The Diamond Queen

[Sancho Panza]

As a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I am enjoying coverage of the leadup to the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. I would be interested to hear what the general opinion of the forum is on the concept of monarchy and whether it has a place in the modern world.

As the Queen is apolitical, I am hoping that this topic does not breach the rule regarding politics.

[Emil Miller]

As a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I am enjoying coverage of the leadup to the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. I would be interested to hear what the general opinion of the forum is on the concept of monarchy and whether it has a place in the modern world.

As the Queen is apolitical, I am hoping that this topic does not breach the rule regarding politics.

After the American revolution of 1776 and that of the French in 1789, all monarchies became anachronistic. The fact that the UK monarchy has survived is due to its advisers trimming its sails according to circumstance, something it had learned to do following the regicide of Charles 1st and the restoration after Cromwell's demise. However, the writing must surely be on the wall for the UK monarchy as the digital age renders them increasingly defunct despite jubilee's and the matches, hatches and dispatches that keep them in the public eye.

[BookBeauty]

I think that monarchs no longer hold any real sway. Not in the Western world, at least, though they often are adored by the public.

Much of the time, it is a council, or a Prime Minister beneath the crown, that makes the decisions.

[prendrelemick]

I like having a Monarchy. I like the fact that it is archaic, eccentric, without power and a bit pointless. I especially like all the expensive pomp and fuss that goes along with it. It may be impractical and undemocratic, but in an increasingly pragmatic world, it sends a signal that here in Britain at least, there is still room for tradition and nonsense. Long may it continue.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE]..... it sends a signal that here in Britain at least, there is still room for tradition and nonsense.

Got to agree with this.

[Sancho Panza]

While it is true that the Queen has little power of her own, the Prime Minister must still account for his actions and inform her of what is going on during their weekly meetings. Also there is the continuity that comes with having a monarch as a head of state rather than the state having to continually reinvent itself every few years. Globally, the Queen is our ambassador to the rest of the world and is much loved by many millions even outside of the Commonwealth and those other countries where she is head of state.

I think that the days of Oliver and Thomas Cromwell were dark ones indeed, although at the time their reaspns for wanting to depose Charles I may have seemed perfectly valid, as they probably did for all those other countries that have become and remain republics.

In my opinion, the Queen has done such a good job adapting to the changing modern world that she has set up the monarchy for a long and prosperous future, though I remain speptical about having Charles as King and think William would do a far better job.

[Bluehound]

I like having a Monarchy. I like the fact that it is archaic, eccentric, without power and a bit pointless. I especially like all the expensive pomp and fuss that goes along with it. It may be impractical and undemocratic, but in an increasingly pragmatic world, it sends a signal that here in Britain at least, there is still room for tradition and nonsense. Long may it continue.


I agree, I would normally be against the idea of money being wasted and so on, but I have always had a soft spot for the Royals , especially the proper ones (not like Fergie) who conduct themselves with dignity.
I admire them and feel proud to have them without really knowing why, it probably stems from my working class/council estate background.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE]I admire them and feel proud to have them without really knowing why, it probably stems from my working class/council estate background.

I'm sure that warms the cockles of the Duke of Edinburgh's heart

[tonywalt]

I like it. Being British, and having visible references to the royal family gives us (in the remote colonial outposts) a certain currency.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I like having a Monarchy. I like the fact that it is archaic, eccentric, without power and a bit pointless. I especially like all the expensive pomp and fuss that goes along with it. It may be impractical and undemocratic, but in an increasingly pragmatic world, it sends a signal that here in Britain at least, there is still room for tradition and nonsense. Long may it continue.

Have you seen the US's political and electoral process? Britain hardly has the exclusivity on nonsense.

As to your monarchy, you'd think that, as an American, I wouldn't hear about it much, but this is sadly not the case. Your idiotic queen and the rest of her dumbass family is on the news on a constant basis. They're just a bunch of privileged, arrogant snobs, and they aren't good enough to smell my sh*t.

[Emil Miller]

Have you seen the US's political and electoral process? Britain hardly has the exclusivity on nonsense.

