she did her “job” at least moderately well, avoiding any horrendous blunders. Heck, perhaps better than moderately well. For which she was VERY WELL compensated.
Do you suppose the geopolitical fallout from a monarchy bashing the actions of its government in the eyes of the world would be positive, or negative? I’m guessing negative. Is that what the subjects of an apolitical figurehead monarchy want, or expect from their monarch? I’m guessing not.
If you’re a fan of a sports team and your team loses, do you blame the team mascot or the players? Do you want the mascot to say, “we suck”, or would you rather he say, “we’ll do better next time”?
Not the government, but the head of state. If the head of state speaking out against atrocities committed on behalf of the state should lead to the overthrow of government, then here again I am not seeing what’s so terrible.
But really, I suspect what would have happened is either (a) an increasing/accelerated marginalization of the monarchy as “those cooky royals” or (b) at least some token efforts to improve conditions for those under heel. Here again, I don’t see the downside.
The Queen–any head of state–cannot have credit for acting with grace and dignity on behalf of the state on the one hand, and yet on the other be excused for remaining silent with respect to atrocities committed in the state’s name. That’s true whether the position is inherited and kept distinct from the position of head of government as in the UK, or achieved by election and joined with head of government as in the US: Bush, Trump, Kennedy, take your pick, not a damn one of them gets to appeal to “Well, he was born into it” as an excuse for the actions they took, nor for the actions they failed to take.
Someone–*I believe @wolfpup–wrote of how heartened those living in poverty might be on encountering the Queen, essentially as a respected celebrity. I would counter that you ought perhaps to consider how absolutely disheartened, even outraged, those born into the role of the oppressed might feel on seeing the face of their oppressors (the monarch is, after all, the head of state) regarded with acclaim for her grace/dignity while remaining silent at best on the very system of oppression she represents. And at worst actively endorsing the system by her words of encouragement to and appearances on behalf of the oppressors.
That’s true not just abroad, but in the UK as well: there are people in the UK who are born into poverty, and they get to see the Queen sitting on a golden throne preaching the conservative line about the need for austerity.
I am sure (okay, actually, I’m not sure, but I’m willing to concede for the sake of argument) QE2 was a nice lady. But she also was born into tremendous wealth and privilege, with influence beyond even what mere inherited wealth could otherwise have gotten her, and I don’t think grace and poise while waving from the balcony should justifies such a scheme.
*ETA: Actually, it was @Tibby
Isn’t comparing the sovereign to a “mascot” somewhat insulting? Pretty well paid mascot.
Well said.
When you say “your team loses”, do you mean they lose a game, or do you mean they engage in mass violation of human rights? Because if it’s the latter, and if the mascot is acting as a figurehead under which brutality is done, and the mascot continues to cheer on the brutalizing team, yeah, I’m not going to praise them for living an exemplary mascot life.
I don’t recall her doing that. In this very thread one of the recurring themes is that she very much does not take overtly political positions in public.
I’m simply saying the atrocities committed by Britain should be blamed on the political branch that committed them and the prime ministers (as head of the political branch) should be the ones to apologize for them and make policies for reparation. I’d like to think the Royals discuss their concerns for bad government policy with the PMs, and maybe they do, I hope so. But, I also believe those discussions should be behind closed doors. Airing a nation’s dirty laundry to the world can have bad political consequences.
In either this thread or the other one, there is a link to a vid arguing the royals cost more than they bring in. It includes a clip of the queen on her throne, wearing a jewel encrusted crown, expressing the need for austerity.
I’m sceptical. Was this the Queen’s speech in Parliament? Because those aren’t the words of the Queen they are the legislative agenda of the government of the day.