Queen Elizabeth II Part IV

[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]

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.

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 can´t 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...

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

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...

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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?

[darius]

Excellent points edubs31.  Of course we can´t attribute the blame for the situation to HM who I am sure looks on in horror at the decline of a nation and a people which she loves so dearly.  My point was simply that this Elizabethan age cannot be compared with the glory of her great-great grandmother´s reign as so many increasingly try to do.  Yes, these things are cyclical but considering the nation since 1952, it appears to be one long decline.

[edubs31]

Excellent points edubs31.  Of course we can´t attribute the blame for the situation to HM who I am sure looks on in horror at the decline of a nation and a people which she loves so dearly.  My point was simply that this Elizabethan age cannot be compared with the glory of her great-great grandmother´s reign as so many increasingly try to do.  Yes, these things are cyclical but considering the nation since 1952, it appears to be one long decline.

Yes I suppose you're correct. Although not really my place to say one way or another being an American. Thanks for your kind words.

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi,

I think there's a general decline in civilization, empathy and morals around the world in general.  We cannot blame The Queen for any of it;  she herself is a model of ladyhood grace and humanity.

But, I do agree with you in general that things are declining badly.

Larry

[RoyalWatcher]

Hear, hear, Larry.

I'm afraid that the US is headed towards something similar...such as in this movie: "Idiocracy" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/)

[IvanVII]

I think that is symptomatic of society as a whole. One thing the Brits have over us though is an apolitical uniting figure in the queen. Both of the last two presidents (no matter what side of the political aisle you're on) have been somewhat polarizing figures pushing the left and right further and further apart. While the UK, politically may also be divided, as a people they have something that unites them in the throne, a job HM has done very well.

And NO I do not want a monarch here, just a president who would unite instead of falling into party politics.

[edubs31]

I agree with Ivan. A national symbol above party is good for the country. Especially since that symbol is a lovely woman who has been around forever now.

The only time people in America (or much elsewhere for that matter) rally around a politician/president is in a time of national crisis. Otherwise Washington continuously plays out as that zero sum game.

I read that the Queen's approval ratings post-Diamond jubilee are 90%, with just 7% disapproval. While that's historically high for her (and President Bush was at or near 90% following 9/11 so let it be a cautionary tale, lol) her approval never measured below the support of 2/3rds of her country. 66% in March of 1998, months after Diana's death and criticism of the royal family's reaction, was her low point. I'd wager that no US President since George Washington has ever been so popular.

[CHRISinUSA]

Most of my fellow Americans will probably cringe at this, but over the years I have come to believe that the US as a whole might be better served if we had a constitutional monarch like Elizabeth II. 

Not that I would want such a position vested with any of the political authority currently held by our president.  I just like the idea of a "senior statesman" role such as the Crown - disconnected from any particular affiliation and who cannot be painted as the "enemy" - to whom both the President and the leaders of Congress would be constitutionally required to defend their respective positions and agendas.  I wonder how much of the fierce political wrangling that currently goes on in Washington would ease in such a case.  Perhaps not at all - but I wonder.

[edubs31]

Chris,

Strangely enough I don't cringe at this and have often half jokingly (but only half) spoken with my friends about the possible need to create a Constitutional Monarchy in order to save what often seems like the downward spiral of our political system. Not that the system itself is the problem, but the inability of our representatives to legislate effectively and perhaps the lack of wisdom by the voters themselves inches us closer to a crisis point where the only way to reorganize and move forward is perhaps to rally around a single person and idea.

Democracy is pointless for Democracy's sake. As the often attributed Churchill quote "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" goes. It exists because it's deemed most effective for the greatest number of people. And also exists as something reactionary. The backlash to the what came before it. But if the system doesn't lead to enough positive results ought we not to consider a change?

I just like the idea of a "senior statesman" role such as the Crown - disconnected from any particular affiliation and who cannot be painted as the "enemy" - to whom both the President and the leaders of Congress would be constitutionally required to defend their respective positions and agendas.  I wonder how much of the fierce political wrangling that currently goes on in Washington would ease in such a case.  Perhaps not at all - but I wonder.

I wonder as well. But in America everything gets politicized, even the non-political. That "senior statesman" you speak of would have a hard getting elected in the first place to their role. And if they did they'd likely receive heavy opposition. This person would have to be perceived as completely centrist and non-partisan. A decent modern example of this would be Dwight Eisenhower. A national hero after WW2 it would have been hard to find a more popular American than Ike. Still however popular he may have been only 55% of the country voted for his Presidency in 1952. Now obviously 55% is quite a bit in Presidential terms but that means nine out of every twenty random people you talk to on the street still said no to Eisenhower for one reason or another. He then has a successful four year run as a moderate non-polarizing figure and still only managed to convince 57.4% of Americans to keep him in his position for another four years...not a lifetime like a monarch...but a mere four years!

The House of Windsor/Sax-Coburg/Hanover is a brand name. There was a time when British monarchs rules as autocrats and then over the course of time they ceded more and more of those powers to the parliament and people. Yet no one alive currently can remember a time when Elizabeth II her father (uncle briefly), or grandfather were not seated on the throne. And aside for a few years in the 17th century England has always had a King & Queen. It's a family and political tradition and not something I can imagine being replicated, and even then taken seriously, by the American public.

[RoyalWatcher]

Most of my fellow Americans will probably cringe at this, but over the years I have come to believe that the US as a whole might be better served if we had a constitutional monarch like Elizabeth II. 

Not that I would want such a position vested with any of the political authority currently held by our president.  I just like the idea of a "senior statesman" role such as the Crown - disconnected from any particular affiliation and who cannot be painted as the "enemy" - to whom both the President and the leaders of Congress would be constitutionally required to defend their respective positions and agendas.  I wonder how much of the fierce political wrangling that currently goes on in Washington would ease in such a case.  Perhaps not at all - but I wonder.

No cringing here, Chris. I have thought the very same.

[grandduchessella]

Before we get too off-track from Elizabeth II, perhaps the current discussion should be carried on here:

Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=6834.540