The Queen and I: Jubilee reflections

[Luv2play]

As I understand the role of the British monarch as a constitutional ruler, their role is to advise, be consulted and warn where necessary the duly elected government. Obviously the monarch needs to be mentally capable of fulfilling these roles. 

In the event the Queen was no longer able to do this, I think a regency would be established, as it was for George III when he lost his mind.

In the US where the president is both the head of government and head of state, this problem was encountered with Woodrow Wilson when he suffered a massive stroke and we are told his wife became the go-between.

Maybe someone more familiar with the US constitution can detail when changes were made to reflect this reality.  I think another change was made in the rules of succession after the Kennedy assassination when the ancient speaker of the house McCormick stood next in line after Johnson became the president in 1963.

The British don't have a written constitution as such but rely heavily on convention and precedent and the rule of law, which has served them very well over many centuries. By contrast all the rules written into the US constitution appear to be not serving the American people very well these days, at least in my humble opinion.

[mike carey]

Moderator's Note

It is probably about time to circle back to the topic of the thread and away from the constitutional issues beyond the succession that surround the monarchy (and comparisons with other systems). We'll take action as appropriate with posts that stray too far into the political realm.

[Luv2play]

9 hours ago, Unicorn said:

Yes indeed, the poor bishop beside her can only move on the black tiles.

[Rudynate]

9 hours ago, CuriousByNature said:

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.

 

I know from personal experience that one can be very laid-up from a mobility issue and otherwise be in very good health - that could be her.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, mike carey said:

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

What you're apparently good at is attacking the poster directly instead of addressing what he posts. While I may disagree with what @wsc, @Luv2play, and @Rudynate are saying (basically saying, if I'm getting it right, that while her body doesn't work, her mind works fine, so it's OK), at least they're responding to my concerns regarding the Queen's fitness at this point, rather than simply relying on insults. A prior poster may be correct about her orthopedic condition(s) being potentially surgically correctible. However, someone that frail would be a huge surgical risk, and would have a high chance of succumbing to the surgery, or, even more likely, being too weak to be able to go through the necessary post-surgical rehabilitation. 

This is certainly as issue in which reasonable people can disagree. I understand that the monarchy has gone through centuries of tradition, yet I don't think any prior monarch of these kingdoms has made it to the 90s, much less the late 90s. I personally believe that when someone can't even stand up for more than a couple of minutes, or even stay seated comfortably for longer periods, that it's time to pass on the baton (or scepter in this case). No one could have anticipated the ability to keep a head alive with a non-functional body. I also understand that according to tradition, it's apparently her decision alone as to whether to abdicate. I'm not her subject, however, so I feel I can be critical of this decision. She won't be able to send me to the Tower of London for treason, though my beau and I may be visiting there in a few days... 😉

[Rudynate]

2 hours ago, Unicorn said:

What you're apparently good at is attacking the poster directly instead of addressing what he posts. While I may disagree with what @wsc, @Luv2play, and @Rudynate are saying (basically saying, if I'm getting it right, that while her body doesn't work, her mind works fine, so it's OK), at least they're responding to my concerns regarding the Queen's fitness at this point, rather than simply relying on insults. A prior poster may be correct about her orthopedic condition(s) being potentially surgically correctible. However, someone that frail would be a huge surgical risk, and would have a high chance of succumbing to the surgery, or, even more likely, being too weak to be able to go through the necessary post-surgical rehabilitation. 

This is certainly as issue in which reasonable people can disagree. I understand that the monarchy has gone through centuries of tradition, yet I don't think any prior monarch of these kingdoms has made it to the 90s, much less the late 90s. I personally believe that when someone can't even stand up for more than a couple of minutes, or even stay seated comfortably for longer periods, that it's time to pass on the baton (or scepter in this case). No one could have anticipated the ability to keep a head alive with a non-functional body. I also understand that according to tradition, it's apparently her decision alone as to whether to abdicate. I'm not her subject, however, so I feel I can be critical of this decision. She won't be able to send me to the Tower of London for treason, though my beau and I may be visiting there in a few days... 😉

It would be different if the presence of the Sovereign were critical to the well-being of the nation, but it isn't.  She could be brain-dead and on life support and her reign would proceed without a hitch.  They don't need her for much of anything.  She's mostly just a feel-good symbol.