As to your monarchy, you'd think that, as an American, I wouldn't hear about it much, but this is sadly not the case. Your idiotic queen and the rest of her dumbass family is on the news on a constant basis. They're just a bunch of privileged, arrogant snobs, and they aren't good enough to smell my sh*t.

You aren't training to be a shock jock by any chance?

[Alexander III]

Personaly Monarchy/Aristocracy is a concept which once made perfect sense, as they were the rulling elite of nations, but now it is archaic and usless at best.

Breeding no longer determines ones social position, now it is only money. The change began in the begining of the 19th century and reached its climax after the second world war.

Aristocratic tittle should be kept, but monarchies such as englands and spains - should be kicked to the curb. It is a waste of tax payer money, and reminder of social barriers which opressed virtualy all your ancestors.

Because each time you applaud and cheer the the queen or prince, you are celebrating the same institution which kept your ancestors as quintesential slaves.

[LitNetIsGreat]

You aren't training to be a shock jock by any chance?

I don't think he is a royalist.

...........


I was pretty much anti-royalist when I was younger but now I find myself not feeling this way, I'm pretty much in the middle, I even don't mind some of them or the tradition of it. I've always liked Charles for some reason though, probably because he is a bit of a patron of the arts and the countryside and so forth. I wouldn't describe myself as a flag waver though and avoided William and Kate's wedding, I can't stand weddings at the best of times let alone that one.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You aren't training to be a shock jock by any chance?

No. It's truly how I feel. I just answered the OP.

Seriously, if I ever saw one of the royal family, I'd be sorely tempted to flip them off (not that I actually could).

[Emil Miller]

I have never disliked the monarchy but I can't be bothered with it. Any powers that it has are purely residual and without national importance. The only time it has become oppressive is via the media that has a vested interest in supporting it.
It's significant that the BBC, who have among their programming staff a number of people who are on the liberal left, is giving much coverage to the diamond jubilee. Which signifies that they are trying to be all things to all men and cover their backsides in the process. After all, in a world where titles are given to pop singers and footballers, maybe there's something for those who are not obvious supporters of royalty.
As for royal weddings, I deliberately went abroad during the Charles/Diana fiasco because sycophantic media coverage had reached levels of hysteria that were unbearable. I don't care if royalty disappears but the memory of Prince Philip's ' Bollocks" to a group of reporters wishing him a sycophantic "Happy New Year Sir",is worth retaining; as is the statement on a visit to China when he warned some English students studying there that they might end up with 'slitty eyes' if they stayed there too long. Prince Charles has also been instrumental in putting a spoke in some horrendous architctural schemes, for which I am grateful.

[Basil]

Seriously, if I ever saw one of the royal family...
I saw Prince Charles in person once; people tend not to believe me, however, when I tell them he was standing right next to this gentleman:

http://i457.photobucket.com/albums/qq298/Mr-Sack/james-brown-1.jpg

Talk about a study in contrasts.

[OrphanPip]

Being raised in an Anglo household in predominantly French speaking Quebec, I feel like I grew up in a home with an anachronistic pride in the monarchy. I think partially, for the few old Anglo families left hanging around Montreal, that there has been a tendency to emphasize our British connections more than other Canadians (especially since realistically few Canadians actually have any ethnic connection to England at all) as a result of the political situation. Emphasizing our relationship to the R.O.C. versus the nationalistic Quebecois tends to be the current trend though.

That being said, I generally have little concern about the monarchy and what they get up to. Their role as head of state, or in Canada's case the Governor General's role in his capacity as representative of the royals, would be a constitutional nightmare to unwind. Thus, I think we're pretty much stuck with them for a while.

[Emil Miller]

I saw Prince Charles in person once; people tend not to believe me, however, when I tell them he was standing right next to this gentleman:

Talk about a study in contrasts.


I have no idea who that is but there's no mistaking this man: instantly recognisable if only by the size of his ears.

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/9213/princecharles1114855.jpg

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE]I think that the days of Oliver and Thomas Cromwell were dark ones indeed, although at the time their reaspns for wanting to depose Charles I may have seemed perfectly valid, as they probably did for all those other countries that have become and remain republics.

