Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty > The Windsors

Queen Elizabeth II Part IV

(1/33) > >>

grandduchessella:
Went to post this photo and noticed the previous thread was over 60 pages--way longer than we normally keep them. So, time for Part IV.



IvanVII:
A beautiful woman in all ages.

Something that struck me about her reign from a statement made in the Duke/Duchess of Cambridge thread about the pregnancy. There are so many common themes between the reign of QEII and QV. Makes me think queens tend to work out very well for the UK. Not to say their kings have been bad, but it just seems reigning queens do the UK good.

edubs31:

--- Quote from: IvanVII on December 03, 2012, 10:50:30 PM ---A beautiful woman in all ages.

Something that struck me about her reign from a statement made in the Duke/Duchess of Cambridge thread about the pregnancy. There are so many common themes between the reign of QEII and QV. Makes me think queens tend to work out very well for the UK. Not to say their kings have been bad, but it just seems reigning queens do the UK good.

--- End quote ---

I agree completely on all points! I'd also like to point out, with so much of the design/discussions on this website revolving around Russian and British monarchy, that women arguably have had the impressive upper hand on male rulers/leaders.

In Britain you have two very popular and successful female monarchs that combined have ruled for 124 of the past 175 years. Then throw in Margaret Thatcher for good measure...the most successful Prime Minister since the second half of the 20th century most would say. On the Russian side there were four female rulers between 1725-1796 and many would consider Catherine II the greatest of all Russian Tsar/Empresses since Peter the Great.

Funny for all of the egalitarian values being espoused by the socialists where were all the women in the government of the USSR? If they had themselves a few more female voices maybe they wouldn't have been so destructive, eh?

darius:
Unfortunately I canīt say that I agree with this verdict on the current reign.  HM inherited a nation bankrupt by crippling war debts and has watched as the nation turned into the sickman of Europe and became a rather irrelevant post-colonial second rate power on the global stage.  Her country is peopled by many who no longer value the core British values which gave birth to the British bulldog spirit, replaced by a cringeworthy Cool Britannia and celebrity mania.  Her Kingdom is in the throws of a constitutional meltdown with the UK being broken apart by greedy politicans who care for no more than lining their pockets and trying to appear to be "with it".  All in all I think when we consider the 200 years of British growth prior to 1952, the reign of QEII will be considered as the reign when Great Britain lost its way, its place in the world and its very soul.

edubs31:
Not to disagree with you Darius but just a couple of things to add on your points...


--- Quote ---...and became a rather irrelevant post-colonial second rate power on the global stage.
--- End quote ---

Sounds awfully harsh, but you may be onto something. Could it not be argued that this downgrade of prestige was not inevitable however? How was a country of 60-million really going to compete with vastly larger economies (United States, Soviet Union, China, etc) once the world became increasingly globalized post-WW2? No one expects Canada, for instance, with a population around 1/9th the size to compete with the US economy, military strength and global influence either...


--- Quote ---Her country is peopled by many who no longer value the core British values which gave birth to the British bulldog spirit, replaced by a cringeworthy Cool Britannia and celebrity mania.
--- End quote ---

Fair point, but things are rather cyclical don't you think? "Cool Britannia" being the natural response to the doldrums of the 70s and 80s. Plus wasn't that movement technically over by the early-2000s? Sounds like Brit pop culture isn't all that much different from Ameican pop culture...a hodge-podge of clashing subcultures, with blurred lines between them, creating a scene. The only way I can't stand what I see young people wearing and listening to these days is because I realize the "mainstream" has less meaning and relevance than at any time in recent memory.

I'd draw a parallel with the United States by suggesting that while there may be an excess of empty headed fluff, more people are talking about politics and social issues now than probably at any point since the end of the Vietnam War.


--- Quote ---Her Kingdom is in the throws of a constitutional meltdown with the UK being broken apart by greedy politicans who care for no more than lining their pockets and trying to appear to be "with it".
--- End quote ---

It's bad indeed...but compared with the polarization on a level of historic proportions in the US and the Eurozone economic crisis, I'd say it's rather on par with the 21st century issues being faced by Britain's allies and neighbors.


--- Quote ---All in all I think when we consider the 200 years of British growth prior to 1952, the reign of QEII will be considered as the reign when Great Britain lost its way, its place in the world and its very soul.
--- End quote ---

Sheesh! Well, has a British monarch ever wielded so little political influence as the current Queen? And I don't that mean that as a criticism but rather a constitutional reality. Because of this how much of what ails England can really be attributed to her?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version