[CuriousByNature]

2 hours ago, Unicorn said:

What you're apparently good at is attacking the poster directly instead of addressing what he posts. While I may disagree with what @wsc, @Luv2play, and @Rudynate are saying (basically saying, if I'm getting it right, that while her body doesn't work, her mind works fine, so it's OK), at least they're responding to my concerns regarding the Queen's fitness at this point, rather than simply relying on insults. A prior poster may be correct about her orthopedic condition(s) being potentially surgically correctible. However, someone that frail would be a huge surgical risk, and would have a high chance of succumbing to the surgery, or, even more likely, being too weak to be able to go through the necessary post-surgical rehabilitation. 

This is certainly as issue in which reasonable people can disagree. I understand that the monarchy has gone through centuries of tradition, yet I don't think any prior monarch of these kingdoms has made it to the 90s, much less the late 90s. I personally believe that when someone can't even stand up for more than a couple of minutes, or even stay seated comfortably for longer periods, that it's time to pass on the baton (or scepter in this case). No one could have anticipated the ability to keep a head alive with a non-functional body. I also understand that according to tradition, it's apparently her decision alone as to whether to abdicate. I'm not her subject, however, so I feel I can be critical of this decision. She won't be able to send me to the Tower of London for treason, though my beau and I may be visiting there in a few days... 😉

Yes, you are correct that no previous British monarch has made it to their 90s.  But the Queen Mother, who was consort to George VI, was almost 102 when she died.  In her late 90s she curtailed a lot of her activities due to her age,  She had both hips replaced, and by most accounts continued to live a fulfilling life for a number of years.  Her daughter, the present Queen, is at least as robust as her mother was at 96, so I would not be surprised if she could easily pull through hip replacements if that happens to be her mobility issue.  I understand though that at such an advanced age things can decline very quickly, as they did for her husband last year.  

[kingsley88]

My first visit to London was back in 2002 and I remember the Golden Jubilee festivities. I woke up early just to get a good spot at Pall Mall for the march and was surprised that it was mostly tourists who showed up early. Locals came too but they weren't that excited as they were this past weekend. I recall organizers gave all of us Union Jack flags to wave along the route so the photos would look better and more patriotic.

I think the Queen is definitely more popular nowadays especially after people watched The Crown and seeing what she had to deal with all these years. 

Anyways, kudos to her! I hope she makes it to her 75th!

As far as age goes, that shouldn't matter. Supreme Court judges here in the USA have that position for life and most of them stay on the supreme court until their death.

[Luv2play]

2 hours ago, Rudynate said:

It would be different if the presence of the Sovereign were critical to the well-being of the nation, but it isn't.  She could be brain-dead and on life support and her reign would proceed without a hitch.  They don't need her for much of anything.  She's mostly just a feel-good symbol.

When the British have a popular leader leading a strong government with majority support in Parliament, then the Queen does tend to fade into the background which is as it should be. 

But when the elected government or their leader is on the ropes, then the stability in government institutions  which the Crown embodies acts as a stabilizing force and the Queen's presence is reassuring to the public. 

Prime ministers come and go but she has carried on for some 14 PMs, I believe is the number, since ascending the throne. When history is written, the age is often defined by the Monarch, not the governments. Just think back as far as the First Elizabethan Age or Henry VIII, or the Victorian Age or  the Edwardian Age. The Queen has reigned so long that I think her epoch will become known as the Second Elizabethan Age.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, kingsley88 said:

...As far as age goes, that shouldn't matter. Supreme Court judges here in the USA have that position for life and most of them stay on the supreme court until their death.

I would definitely agree that the issue of some government officials, notably those of SCOTUS, not being reviewed for capacity at a certain age was probably something the founding fathers didn't consider when they wrote the rules, since no one lived that long in the 18th Century. That being said, I don't recall any justice serving at 96, nor any who was too frail to even speak, stand up, or even sit for more than a few minutes. The Senior Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court is almost 2 decades younger than EII (just shy of his 77th birthday). But I do get the counter-points I'm hearing from her loyal subjects. Obviously I don't think she HAS to abdicate--I just think it'd be the right thing to do. I don't think Prince Charles is such an awful person. 

