QE2 was superb. If we were guaranteed a head of state like her, I would not be a republlican.
Dougie Undersub
4 years ago
Of course the Monarchy is an anachronism and, if it didn’t exist, we would be unlikely to invent it. But its randomness is also it’s strength. If the Monarch turns out to be a wrong ‘un, it’s not our fault, as it would be with an elected head of state, and there will be another one along in due time. The arguments for an elected head of state founder as soon as one considers the possibilities. President Blair, President Juncker anyone? President Trump!
Warren Alexander
4 years ago
Mrs Windsor does the job she is asked to do perfectly well, but before getting rid of a monarchy that is at least some kind of guarantor of democracy, we should be focusing on the ending of the most anti-democratic anachronism in our political system: The House of Lords. With its mix of remaining hereditary peers, bishops of the Church of England, politicians appointed peers as a reward for failure, civil servants rewarded for not having totally screwed up, and wealthy party donors who fancy the idea of a title, it makes a joke of what is meant to be our democratic form of government.
It also make a mockery of what is supposed to be an aristocracy..
J Cor
4 years ago
Honestly, when we look at the kinds of grasping, naked mobsters that “the people” choose freely to govern us, the idea of having people chosen by random birth order (especially that will guarantee that in the future, 50% of them will be women) sounds f*cking peachy to me.
And if I’m supposed to care about their unearned wealth and hierarchy, I’ll first need to be convinced that Trump or Johnson ever genuinely earned a damned thing in their lives.
Howard Medwell
4 years ago
What Helen writes about the power of the monarchy is unobjectionable – anyone who opposes the monarchy should recognise this. Personally, I was most touched by the Queen’s reference to her and her sister’s “Children’s Hour” broadcast in 1940, though I wasn’t born then. However the reasons for the abolition of the monarchy become ever more apparent. The recent prorogation affair was illustrative, not because the Prime Minister’s actions were particularly outrageous, but because the monarch unhesitatingly supported an action by the executive which was widely opposed. The aristocratic, indeed plutocratic aspects of the monarchy are significant not so much in themselves, but because they site the royal family, as politically thinking individuals, within the heart of the British ruling class, including its military branches. So when they are occasionally called upon to wield power – and I can fully agree they don’t much like having to do so – it is obvious which way they will jump.
Juilan Bonmottier
4 years ago
It’s so typically British to dutifully try and justify the complete absence of any real emotional connection in any of what the Queen said. This piece clings on to some adamantine insistence that the monarchy really cares; it’s just in a particular sort of way – to defend against the unsafe knowledge that it most certainly does not, or at least does not know how to care.
As for Alistair Campbell, his response is hardly earth shaking – when the sh*t really hits the fan, the establishment always comes together, from all sides, to save itself.
If you care to experience the ‘deep emotion’ there is plenty to move you in this crisis -people dying in lonely terror and pain in makeshift intensive care units; forlorn families locked outside hospitals in states of desperate anguish -not able to care for loved ones or say goodbye; the shock, despair and worry of those who have lost livelihoods; the confusional and ambivalent anxieties of families caught up and confined by a viral crisis that has put a complete stop to their lives.
I would suggest that if this ‘deep emotion’ was being so universally felt in the establishment, and by the matriarch at the very top, then the humanitarian response might look rather different.
Those with a vested interest (journalists included) in making a pretty neglectful establishment look good (or not so bad) always channel their inner Nicholas Witchell when the Queen apears, or the anachronistic ‘blitz spirit’ analogies, along with the promise of an escape to magic castle land where a magic queen will say some magic words and make everyone feel magically better.
Before this latest speech I was generally quite neutral (or ambivalent at least) about the Queen and the RF -but at the moment I would prefer it if she offered something a little more concrete to those suffering.
Hundreds of families could be offered respite and care on her private estates for example. If she is so wedded to the war separation ideal, she could offer to take the children of the hundreds of families confined to cramped and unsuitable inner city housing for periods of respite over the Easter holidays and forthcoming Summer terms.
As for ‘We will meet again’ ??!! -I find it hard to conceive that any speech writer found it conscionable to foist on the public such an obvious, trite and crassly manipulative cliche.
robagnew
4 years ago
*some… lifelong republicans.
Please don’t generalise.
I think most of us republicans that bothered to watch any of that ridiculous, empty, nationalistic posturing just thought ‘You orrite up there in Windsor are you?’
I don’t want to hear from aristocracy about the state of the country in a crisis. They are so far removed from any type of relevant experience of every day life that any applicable meaning derived from their public appearances is entirely in our head.
To a large section of society the Monarchy are at both the apex and foundations of a class driven, capitalist system that has seen this country and the people who ACTUALLY keep it functioning (the cleaners, the supermarket workers , the care workers, the delivery personnel) kept in poverty and deprived of the standard of services the rich enjoy.
Let’s quit with the feigned romanticism of this outdated ridiculousness and grow up as a country shall we?
I suspect most of the cleaners, supermarket workers etc are very fond of the Queen, maybe even proud of her. They’re obviously deluded and don’t have the benefit of a university education and Guardian subscription, but there you go.
I was a republican in my youth, but now see that I was wrong, and I fear I will be very upset when the Queen dies – I hope it is a long way off yet.
