I live in Italy, here the TV news are reporting non stop what is happening in London, people are mourning the passing away of a great person and monarch. The British people do not realize how much soft power Britain still has in the world. Much of it is thanks to Elizabeth Windsor’s dedication to her duty.
Mark Vernon
1 year ago
“Almost transcendent” feels like the telling phrase to me, if the “almost” signifies the uncertainty about whether there’s more to being human than politics, culture, shared past, hopes for the future.
My guess is the Queen felt that transcendence more clearly than anything else. There’s good evidence Charles does too. If he can make enough of us conscious of it – in his gestures, feeling, dignity, turns of phrase – the monarchy will be wanted, along with the sense that unity is deeper than inevitable divisions. The early signs are hopeful, I’d say.
Malcolm Webb
1 year ago
The Queen presents a shining example of a very fine woman who understood the overriding importance of taking a proper responsibility for her own actions and towards the needs of those for whom she had a duty of care. In her own unique case that second duty extended to all the citizens of her realm.
I do not think The Queen would have had much truck with the confused and somewhat trivial sentimentality of this article, nor its sense of fear and trepidation for the future.
I believe The Queen well understood the limits of her own influence and the inability of any individual to determine matters outside their control. However, it seems apparent to me that The Queen also fully understood the vital importance of taking individual responsibility for the proper conduct of her own affairs and for setting the best example she could towards those for whom she had responsibilities – and in that I think we all can usefully learn a great deal from the life of the truly wonderful Queen Elizabeth.
“I do not think The Queen would have had much truck with the confused and somewhat trivial sentimentality of this article,”
No, the Queen wouldn’t have read it. I thought it was a good article, and as Helen wrote “The Queen in part succeeded because deep in her character ran an unwillingness to perform angst against some abstract standard of the way things are supposed to be”.
I think the observation that “She had to become through service the Queen she became” is something to ponder.
The word ‘King’ is taking a little time to get used to – I suspect we’ve become so hyper-aware of language these days that just to hear the word ‘King’ brings resonances of roaring masculine imperialism. Impossible to measure, but there must have been an effect on British society of having such long recent periods – Queens Victoria and Elizabeth – of having a woman at the top of the status hierarchy. Apart from several forgettable men, it was female for a long time. When I was growing up the most prominent members of the royal family were the Queen, the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret – hardly a man in sight. Will there be a lot of people who are going to be ‘triggered’ by having a man at the top and hearing the word King so much?
I agree and I think that this was because she was happy to be a servant to her people. I wish more politicians today were willing to serve; the word ‘minister’ means servant!
Humility is a rare gift.
Andy O'Gorman
1 year ago
As a woman if integrity, she did not opt for the crown to her grandson, and I truly hope Charles is up to the task of continuing his mothers unique diplomacy.
He also need to keep his opinions to himself and then pass on the crown to William.
Queen Elizabeth was truly a remarkable woman – who could have done that job for a week, let alone 70 year!
I disagree with you. Charles has shown himself to be a thoroughly decent person. He may take a more active role as Head of State (within the constraints of our unwritten constitution) but, to my mind, whatever action he chooses to take would always be morally justified and to our benefit. As head of the Commonwealth, he has an influence in the world which should not be under-estimated…
Cantab Man
1 year ago
Over the span of a vast lifetime, the Queen played by and stayed true to the rules of a very ancient game. Very different from the ‘shift-to-applause’ world of doing anything and betraying any value for a mere moment of fame bestowed by the mob.
The Queen’s approach had its ups and downs: Holding true to service, duty, honor, steadfastness and loyalty whatever-may-come has its share of proclaimed and heaped-upon villainy about not getting with the times, whatever the rage happens to be in any given year.
Like the British warships of yore, her hull was battered year over year by the sea-waves of fad, fecklessness and fickleness, and yet she held fast for the safety and security of the British, the Commonwealth and many others in the world who traveled with her upon her decks. Dependable and resolute for her passengers even while they were looking out with apprehension within the eye of many great storms.