Oliver Cromwell secured parliament's supremacy over the monarchy, an act for which we should be grateful. Thomas Cromwell, who was distantly related to Oliver, was chief minister to Henry VIII who had him executed nearly a century before that of Charles 1st's execution.



In my opinion, the Queen has done such a good job adapting to the changing modern world that she has set up the monarchy for a long and prosperous future, though I remain speptical about having Charles as King and think William would do a far better job.

I don't think it matters who occupies the throne, because ultimately it will make little difference.

[Sancho Panza]

It has been argued that the mnarchy is a waste of tax-payers money, but a lot of tourists come to the UK jsut so that they try and get a glimpse of the Queen or a member of her family, or just visit her various houses. Indeed, one might argue that it one of the few reasons for anybody to want to come here (aside from the one off over-priced, badly timed spectacle that is the Olympics). As a resident of Windsor, I am often annoyed by the hordes of tourists that gather gawping at the castle when the royal standard is flying, but the economy thinks otherwise.

[Sancho Panza]

[QUOTE=Emil Miller;1113440][QUOTE=Sancho Panza;1113099]



Oliver Cromwell secured parliament's supremacy over the monarchy, an act for which we should be grateful. Thomas Cromwell, who was distantly related to Oliver, was chief minister to Henry VIII who had him executed nearly a century before that of Charles 1st's execution.


I actually meant Richard Cromwell, Oliver's short-lived successor.

[Delta40]

Being on the other side of the hemisphere alot of people wonder why on earth Australia can't become a republic. Calling England the 'Mother Country' really sticks in the throat. Numerous flag designs omitting the union jack have been waved by various groups but nobody has really stood up and made it a primary issue showing the political benefits of separating from the Commonwealth. I suspect since we are such a brown nosing, fence sitting nation that it will take a while before it ever reaches vote. People don't hate the Royal family but its symbolism has a different meaning here like the hypocrisy of us all when the old cheese visits indigenous communities (who weeks before the residents are relentlessly 'cleansed' by Police) to receive gifts from half starved children is more than I can take. Can anyone ever take Prince Charlie seriously?

[Emil Miller]

Being on the other side of the hemisphere alot of people wonder why on earth Australia can't become a republic. Calling England the 'Mother Country' really sticks in the throat. Numerous flag designs omitting the union jack have been waved by various groups but nobody has really stood up and made it a primary issue showing the political benefits of separating from the Commonwealth. I suspect since we are such a brown nosing, fence sitting nation that it will take a while before it ever reaches vote. People don't hate the Royal family but its symbolism has a different meaning here like the hypocrisy of us all when the old cheese visits indigenous communities (who weeks before the residents are relentlessly 'cleansed' by Police) to receive gifts from half starved children is more than I can take. Can anyone ever take Prince Charlie seriously?

I sympathise with your plight, but the monarchy is like an old family heirloom that sits gathering dust on the mantelpiece while sentimentality and vested interest refuses to relegate it to the attic. It is sometimes seen as a way of binding the UK together i.e. keeping the monarchical ball rolling while the people dance round the maypole: hence, jubilees, weddings etc. From the standpoint of Australia, I don't see why someone doesn't grasp the nettle and declare a republic. After all, the country is far removed from the nation of deported convicts become sheep farmers of the past and is now an important economic force on that side of the globe. OK, maybe it would mean that certain commonwealth representatives would no longer receive royal patronage in the form of titles, gongs etc. but when one considers that pop singers and a host of other media created nonentities have been rewarded to keep the support of the masses, what is recognition by the Queen's advisers worth anyway?

[Delta40]

I'm a ten pound pom and I can see why England loves its monarchy and personally I can't imagine England ever putting such a rich history behind it - Christ even I wouldn't want that to happen but for other countries like Australia, I can.

[Emil Miller]

I'm a ten pound pom and I can see why England loves its monarchy and personally I can't imagine England ever putting such a rich history behind it - Christ even I wouldn't want that to happen but for other countries like Australia, I can.

Having a sentimental attachment to a country's past is understandable but when you're living over 10,000 miles away from it, it does seem rather pointless.

[kiki1982]

Although I have a father who is fiercely against the monarchy and would literally guillotine them all (seriously!), I am rather in favour of that institution.

