I hope our UK community members might weigh in on what this transition means to them. As an American, I have my own response, which is well, I am sad about her passing but don't approve of monarchies.
I would like this thread to be our way of reflecting on what the British Monarchy has meant in our lifetimes, which was her lifetime - the good, the negative, all of it.
If you haven't been posting lately you may notice that you need to manually refresh your browser page to see your post. Try command R. We have a glitch which has resisted our efforts to fix.
Many people here in the US think the British Monarchy is a bad thing. And I was of that mindset until Trump came along, and then Boris Johnson, and I started to understand the advantage of some stabilizing force beneath their politics.
In replying twice to my own post, I have been rethinking the British Monarchy these days. In the age of social media-driven politics where wealth can get people elected, I am appreciating any stabilizing force we can get. Was the Queen a stabilizing force? My thought is that she was.
Firstly, to any of our friends in the UK or the Commonwealth you have my condolences for the loss of your Queen.
I was thinking about this recently and I agree, there is much benefit to a stabilizing force and an institutional memory. She was there, as an institutional memory like I said, for the last 15 Prime Ministers. She also met 13 of the last 14 US Presidents, and probably the equivalents of the other nations around the world. She might not have given her opinions on certain things going on in politics, but she was there, and, from what I read, advice and communicated thoughts and knowledge to all the PMs who came to her.
This is important! This is useful.
I wouldn't be surprised if she also helped to mitigate some of the worse political disasters by simply talking to the people. So what could have been worse was just bad.
So yeah, it makes one think.
Hi everyone
Some different articles and ideas in Australia because of the death of Queen Elizabeth 11.
Me personally, I guess I am a bit indifferent, she had a long life, to a certain extent she was just there in the background. I wasn’t all that fussed with Diana so I guess I am not a royalist at heart.
I think back when she first became Queen our ideas on royalty and what they meant was more subservient but over time that has gone away and now that the Queen has gone I think there will be change.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-10/queen-elizabeth-australia-changed-monarchy-future/101424294
The new government does intend to bring in a referendum to vote for being a republic in the second term (if they win of course), it failed in 1999 and that it was generally thought because of the esteem the Queen was held. Malcolm Turnbull was the leader of the republican movement back then, he eventually was a Prime Minister, and he conceded Australia wouldn’t become a Republic until after her death.
The Australian Republican Movement paid tribute to the Queen’s unparalleled service to the country and Commonwealth, but noted she “respected the self-determination of the Australian people”.
“The Queen backed the right of Australians to become a fully independent nation during the referendum on an Australian republic in 1999, saying that she has ‘always made it clear that the future of the monarchy in Australia is an issue for the Australian people and them alone to decide’,” it said.
It is going to be interesting over the next couple of years how well the Monarchy holds up.
Regards to all
When I think of Queen Elizabeth, I think of someone who spent her entire life in servitude to her country.
70 years. It boggles the mind. And before that she served at age 19 in the military as a truck driver and mechanic during ww2.
She was a badass!
My eldest daughter is 26 and I can't imagine a 25 year old Elizabeth enthroned as Queen.
And yet, what a queen she became.
Did she make mistakes? Absolutely. But she was human. She was also under a microscope for her entire life. Most people make mistakes that are only known to their family members or a close circle of friends or co-workers. She lived much of her life for the whole world to see and judge her every move.
To live your entire life following historical protocols (and creating/reforming a few as well) could be viewed as though you were handcuffed to your job with no way out, the inability to live freely. Yet she ruled with purpose, thoughtfulness, decorum, drive and a humble heart and spirit. (Just thinking of how many formal events she had to attend, how many school programs and charitable causes, it boggles the mind.
She also had a wicked sense of humor. Which likely saved her sanity.
(Boy would I have love to know what she said after Trump walked infant of her at Windsor castle while they inspected the honor guard. That was a really funny moment.)
I am grateful she was a constant in our world.
I also feel she might be able to better guide her family and help mend the riffs from her new location. She likely nudged William to invite Harry and Meghan to view the memorial at Windsor Castle with him and Kate. She likely will do more nudging in the coming days and years.
Maybe a little shoving too. Maybe she can hit a few of them over the head with her purse too.
@lovendures @matildagirl, talking about how we see the queen is like the Blindmen and the Elephant story. It depends on what angle you are viewing her. From the point of view of a life of sacrifice in which she lived in a fishbowl, I feel she did a good job. But her family holds unimaginable wealth and for doing what? Attending charity balls? They never earned their wealth, except by seizing it back in the day. They support a system of entitlement. I feel indebted to her for not being horrible and using her power to hurt people. I wonder if she brought stability to the world. She certainly perpetuated the system of entitlement she represents. But she also did her job with restraint and I appreciate that.
I imagine the UK collective will rise up and make their voices heard when Charles the 3rd starts making missteps. The UK seemed to respect the queen for the most part. The honeymoon period for Charles will likely be short. He may have waited his whole life to be king but his country hasn't been eagerly awaiting him. He will either need to pleasantly surprise everyone or hope everyone sees promise in William. William must bring change to the Monarchy, even if only in how he manages being prince, or I feel the monarchy is doomed.
If the monarchy can't grow and meet the needs of its citizens, there could be unrest.
Hi to you both.
I guess It’s that I don’t like the Master / servant mentality of Royalty and that is also why I don’t particularly like religions either. We are all just people.
That is also the mentality of colonisation and wars too I suppose. I am superior to you therefore I can take your country, your assets and so on. Putin these days being an example. I guess in some ways Trump too, he thought he was the genius in the room.