[CuriousByNature]

2 hours ago, Unicorn said:

I would definitely agree that the issue of some government officials, notably those of SCOTUS, not being reviewed for capacity at a certain age was probably something the founding fathers didn't consider when they wrote the rules, since no one lived that long in the 18th Century. That being said, I don't recall any justice serving at 96, nor any who was too frail to even speak, stand up, or even sit for more than a few minutes. The Senior Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court is almost 2 decades younger than EII (just shy of his 77th birthday). But I do get the counter-points I'm hearing from her loyal subjects. Obviously I don't think she HAS to abdicate--I just think it'd be the right thing to do. I don't think Prince Charles is such an awful person. 

With all due respect, I think you may be exaggerating her health difficulties.  She can speak, she can stand, and she can sit.  But she is evidently experiencing enough discomfort at this time to limit her engagements. As a figurehead I think she is likely aware that the way she presents herself is important.  If she were to be seen wincing in pain as she walked, or struggling to get in and out of a carriage, it would be upsetting to many people.  I don't think she would want that - not because of pride, but because she has never sought the nation's pity.

[Rudynate]

3 hours ago, Luv2play said:

When the British have a popular leader leading a strong government with majority support in Parliament, then the Queen does tend to fade into the background which is as it should be. 

But when the elected government or their leader is on the ropes, then the stability in government institutions  which the Crown embodies acts as a stabilizing force and the Queen's presence is reassuring to the public. 

Prime ministers come and go but she has carried on for some 14 PMs, I believe is the number, since ascending the throne. When history is written, the age is often defined by the Monarch, not the governments. Just think back as far as the First Elizabethan Age or Henry VIII, or the Victorian Age or  the Edwardian Age. The Queen has reigned so long that I think her epoch will become known as the Second Elizabethan Age.

Those were Monarchs who wielded enormous power.  Queen Elisabeth doesn't.  I don't discount her popularity and the influence she has because of it, I think the world of her. But influence is what she has - almost no power.

 

[Luv2play]

The monarchs I cited from centuries ago did have more power than those of the 19th and 20 centuries, who as pointed out exercise influence rather than power. Influence is a sort of soft power but often works more effectively in certain situations than raw power. Just look at how powerful governments often resort to influence rather than have the potential backfire from trying to order people to do something through a naked exercise of power.

During her lifetime Queen Elizabeth has had to contend with powerful leaders like Margaret Thatcher who was not given to subtle exercise of power. In the end, Thatcher's power evaporated in an instant when she lost the confidence of her own party members. The Queen just sailed on to dealing with John Major, Thatcher's replacement.

 

 

[Rudynate]

2 hours ago, Luv2play said:

The monarchs I cited from centuries ago did have more power than those of the 19th and 20 centuries, who as pointed out exercise influence rather than power. Influence is a sort of soft power but often works more effectively in certain situations than raw power. Just look at how powerful governments often resort to influence rather than have the potential backfire from trying to order people to do something through a naked exercise of power.

During her lifetime Queen Elizabeth has had to contend with powerful leaders like Margaret Thatcher who was not given to subtle exercise of power. In the end, Thatcher's power evaporated in an instant when she lost the confidence of her own party members. The Queen just sailed on to dealing with John Major, Thatcher's replacement.

 

 

But she doesn't "contend" with them.  They have their regular audiences with her, she listens and keeps her mouth shut, as the law requires of her.  Because of their respect for the monarchic tradition, and their affection for her, if she does express an opinion,  they probably give it due respect.  It is said that she finds subtle ways to make her views known on issues that are particularly important to her.    The Queen sailed on because she has guaranteed employment for her entire life,, much like a Supreme Court Judge.   I am sure any Prime Minister takes office with the knowledge that he/she has a shelf life.

[CuriousByNature]

I wonder if there has been too much societal change throughout her reign for it to be considered a new Elizabethan Era.  The Victorian period - whether in 1837 or 1901 - was pretty consistent in its conservative societal norms, from clothing to architecture, design to family life.   But I don't think that can be said for the current monarch's reign.  Changes have accelerated so much that it would be very difficult to define what a new Elizabethan Era represents.  Is it the post-war boom?  The greater secularization of society?  The Cold War and the fight against communism?  The women's liberation movement?  The race to the Moon?  The rise of social media?  The threat of terrorism?  None of these things are closely linked to the monarchy, and the present Queen has not had the same level of influence over society's path as monarchs of earlier times once had.  I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, and I am pretty sure history will remember her reign fondly and with admiration even if it is not the basis for defining an era.

