The Queen and I: Jubilee reflections

[+ Charlie]

The hoopla about the Platinum Jubilee this weekend has revived some memories for me.

My maternal grandmother was born in 1885, in New York City, which qualified her to claim to be a native-born American. However, a child's nationality is usually determined by its parents, and in the 19th century, a married woman's nationality was determined by her husband's. Her mother was born and raised in Scotland by British parents, and emigrated on her own to New York, where she met and married my great-grandfather. He was born and raised in Bermuda, where his English family had lived for several generations; although he had moved to live in New York as a young man, he had never formally renounced his allegiance to his monarch Victoria, so my grandmother was technically a subject of the Queen-Empress. She was also the 12th of thirteen children born to my great-grandparents, and her two oldest sisters had both returned to Bermuda, where they married local men and raised their own families.

My great-grandfather died suddenly when my grandmother was only three years old, and her mother sent her to Bermuda, to be raised by her father's elderly step-mother, helped by her two married sisters. She grew up as a typical child of the colonial Empire, with references to the monarchy everywhere, and she was seventeen before she finally returned to New York, a "British" teenager still mourning the recently deceased Queen Victoria. In New York, she lived with her twenty year old brother, who had  lived there all his life, and his Irish-American wife. Her new sister-in-law had an unmarried thirty year old brother, who immediately fell in love with the teenager, and within a few months they were married, making her truly an American, by marriage as well as by birth. But she often felt confused about whether she was more British or more American.

I spent a lot of time with my widowed grandmother when I was growing up (I was her oldest grandson), and I'm sure that my fascination with her bifurcated identity had a lot to do with my own personal and professional interest in American and British literature and history. By my adolescence, I had memorized the names and dates of both the American Presidents and the British monarchs. My undergraduate honors project was on Jane Austen (I hear someone murmuring, "That's so gay...." but she was a favorite of my grandmother as well), and I proposed a master's thesis on James Fenimore Cooper's feeble attempt to write an American novel in imitation of Austen to my advisor (he just rolled his eyes). The only cruise I have ever taken was to Bermuda, where I visited the family home in which my grandmother and great-grandfather were raised, and met some of my distant relations. I achieved my ambition to live in both New York and London. As a child, I watched Elizabeth's coronation on TV, and, of course, I went to England for Elizabeth's Silver Jubilee, the first such celebration in my lifetime. My grandmother always followed the news about all Victoria's successors, and if she were still alive, I'm sure she would be glued to the TV for this latest event.

[+ WilliamM]

My grandmother was born in Aberdeen  Scotland. She had eight kids, so not much time to follow the royal family, including the Scottish Queen Mother 

I caught a few of the events though

Edited June 8, 2022 by WilliamM

[Luv2play]

I gave up watching tv a couple of years ago when I didn't replace my broken tv. But this weekend I was in Montreal and caught quite a bit of the British ceremonies when I wasn't otherwise occupied (ahem). I quite enjoyed the pomp and ceremony which no-one does better than the British. And they had some decent weather which was a plus for all the outdoor activities. Apparently 10 years ago they had cold wet weather for the Diamond Jubilee.

As a Canadian I have ambivalent feelings about the monarchy but only as it relates to our situation in Canada. I think it serves the British people well but not our people quite so well. For instance Charles and Camilla just had a three day visit to Canada, the first in several years, and avoided Quebec including Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. So the three largest cities in Canada representing about a quarter of the population if you include their suburbs.

They spent one day visiting the far north to meet with some aboriginals. Relations between Canada and its indigenous people are fraught with tensions these days and the British Crown does have a unique relationship with them through the treaties that were signed several centuries ago.

Charles is unlikely to be held in much esteem or affection by Canadians when he ascends the throne unlike the way his mother is today. The future of the monarchy in Canada is going to be put to the test. He may flunk. 

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Luv2play

[CuriousByNature]

2 hours ago, Luv2play said:

I gave up watching tv a couple of years ago when I didn't replace my broken tv. But this weekend I was in Montreal and caught quite a bit of the British ceremonies when I wasn't otherwise occupied (ahem). I quite enjoyed the pomp and ceremony which no-one does better than the British. And they had some decent weather which was a plus for all the outdoor activities. Apparently 10 years ago they had cold wet weather for the Diamond Jubilee.