Such individuals rarely receive lasting praise while they live. Such virtues as duty, honor, steadfastness and loyalty are dearly purchased with the currency of decades of proven service, and these virtues can only be redeemed to their fullest when the departing can say upon their deathbed, in full honesty, transparency and glory before God:
“I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.”
And the world who has benefitted from her lifetime of service can testify as witnesses to this solemn endgame for the Queen.
God save the Queen.
Last edited 1 year ago by Cantab Man
Philip Crook
1 year ago
We hold the Queen up as an example to us all but there are many, many others who devote their lives to duty in similar ways. Did she lead them or would they do it anyway? I swore a loyal oath to her and her heirs and successors but I did my duty much more for my soldiers and colleagues with barely a thought for the Queen. Ultimately though she was at the head of it all and led us well
Tony Price
1 year ago
I am neither a republican nor a monarchist, and no-one would set up a system like this now, but it seems to do the job. A Head of State is basically a ceremonial position and stop of last resort, and we are lucky enough to have had sensible people doing it for the last couple of centuries (barring an Edward or two), with the next one in line also probably OK. The Prime Minister is the boss here, rather unfortunately though that may have been for the last few, and the Monarch is a symbol of continuity and a massive boost to our world-wide soft power (and tourist business) which is declining rapidly enough as it is. I don’t care about the money, which is a mere bagatelle compared to current government wastage, as long as it is spent mostly in the UK and on employing people, and is recognised as essentially belonging to the people and not the person on the throne. It does need slimming down though (fewer parasites there doing little for their privileged life) although I understand that Charles is on that. I rather like him anyway as someone who doesn’t always toe the line!
Anthony Reader-Moore
1 year ago
A brilliant and moving analysis.
LCarey Rowland
1 year ago
‘T’is not often, in history, that humility is found in a reigning monarch. But Elizabeth’s humility shone forth in her official functions.
The woman knew her place: demonstrating–even from her precipice of power– humility and grace in every act she publicly performed.
Even mean Mr. Mustard would venture out to catch a glimpse of her. Would that he now finds respect enough for Charles. . . to hazard, every now and then, a public show of support for the one man who is appointed by faith, destiny and a withering empire, to somehow display that mantle of humility.
And yet, we can discern that King Charles does definitely have a plan–a set of cherished values–for transitioning Britain and the world into a community that accepts, humbly but wisely, responsibility for–as Moses wrote– our “subduing” the earth. That’s a phrase which is, as we speak, being re-defined in a new world.This global community is now struggling to repent of its rapacity, and take appropriate responsibility for our impact on the natural world.
Per chance, per Providence, Charles will succeed in his quest to become a responsible–not merely royal–citizen of this troubled world. Perhaps he will get by, in this prospect, with a little help from his friends. Perhaps he will ascend to handling, responsibly, the mantle and the sceptre of inspiring world citizens to take proper care of a world on which the sun never sets.
God save the King!
John 0
1 year ago
Maybe the Queen was the symbol of a previous era in government and politics, where leaders viewed the position as a duty and made sacrifices to do it right. George Washington on the other side of the pond was similar. Now most government is opportunism and dishonesty on a new global scale.
jason whittle
1 year ago
My daughter tells me the students are celebrating. Too little history at school I am afraid. We hear so much of terrible, brutal, and obnoxious kings and queens. Democracy has a free pass despite producing even more hipeless leaders. We all remember Henry VIII but what about his father who did so much for Britain? A great soveriegn passes quietly and only few will understand how she was a nation’s backbone; perhaps a few more when they find their descendants wanting…
King Charles limply repeated his mother’s vow of service. When she said it our hair stood up on end. This time it felt contrived and soon forgotten.
