Diamond Jubilee

[ThankQ]

I really don't know enough about the politics, so I voted no opinion.

Good material for Eddie Izzard, so that's a plus in my book.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

One reason why I don't really have a problem either way is that wealth and pomp are only worth anything if you have freedom and choice. Can anyone really say the Queen, for instance, has freedom or choice? Anything and everything she does is determined by who she was born to be. I have far more freedom than she, and I wouldn't want to trade places for an instant.

If your argument is that everything you have should be entirely your own earning (a rather extreme view that, as cultcross says, implicates people on every level of society and across every nation; I mean, show me a country where "leading families" aren't in evidence, officially or not), then there are far more practical targets than the monarchy (if perhaps less symbolic ones). The monarchy has so many attendant responsibilities and restrictions that I feel more sorry for the royals than envious. But that's just me.

 

[Niorah]

I'm not going to get into a political argument (I find that intensely boring as no-one's opinion changes; it just leads to tired fingers) but just for posterity's sake, my personal perspective is that the Monarchy should definitely remain.

On a purely economic level, it's cost-effective national branding/advertising. On a political level, Constitutional Monarchy blends a lot of systemic advantages with very few practical disadvantages, so there's no real representational need for change. On an emotional level, I like the tradition and the associated pomp & circumstance.

This. I think the monarchy is a fine institution, and in its modern form no threat whatsoever to a free nation. Yes, a system of hereditary privelege is arguably outdated, but to my mind that will only be an argument against the monarchy existing when hereditary privelege is no longer alive and well amongst the commons, under a different name. If I can live in a house paid for by an accident of birth, inheritance from my mrs' parents, why can't a royal?

I have enormous respect for the Queen, she works incredibly hard and has given her entire life in unwavering service to this nation. We could all learn from that work ethic.

Quoted and agreed, on both counts.

Let me add that I simply adore Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I think she is a fine human being and an example of class and dedication. I am looking forward to celebrating the Diamond Jubilee. I expect it to be fabulous here in London. Long live the Queen.

 

[tighr]

Why should we treat someone with reverence just because of their lineage? Elizabeth is a good example of the absurdity, I think. She's just a regular old lady, yet as she's the Queen, it's a big deal and a sign of her humility when she rides the tram like the rest of us mortals.

I think the difference is that Queen Elizabeth is not just a regular old lady. Every day of her young life from the time her father ascended to King was spent preparing her to be the future monarch (a role which she eventually took at a very young age). Unless you were raised the same way, you would be incapable of doing what she does. I don't think its the type of role that someone could just walk into.

I'm not trying to say that any one of us couldn't have been raised in the exact same fashion and become King, what I'm saying is that she WAS raised in that fashion and is Queen.

Nature vs. Nurture, and that whole argument.

 

[Count Zero]

Nonsense. All she does is represent. A lot of people can do that, without spending years learning it. Many countries have representative heads of state who fulfill the representative duties monarchs used to have. It's stressful , no doubt, but it's certainly not rocket science, either.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Nonsense. All she does is represent. A lot of people can do that, without spending years learning it. Many countries have representative heads of state who fulfill the representative duties monarchs used to have. It's stressful , no doubt, but it's certainly not rocket science, either.

Yeah. How tough can it be? You just eat tea and crumpets and wave at people.

I could learn to do that over a weekend seminar.

 

[captcalhoun]

try watching the TV show "The Diamond Queen" from the BBC and you can see what she gets up to over a year and a half.

 

[cultcross]

Nonsense. All she does is represent. A lot of people can do that, without spending years learning it. Many countries have representative heads of state who fulfill the representative duties monarchs used to have. It's stressful , no doubt, but it's certainly not rocket science, either.

It may not be an exercise in nuclear physics intellectually, but it is a full time job in the literal sense, you are always at work and inseparable from the character you play. Every moment of your waking life is either spent in service of the nation or in the public eye as an ambassador - even on holiday you carry the weight of a nation on your shoulders.

Your attitude, relationship with the government, relationship with the people, activities, ceremonies and speeches must walk a very fine line, much finer than any politician, to be a rallying figurehead who can simultaneously stand up for the best of a nation while appearing completely politically neutral. On top of the public image, you also act as advisor to the Prime Minister, giving the benefit of years of experience and accumulated knowledge of the country and the world.

And this isn't for four years, or 10. It's for a lifetime - odds are, Elizabeth II will be Queen for about the life expectancy of her generation. This being the daughter of the Duke of York who started out in the tributaries of the line of succession. And in that time she has stepped 'out of line' in public opinion maybe twice that I can think of (that episode with Thatcher, and not grieving hard enough over an RTC involving her ex daughter in law). Compare her record to the record of any other figure who has done as much as she has (if indeed there are any) and I would be surprised if you can find an equal.

 

[captcalhoun]

she's seen off 12 PMs and gods willing will see in a 13th before she goes.

 

[Count Zero]

But that wasn't my point, cultcross. Also, it's kind of weird to use that line of defense. Abolish the monarchy and nobody will have to suffer through that pressure and stress for longer than a few years.
My point was that you don't need to be groomed from childhood in order to represent your country and even do it well which was what tighr seemed to suggest. I also spoke of monarchy generally and didn't even criticise Elizabeth II personally. So I'm not sure how your response relates to what I've posted in this thread so far.

 

[cultcross]

I was responding to "Nonsense, all she does is represent", which I saw as a total dismissal of the difficulty of her work and the experience she brings to it. Apologies if I misinterpreted.