As a Canadian I have ambivalent feelings about the monarchy but only as it relates to our situation in Canada. I think it serves the British people well but not our people quite so well. For instance Charles and Camilla just had a three day visit to Canada, the first in several years, and avoided Quebec including Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. So the three largest cities in Canada representing about a quarter of the population if you include their suburbs.

They spent one day visiting the far north to meet with some aboriginals. Relations between Canada and its indigenous people are fraught with tensions these days and the British Crown does have a unique relationship with them through the treaties that were signed several centuries ago.

Charles is unlikely to be held in much esteem or affection by Canadians when he ascends the throne unlike the way his mother is today. The future of the monarchy in Canada is going to be put to the test. He may flunk. 

 

I agree that Charles does not have the support that the Queen currently enjoys.  In the 90s when it was clear he was cheating on Diana (and she was also cheating on him) I think a lot of people hoped he would be bypassed for William.  But those who said that did not understand how succession works.  Now that he is in his 70s, happily married to the woman he always loved, and supporting the Queen in many of her duties, I think there is a fondness that is growing towards him.  Had he ascended the throne 20 years ago I think that there would have been greater backlash, but now that he is a senior citizen himself, I think the reaction will be more measured.  I also think he will not shake things up as much as he once would have.  He likely doesn't have the energy to do so.  And if he were to ascend today, he would most likely only be king for 20 to 30 years at most before William ascends after him.  I'm curious whether he will style himself as King Charles III, or perhaps in homage to his father who was never more than a prince, choose to be the UK's first King Phillip.

 

[+ Charlie]

When one has nothing better to do, it is always fun to wonder what the next British monarchs will call themselves. Edward VII was actually named after his father, Prince Albert, and was called "Bertie" by the family, but he chose to use a traditional name rather than become the first "King Albert". George VI was also named Albert and called "Bertie" by his family, but he too chose a different name as monarch, only in his case it was the name of his father. Edward VIII was called "David" by his family, but he chose to continue his grandfather's name. Considering that Charles I and II were not exactly beloved monarchs, one wonders whether Prince Charles will want to resurrect that 17th century reference or choose something else (George VII?), or follow in the steps of Pope Francis and start a new tradition.

[+ FreshFluff]

36 minutes ago, Charlie said:

When one has nothing better to do, it is always fun to wonder what the next British monarchs will call themselves. Edward VII was actually named after his father, Prince Albert, and was called "Bertie" by the family, but he chose to use a traditional name rather than become the first "King Albert". George VI was also named Albert and called "Bertie" by his family, but he too chose a different name as monarch, only in his case it was the name of his father. Edward VIII was called "David" by his family, but he chose to continue his grandfather's name. Considering that Charles I and II were not exactly beloved monarchs, one wonders whether Prince Charles will want to resurrect that 17th century reference or choose something else (George VII?), or follow in the steps of Pope Francis and start a new tradition.

I’m having a tough time imagining a hidebound traditionalist like Prince Charles starting a new tradition.

[+ WilliamM]

Annual Royal Variety Performances are now available on You Tube. One year James Cagney showed up unannounced.

Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother or Elizabeth and Phillip were constants.

Not really a huge fan. 

Perhaps it is our version of the Kennedy Center Honors..

In response to @Charlie mentioning a gay chosing a female author in such important situation - my mentor in grad school was a female political science professor in 1966.

Nobody cares because she  was tough but fair and wanted her grad students to move on, and perhaps keep in touch.

[Luv2play]

I think Charles will choose George VII as his name on becoming king. His Christian names are Charles Philip Arthur George. King Charles would recall unpopular kings, there is no precedent for King Philip and he would compare unfavourably to King Arthur, at least the legend. He has a legitimate claim to George and his grandfather George VI was very popular and played with Charles when he was a young boy.

While Edward VIII was called David by his family, his title as prince was Prince Edward of York. So King Edward VIII was a natural choice. 

