R Soul on 9/9/2022 at 23:50
Quote Posted by SD
I don't think there should be a monarchy (although given our recent record as a country, I'm a little petrified of what could replace it)
A constitutional monarchy is a great way to separate power and status. It does depend on the people involved having competence and integrity, but that's the same in a republic.
As for what could replace it, a journalist once observed that during his trip to the U.S, during the reign of King Bush II, there were some places where being critical of this elected King was dangerous, probably because it was seen as being critical of the country in general. Here on the other hand, we can be extremely harsh about our Prime Minister and even the most staunch defender would be hard pressed to feel it was unpatriotic because our highest politician is not the head of state.
mxleader on 10/9/2022 at 00:40
Quote Posted by Cipheron
2. Argentina attacked British territory. Britain had a choice: do you defend places where British citizens live, or not do that? That's not much of a choice, you defend the citizens.
The Falklands war was a unique situation for Thatcher. Having been held by the British for a very long time meant that Thatcher had to defend the Falklands. Also, She couldn't let the capture of British Royal Marines go unpunished, which I fully commend her for. I don't think QEII could have stopped Thatcher even if she wanted to, which I don't think she did.
Starker on 10/9/2022 at 00:50
Here, we elect both a prime minister in charge of the government as well as a president, who largely has a ceremonial role and is basically the number one diplomat of our country. You know what neither of those roles is? Hereditary. They still get get paid extraordinarily well and enjoy a number of privileges for their service, but not like, 20 cooks catering to their whims amount of privileges. But we also don't expect them to walk a tightrope or obsessively comb over every tiny aspect of their lives. Except if they are women, of course. Then they seem to get some extra scrutiny for the way they dress and talk.
mxleader on 10/9/2022 at 01:20
It seems pretty common that women in positions of power are criticized more heavily than men are. In time that may change but I have my doubts.
I may be biased in regards to Thatchers authorization for the sinking of the ARA Belgrano being a former US sailor. It was an act of war and many Argentine sailors died but there is a strange, and maybe unhealthy, jealousy because most sailors want to be on board a fighting ship or submarine that scores a kill. The older me thinks this is ludicrous and callous but the younger me did not. But this is about QEII and not Thatcher although they are very much intertwined whether they wanted to be or not.
demagogue on 10/9/2022 at 01:56
Well ... RIP.
If I could try to sum her up, I think she did as best to do right through her role as a human with her background and ability could do. But she was also in a role within which I think a person could never win whatever they did.
I don't know if just throwing off or disowning the role like her uncle would have been better. Psychologically it's hard to imagine her being able to do it even if there were a case. But the link of the role to pretty grave imperial sins also runs pretty deep, I mean even just as the figurehead or symbol of the empire, even when there isn't an empire anymore, which one knows full well about going into the position. Her role over the commonwealth, trying to keep it together and thriving, was apparently her one passion project in the early days, at least according to The Crown, the one thing where she wasn't just a cardboard cutout, and that in particular put her right in the middle of an impossible moral demand, trying to salvage that one last sliver of the "good side" of imperialism.
Other things like, e.g., the drama with Diana & Andrew ... I particularly empathize with the fact that those were also pretty impossible situations to deal with on a human level. You can never win with a person with BPD, and who can easily face the devastating reality that their favorite son is an abusive pedophile? Margaret, Phillip... I don't really know enough, except to say, to her credit, her main feature was keeping her mouth shut and her emotions hidden and keeping the whole ship on track to weather the storm, which is probably the best you could expect a leader to do when the ship is being tossed about. Harry & Megan ... I'm not sure how much was her vs. the Firm.
All in all, if historical inertia demanded that some human was going to have to perform that role through the vagaries of history through which she ruled, I mean she did better than you could expect any normal human could do... That's no blue ribbon if half of "the impossible role" was she couldn't win no matter what. We can't very well come back and say she wins after all. But it's hard to say she loses if it's hard to say who could have done it any better and how.
It just is what it is. Or was.
mopgoblin on 10/9/2022 at 10:51
Quote Posted by SD
He was an environmentalist before it was trendy, but in his first speech as king today he's as good as said that he's now going to have to shut up about stuff like that.
I think a lot of people don't understand just how shackled they are. Even the Queen's Speech (which will now be the King's Speech) that opens Parliament is written by the government, and she just reads it.
The issues aren't just with the non-intervention; they chose to remain monarch during the various British atrocities, implicitly condoning those atrocities. Not only should they have refused to perform their ceremonial duties in those cases, they should have abdicated - if Parliament refuses to accept the abdication then they really have no one to blame for the resulting constitutional crisis but themselves.
Hell, Charlie could always make a public statement in the near future saying it's time to start working on constitutional reform to dissolve the monarchy (and to return all the loot). It doesn't have to take effect tomorrow, so long as it gets done, and then he can do his advocacy as a private citizen.
demagogue on 10/9/2022 at 11:17
If they voted for Brexit, what are the chances they'd vote to end the monarchy of all things?
They may as well vote against red telephone boxes, doubledecker buses, and cold soggy quiche and baked beans as the emblem of good cuisine.
Aged Raver on 10/9/2022 at 12:03
Bit late to be waking up now.
It’s my heritage and in some respects it almost feels as though a family member has died. Like any family that argues amongst itself, when an outsider verbally attacks, you bristle and defend. Years ago my boss and I were entertaining 2 guys from a huge international household-name company from abroad. We took them to lunch and they started joking about the Royal Family. The same discussion by Brits would have been normal but from guests it felt very disrespectful and as the junior of the four I had to restrain myself from stuffing the meals down their expensive throats.
Trying to get a perspective on the last 70 years along with thousands of others I may not have been a paid-up Monarchist or Royalist (I regularly avoided the pomp and ceremony) but in so many ways I reckon, if nothing else, I was an Elizabethan. And if asked to choose sides, without question I know which way I’d go.
It’s strange to have the forum talk about us as they.
No matter.
PigLick on 10/9/2022 at 12:12
Its a conditioned response, all this time you have been set up mentally and empathically to believe the monarchy is there to provide stability and a regular pattern of behaviour. Its all a facade of course, but i nice one, who could argue with it
heywood on 10/9/2022 at 17:13
Quote Posted by SD
Actually, no, not really. She's not allowed to get involved in politics. We had a civil war some time ago to establish that principle. There would be a constitutional crisis if the monarch began expressing their opinions on government policies and wars and the like.
Behind the scenes she can tell the Prime Minister what she thinks, although their conversations are private and the discussions undisclosed. That's about it though. There's nothing meaningful a queen can do to dictate what their government does. They're a symbolic figurehead. The monarch serves the people rather than the other way round.
(
https://www.businessinsider.com/things-queen-elizabeth-ii-has-the-power-to-do-2018-6)
(
https://hipporeads.com/five-surprising-powers-british-monarchs-still-retain/)
You might have a false sense of security after 70 years of living under the most principled and benevolent monarch the kingdom has ever seen.