Your daughters friends sound rather odd, unless they’re doing it as a form of youthful rebellion. The only other people I’ve come across celebrating her death are some exhibitionist Americans seeking clicks, a crazy Scottish chip shop owner, and the fans of the Dublin football club Shamrock Rovers – who have confirmed yet again that Irish nationalists are quite awful people.
I was in the college cafeteria when the news came down that Ronald Reagan had been shot. There were quite a few students almost cheering and saying things like I hope he shot straight. I couldn’t take it after fine minutes or so and I stood up and said, “Look, Reagan wasn’t the president I voted for either, but he is our President and, more than that, he is a human being that was just shot. What is going through your heads?” There were a lot of shame-filled faces, but if I hadn’t spoken up it wouldn’t have stopped and they would have thought nothing of proceeding to feel happiness over the near (as it turned out) death of a person who was trying to be good according to his standards of good (even if I didn’t agree with him on many issues).
Whether a President or a Queen, somehow leaders become nothing but a symbol, no longer human beings. The young haven’t lived long enough to see the realities of life and death, to have it sink in how precarious life can be, to realize that we are all equally human beings, even those who we have deemed to be nothing but a place filler.
Jason: “My daughter tells me the students are celebrating” I guess the best we can say of them is that they’re young, foolish and misinformed. Perhaps they should listen to this thoughtful talk – Jordan Peterson explores the perils of fame, the weight and grandeur of the monarchical system, the legacy of its longest-reigning Queen, the past and future of Britain and the great loss so many have to bear. A truly great discussion: 14 minutes, https://youtu.be/_5os9bT9zuo
“Students are celebrating”. Strangely, there was an exchange under an article on the Telegraph in which a number of people mentioned their surprise at how upset their children, from teens to considerably older, were at The Queen’s passing. Then again some comments have been vile.
I disagree about The King’s message yesterday. I found it reassuring myself and most certainly not limp, but my husband, now deeply cynical about the political class and royalty (other than respect and love for The Queen and her service) expressed himself surprised and impressed by its sincerity. As did many, many posters under the Telegraph item discussing it.
Each to his own of course. After the last several years of deeply disappointing government one would be foolish to have particularly high expectations, but I feel rather better about the future than I have for some months. We’ll see.
Last edited 1 year ago by Susan Lundie
Andy White
1 year ago
The 56 years of hurt ended this Summer with the England women’s team winning the European Championship. How did HT miss that outpouring of national elation?
Bit strange anyway that she chooses such a specifically English achievement as the World Cup win to support an otherwise pro-Union case. It’s a heartfelt and affectionate piece, but it doesn’t add up.
dj Stach
1 year ago
Judging from the article, one has the impression that it is not the Queen, who always served as a stand in for the “Britain is Best” meme”, who is being mourned but that with her passing the desolute situation of the nation as a US satrap can no longer be hidden.
Maureen Finucane
1 year ago
Most of these authors write as if they are personal friends of The Queen. Considering the personal inherited wealth of the Royal Family who have done nothing to merit it, the least you can expect is that they carry out their boring engagements without complaint.
Javier Quinones
1 year ago
Look up In Defense of Not Mourning Queen Elizabeth at Reason magazine.
I live in Italy, here the TV news are reporting non stop what is happening in London, people are mourning the passing away of a great person and monarch. The British people do not realize how much soft power Britain still has in the world. Much of it is thanks to Elizabeth Windsor’s dedication to her duty.
“Almost transcendent” feels like the telling phrase to me, if the “almost” signifies the uncertainty about whether there’s more to being human than politics, culture, shared past, hopes for the future.
My guess is the Queen felt that transcendence more clearly than anything else. There’s good evidence Charles does too. If he can make enough of us conscious of it – in his gestures, feeling, dignity, turns of phrase – the monarchy will be wanted, along with the sense that unity is deeper than inevitable divisions. The early signs are hopeful, I’d say.
The Queen presents a shining example of a very fine woman who understood the overriding importance of taking a proper responsibility for her own actions and towards the needs of those for whom she had a duty of care. In her own unique case that second duty extended to all the citizens of her realm.