His father, George V, was Prince George of Wales and was not originally in direct line to the throne until his older brother died. He not only got the throne but also the fiancee of his older brother, Queen Mary (Princess Teck).

I don't think what the royal family called the princes prior to their becoming king enters into it at all.

[Guest]

I saw on the news that she was too frail to even take a carriage ride, and was represented by a hologram at the jubilee. 

W

When someone is too frail to even ride in a carriage, isn't it time to bow out gracefully and let her son take the reins? The former recent monarchs of Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands did likewise, long before they reached HM's level of frailty. I feel it's not too likely she'll pass Louis XIV's record--or at least only as a blubbering vegetable....

What's the point in pretending one can do one's duties? Just to give her son the finger?

[CuriousByNature]

39 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

I saw on the news that she was too frail to even take a carriage ride, and was represented by a hologram at the jubilee. 

W

When someone is too frail to even ride in a carriage, isn't it time to bow out gracefully and let her son take the reins? The former recent monarchs of Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands did likewise, long before they reached HM's level of frailty. I feel it's not too likely she'll pass Louis XIV's record--or at least only as a blubbering vegetable....

What's the point in pretending one can do one's duties? Just to give her son the finger?

From what I have read, the issue is one of mobility.  She is apparently a very devout person who took her coronation vows very seriously.  I highly doubt she will ever abdicate, because she would consider that breaking the vows she made before God.  I imagine she is having some sort of joint issues given her age - her mother had joint replacements in her mid-90s, so perhaps the same will be done for the Queen.  I can't remember if it was the hips or knees, but the surgery gave the Queen Mother a few more years of mobility anyway.   I'm hoping she can see her 75th anniversary as Queen... she would be 100 at that time, and her mother made it to almost 102 herself.

[+ WilliamM]

46 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

I saw on the news that she was too frail to even take a carriage ride, and was represented by a hologram at the jubilee. 

W

When someone is too frail to even ride in a carriage, isn't it time to bow out gracefully and let her son take the reins? The former recent monarchs of Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands did likewise, long before they reached HM's level of frailty. I feel it's not too likely she'll pass Louis XIV's record--or at least only as a blubbering vegetable....

What's the point in pretending one can do one's duties? Just to give her son the finger?

Based on the response last weekend, the Queen is a much beloved figure.

 

[+ Charlie]

1 hour ago, Luv2play said:

His father, George V, was Prince George of Wales and was not originally in direct line to the throne until his older brother died. He not only got the throne but also the fiancee of his older brother, Queen Mary (Princess Teck).

 

There was actually precedent for this. Henry VIII's older brother Arthur was the original heir to their father's throne. He was betrothed to Catherine of Aragon, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain from the age of three, and married her shortly before his death. Since Arthur died before his father, Henry became the heir to the throne, and after he became king, he married his brother's widow, mainly to avoid having to repay the substantial dowry her parents had paid on the assumption that she was going to become the Queen of England. The marriage of George and Mary of Teck had less historical fallout.

[Luv2play]

I believe it was Queen Victoria, George V's grandmother, who dictated that Mary Teck, who was of only minor royal blood, marry George after Prince Albert died shortly before he was to marry her. As it turned out, they had a successful marriage and George V did not have a mistress like his father Edward VII had. 

His eldest son, Edward (or David as his family called him) had several mistresses, the last of whom he married by giving up the throne.

Charles, on the other hand, got to marry his mistress after the one time Princess of Wales died in a car crash in Paris. Mary Teck would have rolled in her grave at that development.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, CuriousByNature said:

... I highly doubt she will ever abdicate, because she would consider that breaking the vows she made before God...

She won't abdicate because God doesn't want her to? Yeah, right. I suppose the Angel Gabriel told her in person...

[CuriousByNature]

2 hours ago, Unicorn said:

She won't abdicate because God doesn't want her to? Yeah, right. I suppose the Angel Gabriel told her in person...

It isn't about what God wants or doesn't want.  She is known to be a person of great faith, and it's about her personal integrity and the desire to remain true to the pledge she made during her coronation. In fact, she made another pledge on her 21st birthday a few years before to serve for her entire life, whether it would be short or long.  Unlike many people today she has somehow been able to maintain that level of commitment for more than 70 years.  I think that is something worthy of admiration and not likely to be repeated.