It's not really the pomp of it all, but it's a kind of comfort. Everyone needs a head of state and where they are non-political presidents like in Italy and Germany, they also cost money and what do they do? Nothing, they are at the end of their career, are not even elected by the people (or the German president is elected by the house which is kind of democratic, but not really) and don't do anything. They are there as a kind of 'reward' for their career. A kind of Oscar or your life and work if you like. They also get all the buildings, all the holiday houses, the wages, the servants etc. like the king and they probably cost the same to a country anyway.

Where they are political heads of state... I am not in favour of that as politicians live in the short term (so deftly portrayed in Yes Minister, but probably very true) and they promise and hope they get votes. Otherwise they lose their job and that's no good. I think it can't hurt a state to have someone at least who does not occupy himself and has never occupied himself with the short term only. Who said that the monarch should listen, be consulted and advise? I think it cannot hurt to listen to someone with more history behind them than you, provided he asks the right questions.

And there is some of the world that does not even take a president seriously. (Think the Arab nations)

There is another side they can make themselves useful and that is on a social level. Prince Charles took on the idea of organic farming/the environment etc. in a time where everyone laughed at it. It is partly because he comes in the news, visiting these places that people think about it. just the same that it is breaking news that William has arrived in the Falklands (:rolleyes: why would that be breaking news? I mean, he's only a man, he steps in a plane and he lands, wow, man!), it is news that Prince Charles visited so and so. Or built a model village. The president of France does not do wacky stuff like that because he would be laughed at and his career would be over. Politicians do what is popular, royals do what they like because they stay in their job anyway.

And yes, I recognise that some people in these circles are bit... Airmiles Andy they call him... There are people like that everywhere and they don't really care what people think, and that's a shame, but I think for all the intelligent and zealous people in monarchies out there that they have the potential to do a good and different job from politicians. They all have their place in the world.

[Emil Miller]

Prince William is going to serve as a search and rescue helicopter pilot in the Falklands on a six week deployment. This, in conjunction with sending a Royal Navy warship to patrol the territorial waters of the islands, has upset the Argentinians as it was bound to do. These not too subtle hints that the islands are still considered sovereign British territory have nothing to do with the Royal family but are arranged by the UK government as a foreign policy ploy. The royals seldom get too close to the action when hostilities start, with the exception of Prince Andrew's much publicised helicopter action rescuing personnel from a damaged ship in the Falklands conflict. Prince Harry messed around in Iraq for a few weeks before it was decided too dangerous to keep him there and he was brought home. During the first World War, the then Duke of Windsor, who was the Colonel-in-Chief to some regiment or other, made a brief visit to the front, well behind the front line, before heading back to England having done his bit for the war effort. The present Duke of Edinburgh did serve in the Royal Navy in WW11, but it was a bit odd for a member of the Danish-German House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. So if you can stand all the ballyhoo that accompanies their behaviour then that's your prerogative but frankly I can do without it.

[Darcy88]

I'm indifferent to the royals. Kate what's-her-name is in my eyes a Paris Hilton with class, just another celebrity I don't care an iota about. I like history and tradition, but this gaudy vestige of illegitimate authority does nothing for me. I did find it interesting that the royal wedding and the killing of Bin Laden happened at nearly the same time, two of the most solidarity-instilling events possible for those two nations.

[prendrelemick]

Austrialia did vote recently to keep the Queen as Head of State. I think the alternatives were so naff and expensive, that the Australians rejected them.

In fact.... There could be an oppotunity here. Our royals could offer themselves up to be HoS of any country that needs one - for a small fee. You get impartiality, experience and tradition. You get Royal walkabouts and a bit of pomp and is probably cheaper than having one of your own.

[cafolini]

Austrialia did vote recently to keep the Queen as Head of State. I think the alternatives were so naff and expensive, that the Australians rejected them.

In fact.... There could be an oppotunity here. Our royals could offer themselves up to be HoS of any country that needs one - for a small fee. You get impartiality, experience and tradition. You get Royal walkabouts and a bit of pomp and is probably cheaper than having one of your own.