Edited to add: In terms of the 'grooming from childhood' - that is what Prince William is going through now. He isn't having experience of each armed force just to give him something to do until his grandma and dad die, he's being prepared to be their commander when he's older. He has also gained experience of the voluntary and charitable sectors, national ceremony and royal duties. All in preparation for being the national figurehead. And as Kate Middleton's early existence in the public eye shows, it is not easy to go from Joe Commoner into that role. She's really taken till now to be appear even slightly comfortable in a royal position, and it's still obvious she is well behind William in her training.

 

[JB2005]

I was responding to "Nonsense, all she does is represent", which I saw as a total dismissal of the difficulty of her work and the experience she brings to it. Apologies if I misinterpreted.

Edited to add: In terms of the 'grooming from childhood' - that is what Prince William is going through now. He isn't having experience of each armed force just to give him something to do until his grandma and dad die, he's being prepared to be their commander when he's older.

I'd just like to add to that my view that say what you like about them but the royals have never "draft dodged." Prince Philip distinguished himself in the Second World War, the Queen herself trained as a driver and a mechanic and worked to aid the war effort.

Andrew and Harry have both caused a fair amount of controversy - but when the Falklands War came, Prince Andrew sailed off with the rest of them and Prince Harry was insistent that he be allowed to serve a tour in Iraq.

Obviously they haven't done any more than the other servicemen and women, but they haven't done any less either.

 

[tighr]

But that wasn't my point, cultcross. Also, it's kind of weird to use that line of defense. Abolish the monarchy and nobody will have to suffer through that pressure and stress for longer than a few years.

You do realize the difference between what the Monarch does and what the Prime Minister does, correct? There is no analogue in the United States.

My point was that you don't need to be groomed from childhood in order to represent your country and even do it well which was what tighr seemed to suggest.

No, what I suggested was exactly that: you DO need to be groomed from childhood in order to represent your country. I went on to say that in order for someone like, say, YOU, to do as good a job as Elizabeth, you would have had to be groomed from childhood. I don't know how old you are right now, but you absolutely can't just step into the role.

 

[Count Zero]

I was responding to "Nonsense, all she does is represent", which I saw as a total dismissal of the difficulty of her work and the experience she brings to it. Apologies if I misinterpreted.

Edited to add: In terms of the 'grooming from childhood' - that is what Prince William is going through now. He isn't having experience of each armed force just to give him something to do until his grandma and dad die, he's being prepared to be their commander when he's older. He has also gained experience of the voluntary and charitable sectors, national ceremony and royal duties. All in preparation for being the national figurehead. And as Kate Middleton's early existence in the public eye shows, it is not easy to go from Joe Commoner into that role. She's really taken till now to be appear even slightly comfortable in a royal position, and it's still obvious she is well behind William in her training.

Still, democratic republics with Presidents as heads of states who generally do the stuff the King or Queen does seem to be doing fine. I just found the notion that someone who wasn't groomed for this for years could not serve as the head of state absurd.


ETA: Yes, I'm quite aware of the difference between head of state and head of government, tighr. My country has the same division, but with presidents instead of monarchs. There are many other countries with a similar set-up.

 

[JB2005]

I was responding to "Nonsense, all she does is represent", which I saw as a total dismissal of the difficulty of her work and the experience she brings to it. Apologies if I misinterpreted.

Edited to add: In terms of the 'grooming from childhood' - that is what Prince William is going through now. He isn't having experience of each armed force just to give him something to do until his grandma and dad die, he's being prepared to be their commander when he's older. He has also gained experience of the voluntary and charitable sectors, national ceremony and royal duties. All in preparation for being the national figurehead. And as Kate Middleton's early existence in the public eye shows, it is not easy to go from Joe Commoner into that role. She's really taken till now to be appear even slightly comfortable in a royal position, and it's still obvious she is well behind William in her training.

Still, democratic republics with Presidents as heads of states who generally do the stuff the King or Queen does seem to be doing fine. I just found the notion that someone who wasn't groomed for this for years could not serve as the head of state absurd.


ETA: Yes, I'm quite aware of the difference between head of state and head of government, tighr. My country has the same division, but with presidents instead of monarchs. There are many other countries with a similar set-up.

Britain's not got that much going for it, we rely on past glory rather than demostrable power in order to exert our influence throughout the world...If we elected a Head of State then they'd be a forgettable nobody, the Queen will always be recognised by more people than not, she represents Britain in a way that el Presidente never could!

 

[Count Zero]

Depends on the President, I'd say.

But as I said, it's your decision and I only answered with yes on the poll because that option was closest to my personal opinion but as I don't live in the UK I don't really care that much.

 

[HotRod]

As a Canadian I can safely say I'm all for the Queen. Everything I have ever heard and read about her points to her being a very interesting, friendly, and charming individual. I'm proud of calling her our head of state. Long Live The Queen!

 

[stoneroses]

They do nothing important unless you count scrounging my hard earned cash.
Time they all went. The queen might be doing ok but wait till we get Charlie and the horse then duchess of doolittle and baldy. We don't need them.
http://www.facebook.com/republiccampaign

 

[Davros]

I see little practical reason to maintain the monarchy outside of as a tourist attraction.

 

[JB2005]

They do nothing important unless you count scrounging my hard earned cash.

Actually the Royal Family's allowance is a common misconception. The Crown Estates generate over £200 million a year in profit, which is passed to the government who then give about 15% of it back to the Royal Family, to cover all of their expenditure...

Now I'm guessing that if the monarchy were to be abolished, the Crown Estates would end up being sold off and wouldn't be taxed at anywhere near 85%!