QE2 was superb.
If we were guaranteed a head of state like her, I would not be a republlican.
Of course the Monarchy is an anachronism and, if it didn’t exist, we would be unlikely to invent it. But its randomness is also it’s strength. If the Monarch turns out to be a wrong ‘un, it’s not our fault, as it would be with an elected head of state, and there will be another one along in due time.
The arguments for an elected head of state founder as soon as one considers the possibilities. President Blair, President Juncker anyone? President Trump!
Mrs Windsor does the job she is asked to do perfectly well, but before getting rid of a monarchy that is at least some kind of guarantor of democracy, we should be focusing on the ending of the most anti-democratic anachronism in our political system: The House of Lords. With its mix of remaining hereditary peers, bishops of the Church of England, politicians appointed peers as a reward for failure, civil servants rewarded for not having totally screwed up, and wealthy party donors who fancy the idea of a title, it makes a joke of what is meant to be our democratic form of government.
It also make a mockery of what is supposed to be an aristocracy..
Honestly, when we look at the kinds of grasping, naked mobsters that “the people” choose freely to govern us, the idea of having people chosen by random birth order (especially that will guarantee that in the future, 50% of them will be women) sounds f*cking peachy to me.
And if I’m supposed to care about their unearned wealth and hierarchy, I’ll first need to be convinced that Trump or Johnson ever genuinely earned a damned thing in their lives.
What Helen writes about the power of the monarchy is unobjectionable – anyone who opposes the monarchy should recognise this. Personally, I was most touched by the Queen’s reference to her and her sister’s “Children’s Hour” broadcast in 1940, though I wasn’t born then.
However the reasons for the abolition of the monarchy become ever more apparent. The recent prorogation affair was illustrative, not because the Prime Minister’s actions were particularly outrageous, but because the monarch unhesitatingly supported an action by the executive which was widely opposed.
The aristocratic, indeed plutocratic aspects of the monarchy are significant not so much in themselves, but because they site the royal family, as politically thinking individuals, within the heart of the British ruling class, including its military branches. So when they are occasionally called upon to wield power – and I can fully agree they don’t much like having to do so – it is obvious which way they will jump.
It’s so typically British to dutifully try and justify the complete absence of any real emotional
connection in any of what the Queen said. This piece clings on to some adamantine insistence that the monarchy really cares; it’s just in a particular sort of way – to defend against the unsafe knowledge that it most certainly does not, or at least does not know how to care.
As for Alistair Campbell, his response is hardly earth shaking –
when the sh*t really hits the fan, the establishment always comes
together, from all sides, to save itself.
If you care to experience the ‘deep emotion’ there is plenty to move you in this crisis -people dying in lonely terror and pain in makeshift intensive care units; forlorn
families locked outside hospitals in states of desperate anguish -not able to care for loved ones or say goodbye; the shock, despair and worry of those who have lost livelihoods; the
confusional and ambivalent anxieties of families caught up and confined by a viral crisis that has put a complete stop to their lives.
I would suggest that if this ‘deep emotion’ was being so universally felt in the establishment, and by the matriarch at the very top, then the humanitarian response might look rather different.
Those with a vested interest (journalists included) in making a pretty neglectful establishment look good (or not so bad) always channel their inner Nicholas Witchell when the Queen apears, or the anachronistic ‘blitz spirit’ analogies, along with the promise of an escape to magic castle land where a magic queen will say some magic words and make everyone feel magically better.
Before this latest speech I was generally quite neutral (or ambivalent at least) about the
Queen and the RF -but at the moment I would prefer it if she offered
something a little more concrete to those suffering.
Hundreds of families could be offered respite and care on her private estates for example. If she is so wedded to the war separation ideal, she could offer to take the children
of the hundreds of families confined to cramped and unsuitable inner
city housing for periods of respite over the Easter holidays and forthcoming Summer terms.
As for ‘We will meet again’ ??!! -I find it hard to conceive that any
speech writer found it conscionable to foist on the
public such an obvious, trite and crassly manipulative cliche.
*some… lifelong republicans.
Please don’t generalise.
I think most of us republicans that bothered to watch any of that ridiculous, empty, nationalistic posturing just thought ‘You orrite up there in Windsor are you?’
I don’t want to hear from aristocracy about the state of the country in a crisis. They are so far removed from any type of relevant experience of every day life that any applicable meaning derived from their public appearances is entirely in our head.
To a large section of society the Monarchy are at both the apex and foundations of a class driven, capitalist system that has seen this country and the people who ACTUALLY keep it functioning (the cleaners, the supermarket workers , the care workers, the delivery personnel) kept in poverty and deprived of the standard of services the rich enjoy.
Let’s quit with the feigned romanticism of this outdated ridiculousness and grow up as a country shall we?
It’s always good to hear the views of the Lower Sixth Form.
Oh dear dear Robert have you taken a bitter pill?
I suspect most of the cleaners, supermarket workers etc are very fond of the Queen, maybe even proud of her. They’re obviously deluded and don’t have the benefit of a university education and Guardian subscription, but there you go.
I was a republican in my youth, but now see that I was wrong, and I fear I will be very upset when the Queen dies – I hope it is a long way off yet.