[BSR]

4 hours ago, Unicorn said:

The former recent monarchs of Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands did likewise, long before they reached HM's level of frailty.

Spain's King Juan Carlos abdicated because of scandal, not health reasons.  In 2012 he took an over-the-top elephant hunting trip to Botswana which cost twice what the average Spaniard made in a year.  After getting injured, he had to fly back to Spain via private jet.  The lavishness of the trip offended Spaniards who were still mired in the depths of the financial crash.  Spaniards were even more offended when the King was caught awarding his son-in-law graft-laden contracts that fleeced the Spanish taxpayers for €50-100 million.  The son-in-law went to prison.  The King was spared that humiliation but abdicated and went into exile.

[CuriousByNature]

22 minutes ago, BSR said:

Spain's King Juan Carlos abdicated because of scandal, not health reasons.  In 2012 he took an over-the-top elephant hunting trip to Botswana which cost twice what the average Spaniard made in a year.  After getting injured, he had to fly back to Spain via private jet.  The lavishness of the trip offended Spaniards who were still mired in the depths of the financial crash.  Spaniards were even more offended when the King was caught awarding his son-in-law graft-laden contracts that fleeced the Spanish taxpayers for €50-100 million.  The son-in-law went to prison.  The King was spared that humiliation but abdicated and went into exile.

Thank you for this.  And regarding the Netherlands, I believe the last several monarchs chose to abdicate so that their successor could reign.  I think Juliana abdicated for Beatrix, and Wilhelmina for Juliana some decades earlier.  But the last abdication in the UK was Edward VIII, and the fallout from that may also be part of the reason why the Queen intends to continue her reign.  

[wsc]

5 hours ago, Unicorn said:

I saw on the news that she was too frail to even take a carriage ride, and was represented by a hologram at the jubilee. 

W

When someone is too frail to even ride in a carriage, isn't it time to bow out gracefully and let her son take the reins? The former recent monarchs of Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands did likewise, long before they reached HM's level of frailty. I feel it's not too likely she'll pass Louis XIV's record--or at least only as a blubbering vegetable....

What's the point in pretending one can do one's duties? Just to give her son the finger?

From stories I've read, she's never much liked riding in the Gold State Coach even when she feels fine. The coach was built in the 1760s, weighs four tons, moves at a snail's pace, being pulled by eight large walking horses (too heavy for them to trot), which makes the unpleasant trip even longer. The suspension was state of the art -in 1762- but is extremely uncomfortable and hard on the bones. She spoke some years ago about her experience with the coach on Coronation Day in 1953, when she was 27. She didn't like it much then and I doubt she would today.

[wsc]

As regards her possible abdication, one of her core principles seems to be pragmatism. If she gets to a point when she senses she is unable to do the job, she might consider abdication, but would, I think, be more inclined to a Regency era, wherein Charles becomes Regent and essentially reigns in her name. This would require both her assent and an act of Parliament.

I don't think she thinks she is queen by God's will, but I do think she sees her role as a kind of religious calling. Kings and queens of Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, etc., just get crowned. But in Britain, the sovereign is first consecrated with holy oil, as is a priest or bishop when ordained for their office. She believes her duty to her people is also her duty to God, and she seems to take both rather seriously.

[CuriousByNature]

13 minutes ago, wsc said:

As regards her possible abdication, one of her core principles seems to be pragmatism. If she gets to a point when she senses she is unable to do the job, she might consider abdication, but would, I think, be more inclined to a Regency era, wherein Charles becomes Regent and essentially reigns in her name. This would require both her assent and an act of Parliament.

I don't think she thinks she is queen by God's will, but I do think she sees her role as a kind of religious calling. Kings and queens of Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, etc., just get crowned. But in Britain, the sovereign is first consecrated with holy oil, as is a priest or bishop when ordained for their office. She believes her duty to her people is also her duty to God, and she seems to take both rather seriously.

I agree - I think she very much sees it as a religious calling and an obligation to the people of the Commonwealth.