I do not think The Queen would have had much truck with the confused and somewhat trivial sentimentality of this article, nor its sense of fear and trepidation for the future.
I believe The Queen well understood the limits of her own influence and the inability of any individual to determine matters outside their control. However, it seems apparent to me that The Queen also fully understood the vital importance of taking individual responsibility for the proper conduct of her own affairs and for setting the best example she could towards those for whom she had responsibilities – and in that I think we all can usefully learn a great deal from the life of the truly wonderful Queen Elizabeth.
“I do not think The Queen would have had much truck with the confused and somewhat trivial sentimentality of this article,”
No, the Queen wouldn’t have read it. I thought it was a good article, and as Helen wrote “The Queen in part succeeded because deep in her character ran an unwillingness to perform angst against some abstract standard of the way things are supposed to be”.
I think the observation that “She had to become through service the Queen she became” is something to ponder.
The word ‘King’ is taking a little time to get used to – I suspect we’ve become so hyper-aware of language these days that just to hear the word ‘King’ brings resonances of roaring masculine imperialism. Impossible to measure, but there must have been an effect on British society of having such long recent periods – Queens Victoria and Elizabeth – of having a woman at the top of the status hierarchy. Apart from several forgettable men, it was female for a long time. When I was growing up the most prominent members of the royal family were the Queen, the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret – hardly a man in sight. Will there be a lot of people who are going to be ‘triggered’ by having a man at the top and hearing the word King so much?
I agree and I think that this was because she was happy to be a servant to her people. I wish more politicians today were willing to serve; the word ‘minister’ means servant!
Humility is a rare gift.
As a woman if integrity, she did not opt for the crown to her grandson, and I truly hope Charles is up to the task of continuing his mothers unique diplomacy.
He also need to keep his opinions to himself and then pass on the crown to William.
Queen Elizabeth was truly a remarkable woman – who could have done that job for a week, let alone 70 year!
I disagree with you. Charles has shown himself to be a thoroughly decent person. He may take a more active role as Head of State (within the constraints of our unwritten constitution) but, to my mind, whatever action he chooses to take would always be morally justified and to our benefit. As head of the Commonwealth, he has an influence in the world which should not be under-estimated…
Over the span of a vast lifetime, the Queen played by and stayed true to the rules of a very ancient game. Very different from the ‘shift-to-applause’ world of doing anything and betraying any value for a mere moment of fame bestowed by the mob.
The Queen’s approach had its ups and downs: Holding true to service, duty, honor, steadfastness and loyalty whatever-may-come has its share of proclaimed and heaped-upon villainy about not getting with the times, whatever the rage happens to be in any given year.
Like the British warships of yore, her hull was battered year over year by the sea-waves of fad, fecklessness and fickleness, and yet she held fast for the safety and security of the British, the Commonwealth and many others in the world who traveled with her upon her decks. Dependable and resolute for her passengers even while they were looking out with apprehension within the eye of many great storms.
Such individuals rarely receive lasting praise while they live. Such virtues as duty, honor, steadfastness and loyalty are dearly purchased with the currency of decades of proven service, and these virtues can only be redeemed to their fullest when the departing can say upon their deathbed, in full honesty, transparency and glory before God:
“I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.”
And the world who has benefitted from her lifetime of service can testify as witnesses to this solemn endgame for the Queen.
God save the Queen.