[Becket]

She often refers to the oath she took.  That she would give her whole life in service to her people.  Kinda nice that people take an oath seriously.  It's certainly a novel idea for my family.  All divorced.  

Certainly has been an era.  Seventy years more than qualifies.  She will be remembered for many things.  The commonwealth probably was her biggest accomplishment.  That and not dumping her children when they disappointed her and the nation.  God save the queen.

[JulianLondon]

I believe it will be King Charles III as there will be a King George within many people's lifetime.

Charles, William and George. 

The optics of this Jubilee apart from celebration was one of succession. 

Also there may be a Regency again if and when the Queen is completely incapacitated but she would not abdicate as has been stated on here previously.

[Luv2play]

7 hours ago, CuriousByNature said:

I wonder if there has been too much societal change throughout her reign for it to be considered a new Elizabethan Era.  The Victorian period - whether in 1837 or 1901 - was pretty consistent in its conservative societal norms, from clothing to architecture, design to family life.   But I don't think that can be said for the current monarch's reign.  Changes have accelerated so much that it would be very difficult to define what a new Elizabethan Era represents.  Is it the post-war boom?  The greater secularization of society?  The Cold War and the fight against communism?  The women's liberation movement?  The race to the Moon?  The rise of social media?  The threat of terrorism?  None of these things are closely linked to the monarchy, and the present Queen has not had the same level of influence over society's path as monarchs of earlier times once had.  I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, and I am pretty sure history will remember her reign fondly and with admiration even if it is not the basis for defining an era.

You make some good points but I would argue that the Victorian Era ushered in as great a change in society as Queen Elizabeth's time on the throne.

The industrial revolution, which started in Great Britain, transformed life with inventions that surpassed even those of the last 70 years. Transportation; horses to trains and sail to steamships, communications; the telegraph and telephones, modern medicine, electricity and the lightbulb, modern sanitation, photography, the list goes on. 

All these developments changed the lives of the ordinary citizen much more than the way we live our lives any differently than our grandparents. 

[Rudynate]

13 hours ago, Unicorn said:

I would definitely agree that the issue of some government officials, notably those of SCOTUS, not being reviewed for capacity at a certain age was probably something the founding fathers didn't consider when they wrote the rules, since no one lived that long in the 18th Century. That being said, I don't recall any justice serving at 96, nor any who was too frail to even speak, stand up, or even sit for more than a few minutes. The Senior Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court is almost 2 decades younger than EII (just shy of his 77th birthday). But I do get the counter-points I'm hearing from her loyal subjects. Obviously I don't think she HAS to abdicate--I just think it'd be the right thing to do. I don't think Prince Charles is such an awful person. 

It doesn't matter if he is.  When QE2 dies the machinery of succession will kick in he will be the next sovereign.  Like his mother, he basically will keep his mouth and do what is expected of him. So his personality hardly matters.

[+ Charlie]

Periods of British history sometimes get a convenient label from the monarch associated with them, but Victoria's son Edward VII is the last one whose name defined a period, and a fairly short one at that. "Victorian" and "Edwardian" in most people's minds recall a set of contrasting social and moral attitudes that people associate with each of those personalities, often negatively. I tend to agree with @CuriousByNature that the 70 years of E2R's reign is much too complex to be encapsulated as a new "Elizabethan Era," especially by those of us who are still close to it. Perhaps in the distant future, there will be historians who find some commonality within it that cause them to identify the past 70 years as "Elizabethan."

[Rudynate]

While we are waxing sentimental about the Queen, it is worth noting that a significant minority of Britons think that they should do away with the monarchy and the UK should adopt a republican form of government.  More than 20% feel this away.   Within that 20%+ there is a vocal minority who think the Royal family are little more than parasites.

[+ WilliamM]

On 6/8/2022 at 6:44 PM, 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?

There is  no sign that the Queen's mind is "frail" 

None.

[+ WilliamM]

19 hours ago, Unicorn said:

I would definitely agree that the issue of some government officials, notably those of SCOTUS, not being reviewed for capacity at a certain age was probably something the founding fathers didn't consider when they wrote the rules, since no one lived that long in the 18th Century. That being said, I don't recall any justice serving at 96, nor any who was too frail to even speak, stand up, or even sit for more than a few minutes. The Senior Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court is almost 2 decades younger than EII (just shy of his 77th birthday). But I do get the counter-points I'm hearing from her loyal subjects. Obviously I don't think she HAS to abdicate--I just think it'd be the right thing to do. I don't think Prince Charles is such an awful person. 