 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, wsc said:

...If she gets to a point when she senses she is unable to do the job, she might consider abdication...

She couldn't even give the speech from the throne. That's part of her job. I think God would forgive her for admitting what's obvious to us mortals. She ruled gracefully for 7 decades. She can no longer do so, and it's time for HRH Prince Charles to do those duties as long as he's still able. 

[Rudynate]

On 6/5/2022 at 2:50 PM, Charlie said:

The hoopla about the Platinum Jubilee this weekend has revived some memories for me.

My maternal grandmother was born in 1885, in New York City, which qualified her to claim to be a native-born American. However, a child's nationality is usually determined by its parents, and in the 19th century, a married woman's nationality was determined by her husband's. Her mother was born and raised in Scotland by British parents, and emigrated on her own to New York, where she met and married my great-grandfather. He was born and raised in Bermuda, where his English family had lived for several generations; although he had moved to live in New York as a young man, he had never formally renounced his allegiance to his monarch Victoria, so my grandmother was technically a subject of the Queen-Empress. She was also the 12th of thirteen children born to my great-grandparents, and her two oldest sisters had both returned to Bermuda, where they married local men and raised their own families.

My great-grandfather died suddenly when my grandmother was only three years old, and her mother sent her to Bermuda, to be raised by her father's elderly step-mother, helped by her two married sisters. She grew up as a typical child of the colonial Empire, with references to the monarchy everywhere, and she was seventeen before she finally returned to New York, a "British" teenager still mourning the recently deceased Queen Victoria. In New York, she lived with her twenty year old brother, who had  lived there all his life, and his Irish-American wife. Her new sister-in-law had an unmarried thirty year old brother, who immediately fell in love with the teenager, and within a few months they were married, making her truly an American, by marriage as well as by birth. But she often felt confused about whether she was more British or more American.

I spent a lot of time with my widowed grandmother when I was growing up (I was her oldest grandson), and I'm sure that my fascination with her bifurcated identity had a lot to do with my own personal and professional interest in American and British literature and history. By my adolescence, I had memorized the names and dates of both the American Presidents and the British monarchs. My undergraduate honors project was on Jane Austen (I hear someone murmuring, "That's so gay...." but she was a favorite of my grandmother as well), and I proposed a master's thesis on James Fenimore Cooper's feeble attempt to write an American novel in imitation of Austen to my advisor (he just rolled his eyes). The only cruise I have ever taken was to Bermuda, where I visited the family home in which my grandmother and great-grandfather were raised, and met some of my distant relations. I achieved my ambition to live in both New York and London. As a child, I watched Elizabeth's coronation on TV, and, of course, I went to England for Elizabeth's Silver Jubilee, the first such celebration in my lifetime. My grandmother always followed the news about all Victoria's successors, and if she were still alive, I'm sure she would be glued to the TV for this latest event.

 

4 hours ago, Unicorn said:

She won't abdicate because God doesn't want her to? Yeah, right. I suppose the Angel Gabriel told her in person...

They have it all under control.  Her Regents are already doing what needs to be done to continue her reign.

[CuriousByNature]

1 hour ago, Unicorn said:

She couldn't even give the speech from the throne. That's part of her job. I think God would forgive her for admitting what's obvious to us mortals. She ruled gracefully for 7 decades. She can no longer do so, and it's time for HRH Prince Charles to do those duties as long as he's still able. 

I think we'll need to wait and see whether or not things improve - let's not give her the boot quite yet.  She has faced significant challenges during the past year, but I am hopeful that she will get whatever treatment is necessary to deal with the mobility issues and go on reigning for a number of years - with increasing support from members of the family, of course.  I don't think her like will be seen again.

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, CuriousByNature said:

... I am hopeful that she will get whatever treatment is necessary to deal with the mobility issues and go on...

[mike carey]

5 hours ago, Unicorn said:

She couldn't even give the speech from the throne. That's part of her job. I think God would forgive her for admitting what's obvious to us mortals. She ruled gracefully for 7 decades. She can no longer do so, and it's time for HRH Prince Charles to do those duties as long as he's still able. 

You're making quite the art-form today of misunderstanding everything to do with the subject.