Probably correct. England would no longer find it very profitable. Australia has little competition. Tie me kangaroo down, sport.

[Emil Miller]

In fact.... There could be an oppotunity here. Our royals could offer themselves up to be HoS of any country that needs one - for a small fee. You get impartiality, experience and tradition. You get Royal walkabouts and a bit of pomp and is probably cheaper than having one of your own.


Well the Duchess of York was discovered trying to hire out her husband for a reported £500,000 to people looking for a business connection. So even there, they are ahead of the game.

[Delta40]

Australia doesn't like to offend anyone, even the Japanese whale hunters that come here each year...

[Emil Miller]

Australia doesn't like to offend anyone, even the Japanese whale hunters that come here each year...

But don't you think that with an increasingly varied population, acknowledging the UK monarchy will no longer have the same cachet as it does with those of English descent?

[Delta40]

But don't you think that with an increasingly varied population, acknowledging the UK monarchy will no longer have the same cachet as it does with those of English descent?

Perhaps but it isn't as though other cultures are unaware of the monarchy in the first place and when in Rome...

You reminded me of a citizenship ceremony I attended a couple of years ago. There were some Afghanistan men there and the Mayor, having sworn them in (I think the Queen gets a mention) joked that if the situation in Afghanistan got any worse, the army could always draft them to go there and fight on Australia's behalf.

[Patrick_Bateman]

As a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I am enjoying coverage of the leadup to the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. I would be interested to hear what the general opinion of the forum is on the concept of monarchy and whether it has a place in the modern world.

As the Queen is apolitical, I am hoping that this topic does not breach the rule regarding politics.


We should get God Save the Queen by the Sex Pistols to number 1 to mark the occasion.

[LitNetIsGreat]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01cmxck/Melvyn_Bragg_on_Class_and_Culture_Episode_1/

Just watching a Melvyn Bragg programme on i-player about class. I thought some people might be interested in it, it's a three parter.

[Emil Miller]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01cmxck/Melvyn_Bragg_on_Class_and_Culture_Episode_1/

Just watching a Melvyn Bragg programme on i-player about class. I thought some people might be interested in it, it's a three parter.

So, the BBC doing a programme about class eh? Well there's a surprise, and none other but Melvyn Bragg presenting it. Well you've read my book, think Rowley Peterson.

[stlukesguild]

I'm largely with Darcy concerning the British Royals. They seem to me little more than a particularly English for of celebrity. The very concept of the Royals, however, has always presented something of a dilemma for Americans. The concept of bowing before an aristocrat, signifying their superiority was part of what the American Revolution fought to eliminate... yet at the same time... how to properly address a foreign dignitary. Then there is the fact that the British King or Queen are not actually even recognized as the Head of State. When Nancy Reagan curtsied... the female equivalent of bowing... the American press quite rightly took her to task for bowing before aristocracy... especially in her position as the wife of the American Head of State who essentially represents the nation.

[Emil Miller]

QUOTE=stlukesguild;1118830]I'm largely with Darcy concerning the British Royals. They seem to me little more than a particularly English for of celebrity. The very concept of the Royals, however, has always presented something of a dilemma for Americans. The concept of bowing before an aristocrat, signifying their superiority was part of what the American Revolution fought to eliminate... yet at the same time... how to properly address a foreign dignitary. Then there is the fact that the British King or Queen are not actually even recognized as the Head of State. When Nancy Reagan curtsied... the female equivalent of bowing... the American press quite rightly took her to task for bowing before aristocracy... especially in her position as the wife of the American Head of State who essentially represents the nation.[/QUOTE]

I think you will find that the Queen is the Head of State in the UK, but it's of little consequence since it's only a titular designation. Given Reagan's closeness to Mrs Thatcher, It's surprising that his wife didn't bow to her. Especially as it was said that their was no love lost between the Queen and Maggie.
The form of address for foreign dignitaries must pose a problem for some but I think that Oscar Hammerstein 1st, greeting Edward V11 with 'Hi ya King,' probably didn't go down too well.

[LitNetIsGreat]

So, the BBC doing a programme about class eh? Well there's a surprise, and none other but Melvyn Bragg presenting it. Well you've read my book, think Rowley Peterson.