Strom Thurman, former Senator from South Carolina, celebrated his 100 the birthday as a member of the Senate.

 

[wsc]

3 hours ago, Rudynate said:

While we are waxing sentimental about the Queen, it is worth noting that a significant minority of Britons think that they should do away with the monarchy and the UK should adopt a republican form of government.  More than 20% feel this away.   Within that 20%+ there is a vocal minority who think the Royal family are little more than parasites.

An anti-monarchist politician in Australia once complained that the Queen had visited the country. "I wish she wouldn't do that." he said. "Every time she comes here, she sets the movement back 10 years."

Yes, there is a portion of the population in every one of the 16 or so countries over which she reigns as queen that would rather see her and the whole monarchial structure simply go away. Perhaps they see it as divesting outdated structures and becoming more modern. But in reality, it wouldn't make any practical difference in their governance. The UK is a parliamentary democracy, with the Prime Minister chosen by the majority party and then invited by the sovereign to form a government "in my name," consistent with the style of a constitutional monarchy. It's true, technically, that the Queen could dismiss the PM and dissolve Parliament, but that would create a crisis of such scale as to likely lead to the end of the monarchy altogether. No monarch has been so stupid as to do that, except Charles I. You see a number of "monuments" to Charles throughout England, called King's Head taverns and depicting the king's head on their signage. His head was free for such work after Parliament cut it off in 1649, thus putting an exclamation point after "actions have consequences."

While the Queen is the head of state in all her realms, the head of government -in the UK, the one with a finger on the button- is the Prime Minister. And an unpopular PM, such as maybe Boris Johnson, can find himself out of a job overnight by losing a confidence vote in the House of Commons, thus sparking a search for a replacement or even occasioning the call for new national elections. There have been times I'd wished the US had a similar simplified device for removing an unsavory executive.

My point is that without the Crown, Britian would simply become a republic like France or Italy, with an elected President (a strong office in France, weak in Italy) who appoints a prime minister from the parliamentary majority. There would be no real change in governance nor uptick in liberties for the citizenry. Just the loss of a lot of tourist dollars and the spectacles of royal events, done by the Brits best in the world.

Edited June 10, 2022 by wsc

[Rudynate]

42 minutes ago, wsc said:

An anti-monarchist politician in Australia once complained that the Queen had visited the country. "I wish she wouldn't do that." he said. "Every time she comes here, she sets the movement back 10 years."

Yes, there is a portion of the population in every one of the 16 or so countries over which she reigns as queen that would rather see her and the whole monarchial structure simply go away. Perhaps they see it as divesting outdated structures and becoming more modern. But in reality, it wouldn't make any practical difference in their governance. The UK is a parliamentary democracy, with the Prime Minister chosen by the majority party and then invited by the sovereign to form a government "in my name," consistent with the style of a constitutional monarchy. It's true, technically, that the Queen could dismiss the PM and dissolve Parliament, but that would create a crisis of such scale as to likely lead to the end of the monarchy altogether. No monarch has been so stupid as to do that, except Charles I. You see a number of "monuments" to Charles throughout England, called King's Head taverns and depicting the king's head on their signage. His head was free for such work after Parliament cut it off in 1649, thus putting an exclamation point after "actions have consequences."

While the Queen is the head of state in all her realms, the head of government -in the UK, the one with a finger on the button- is the Prime Minister. And an unpopular PM, such as maybe Boris Johnson, can find himself out of a job overnight by losing a confidence vote in the House of Commons, thus sparking a search for a replacement or even occasioning the call for new national elections. There have been times I'd wished the US had a similar simplified device for removing an unsavory executive.

My point is that without the Crown, Britian would simply become a republic like France or Italy, with an elected President (a strong office in France, weak in Italy) who appoints a prime minister from the parliamentary majority. There would be no real change in governance nor uptick in liberties for the citizenry. Just the loss of a lot of tourist dollars and the spectacles of royal events, done by the Brits best in the world.

I read just this morning that the tourist dollars the Monarchy brings in is about equal to what the Monarchy costs - not a great ROI.