The Queen herself may have been a wonderful woman and did her role superbly but she was a symbol of that whole system.
These days in the UK the Monarchy is more a tourist draw and the country benefits in that way, they do Pomp and Circumstance well.
I will hop off my soapbox now.
Regards to all
By all accounts Queen Elizabeth was kind and gracious to all those she worked with and casually encountered. She exhibited grace under pressure that few could match and managed for 70 years to keep her political opinions to herself. Hosting the worst president and person in US history was a masterclass in professionalism.
In genealogy research unsavory truths are uncovered in every life/family. It was shameful to learn I had ancestors who were slave owners, fled the American Revolution and were on the wrong side of the Civil War. A Boston College genealogy course taught me something very important. No one is responsible for the actions of their ancestors.
For 70 years, Queen Elizabeth was down to earth, kind, and to my knowledge never spoke badly about or judged anyone. There have been no stories of tantrums, elitism or ongoing staff turnover. Not a perfect life, but a dignified one. I’d like to see more of that in US society.
Cute video about a couple of American tourists not recognizing Queen Elizabeth:
It is going to be interesting to see if any of this comes to pass over the next few years.
https://www.blogto.com/city/2022/09/people-think-canada-leave-commonwealth-become-republic/
I think it would be an interesting thing if instead of all the predictions of the downfall/end of the monarchy humanity decides there is actually a benefit to that and it picks up again. I'm just saying. When everyone (or many people) make similar statements (x has no choice but to happen!) history often has a way of throwing a wrench into that.
Just sayin.
@herukane I mean no offense, but what possible good is a monarchy?
@tgraf66 A connection to the past. A fixed point of memory. A method of having the ceremonial functions stripped from the political leadership.
Monarchy is an aspect of a government but it doesn't take away from a country being a free and clean democratic state.
I'm American, but I can see that there is nothing wrong with the idea of it, as long as its structured so its not 'a single autocrat who can remove freedoms' type structure.
I'm not saying I want it, I'm saying its an interesting political question. That said I don't think its one we should be having at the time that the country with it just lost their monarch.
@herukane Hi, the monarchy will still be, the same as in Europe probably, but the Monarch will no longer be head of State in the Commonwealth countries. The Commonwealth will also probably continue as a group, no longer with the Monarch as head. The Monarch as Head of State is mainly ceremonial, it is the having of your own countryman as the Head of State, rather than someone from another country.
Regards
Matildagirl
@herukane I would have to disagree. The negatives of a monarchy far out weigh any positives. Even a ceremonial monarchy only serves to focus attention on the outdated idea that any one person or group is better than, above, and/or more important than everyone else and is therefore antithetical to a truly democratic republic. If we need a connection to the past or fixed memories, we have art, history books, and statuary, all of which are far less expensive and intrusive.
Adding that the cost of maintaining a "display" monarchy is absurd. Those monies would be better used to help the citizens who need help, or to support infrastructure, etc.
Call me a commie, but I fail to see the point. Put a couple of jewels and lots of art in a museum, sell the rest.
I have been confused by the land ownership situation in the U.K. Decades ago when I spent a summer in London, I learned to my surprise that the Crown owned considerable land beneath many homes. So people who owned their own homes, did not own the land beneath and around their homes and had to pay rent for that land. Although land ownership rules are probably more complex now, this policy seems oppressive and kept people under the thumb of the Crown. But perhaps someone here can help me to understand it better.
Checking land ownership there now, it appears that the Crown owns a third of the U.K. land. I don't understand how this policy is allowed but likely it's more complex than it appears. Where I live in the U.S., you cannot sell your house but retain ownership of the land, except in condominium complexes, which perhaps should be scrutinized more than they are.
One aspect of the British monarchy I do not like is the assumption that the members of the British aristocracy are better than other people. It perpetuates an entitlement and a class system that is unjustified and harms the rest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_ownership_in_the_United_Kingdom
I'm not a British citizen, so I really have no dog in this hunt, but I think that Pluto moving into Aquarius by 2024 until the 2040s will likely impact the monarchy. Pluto transforms, and Aquarius has to do with innovations and large groups of people. No imbalanced system (of wealth, property, influence, control) will be able to withstand this influence.
Also of astrological note: Charles acceded to the throne directly under a full moon in Pisces. Full moons represent culminations and/or endings, and Pisces is the final sign in the zodiac. To me this says that Charles's reign will be the last to operate in a more traditional way, and that the system that William inherits will have changed significantly by the time he becomes king.
Theoretically I agree: Elitism and huge class divides are problematic. But my understanding is that most of the British population actually LIKE having their Monarchy and the late Queen E has always inspired respect in much of the masses for her level-headedness, her dignity and her selflessness/devotion. The comforting Old Virtues. Plus the Monarchy is part of the UK's historic, core identity. Of course you occasionally DO get entitled jackasses too (Andrew and, imo Harry) but over all she played her cards right and course-corrected when necessary. She was the diametric opposite of the selfie-loving, vulgar narcissism of our current American Kardashian-loving/celebrity culture where talent, virtue, selflessness, modesty, etc. often mean absolutely nothing --and the idea of "duty" to anyone other than yourself is about as relevant as dinosaur eggs!! Anyone see Kim Kardashian's surgically-enhanced gigantic booty amply displayed in front of the American flag recently in Interview magazine?? She stated that SHE ( and, by inference, all that she represents) now constitutes "The American Dream". I honestly lost sleep over that one b/c there is a grain of truth to it. Put Queen E and KK side by side? Who would YOU rather have representing your country's core values??