Oh I know this is just a typical Melvyn Bragg and BBC thing. About the same thing as a period drama on a Sunday evening. I only got to halfway because it was getting late but it was OK, nothing you haven't seen or heard before. I do enjoy seeing the archive footage though, I find that interesting, like comparing old photos to familiar streets. The working class section was full of clichés of brass bands and close-knit solidarity - same old stuff. It might get more interesting when it moves onto where class is now, bringing in the underclass and celebrity culture and so on. I'll look back on Rowley Peterson.


I'm largely with Darcy concerning the British Royals. They seem to me little more than a particularly English for of celebrity. The very concept of the Royals, however, has always presented something of a dilemma for Americans. The concept of bowing before an aristocrat, signifying their superiority was part of what the American Revolution fought to eliminate... yet at the same time... how to properly address a foreign dignitary. Then there is the fact that the British King or Queen are not actually even recognized as the Head of State. When Nancy Reagan curtsied... the female equivalent of bowing... the American press quite rightly took her to task for bowing before aristocracy... especially in her position as the wife of the American Head of State who essentially represents the nation.

That's a surprise to read that the American press would look down on curtising to Royalty. Of course when you put it like that it makes sense, but I wouldn't have thought about that at all.

[prendrelemick]

Remember when Jimmy Carter kissed the Queen mum! My Mother in law still hasn't got over it.

[Emil Miller]

Remember when Jimmy Carter kissed the Queen mum! My Mother in law still hasn't got over it.

Who was the visiting statesman who actually put his hand on the Queen's bu.... er... posterior ?

[Paulclem]

Who was the visiting statesman who actually put his hand on the Queen's bu.... er... posterior ?

Wasn't it the Australian PM?

[Emil Miller]

Wasn't it the Australian PM?

Well the current one is a woman but I had a feeling that it was George W Bush.

[OrphanPip]

Well the current one is a woman but I had a feeling that it was George W Bush.

If I remember correctly, I think he put his hand on her shoulder.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE]Oh I know this is just a typical Melvyn Bragg and BBC thing. About the same thing as a period drama on a Sunday evening. I only got to halfway because it was getting late but it was OK, nothing you haven't seen or heard before. I do enjoy seeing the archive footage though, I find that interesting, like comparing old photos to familiar streets. The working class section was full of clichés of brass bands and close-knit solidarity - same old stuff. It might get more interesting when it moves onto where class is now, bringing in the underclass and celebrity culture and so on. I'll look back on Rowley Peterson.

I did watch a bit of the programme you posted as I'm also interested in old newsreels. Bragg is the archetypal media manufactured presenter that came onto the scene in the 1960s, all pop music and pseudo intellectuality, but although he has certain traits that are incorporated into Rowley Peterson's character, the homosexuality was not one of them. In fact Rowley's insufferable loony-left wife makes him quite a sympathetic character.

[Emil Miller]

If I remember correctly, I think he put his hand on her shoulder.

It turn's out to be the former Australian PM Paul Keating, who is alleged to have touched the Queen on her back. He subsequently told Sky News the following, but given the Queen Mother's longevity, he may still have some time to wait.


The Queen is stopping Australia from being a great country, according to the country's former prime minister Paul Keating.
In an outspoken interview with Sky News Australia, Mr Keating said: "The fact is that Australia can only be a great country when it claims its head of state as one of its own.

"It will forever have that derivativeness about it while ever our head of state is the Queen of Great Britain and we share her with 16 other countries.

"And by the way, we get around with the British flag in the corner of our flag. I mean, great states do not do these things."

The former Labor prime minister, who is known for his anti-royal views, was once dubbed the "Lizard of Oz" by the British tabloid press for touching the Queen on her back during a tour of Australia in 1992.

Such contact with the monarch is against royal protocol.

During the lengthy TV interview he acknowledged the affection many Australians have for the Queen, but criticised current politicians for shying away from demanding a republic.

"We are not going to take our republic, we are going to wait till the old lady dies or leaves," he said.

"Of course the next day King Charles and Queen Camilla will be there. And of course they'll say, 'Let's give the new bloke a go'."