We hold the Queen up as an example to us all but there are many, many others who devote their lives to duty in similar ways. Did she lead them or would they do it anyway? I swore a loyal oath to her and her heirs and successors but I did my duty much more for my soldiers and colleagues with barely a thought for the Queen. Ultimately though she was at the head of it all and led us well
I am neither a republican nor a monarchist, and no-one would set up a system like this now, but it seems to do the job. A Head of State is basically a ceremonial position and stop of last resort, and we are lucky enough to have had sensible people doing it for the last couple of centuries (barring an Edward or two), with the next one in line also probably OK. The Prime Minister is the boss here, rather unfortunately though that may have been for the last few, and the Monarch is a symbol of continuity and a massive boost to our world-wide soft power (and tourist business) which is declining rapidly enough as it is. I don’t care about the money, which is a mere bagatelle compared to current government wastage, as long as it is spent mostly in the UK and on employing people, and is recognised as essentially belonging to the people and not the person on the throne. It does need slimming down though (fewer parasites there doing little for their privileged life) although I understand that Charles is on that. I rather like him anyway as someone who doesn’t always toe the line!
A brilliant and moving analysis.
‘T’is not often, in history, that humility is found in a reigning monarch. But Elizabeth’s humility shone forth in her official functions.
The woman knew her place: demonstrating–even from her precipice of power– humility and grace in every act she publicly performed.
Even mean Mr. Mustard would venture out to catch a glimpse of her. Would that he now finds respect enough for Charles. . . to hazard, every now and then, a public show of support for the one man who is appointed by faith, destiny and a withering empire, to somehow display that mantle of humility.
And yet, we can discern that King Charles does definitely have a plan–a set of cherished values–for transitioning Britain and the world into a community that accepts, humbly but wisely, responsibility for–as Moses wrote– our “subduing” the earth. That’s a phrase which is, as we speak, being re-defined in a new world.This global community is now struggling to repent of its rapacity, and take appropriate responsibility for our impact on the natural world.
Per chance, per Providence, Charles will succeed in his quest to become a responsible–not merely royal–citizen of this troubled world. Perhaps he will get by, in this prospect, with a little help from his friends. Perhaps he will ascend to handling, responsibly, the mantle and the sceptre of inspiring world citizens to take proper care of a world on which the sun never sets.
God save the King!
Maybe the Queen was the symbol of a previous era in government and politics, where leaders viewed the position as a duty and made sacrifices to do it right. George Washington on the other side of the pond was similar. Now most government is opportunism and dishonesty on a new global scale.
My daughter tells me the students are celebrating. Too little history at school I am afraid. We hear so much of terrible, brutal, and obnoxious kings and queens. Democracy has a free pass despite producing even more hipeless leaders. We all remember Henry VIII but what about his father who did so much for Britain? A great soveriegn passes quietly and only few will understand how she was a nation’s backbone; perhaps a few more when they find their descendants wanting…
King Charles limply repeated his mother’s vow of service. When she said it our hair stood up on end. This time it felt contrived and soon forgotten.
Your daughters friends sound rather odd, unless they’re doing it as a form of youthful rebellion. The only other people I’ve come across celebrating her death are some exhibitionist Americans seeking clicks, a crazy Scottish chip shop owner, and the fans of the Dublin football club Shamrock Rovers – who have confirmed yet again that Irish nationalists are quite awful people.
I was in the college cafeteria when the news came down that Ronald Reagan had been shot. There were quite a few students almost cheering and saying things like I hope he shot straight. I couldn’t take it after fine minutes or so and I stood up and said, “Look, Reagan wasn’t the president I voted for either, but he is our President and, more than that, he is a human being that was just shot. What is going through your heads?” There were a lot of shame-filled faces, but if I hadn’t spoken up it wouldn’t have stopped and they would have thought nothing of proceeding to feel happiness over the near (as it turned out) death of a person who was trying to be good according to his standards of good (even if I didn’t agree with him on many issues).
Whether a President or a Queen, somehow leaders become nothing but a symbol, no longer human beings. The young haven’t lived long enough to see the realities of life and death, to have it sink in how precarious life can be, to realize that we are all equally human beings, even those who we have deemed to be nothing but a place filler.
Jason: “My daughter tells me the students are celebrating”
I guess the best we can say of them is that they’re young, foolish and misinformed. Perhaps they should listen to this thoughtful talk – Jordan Peterson explores the perils of fame, the weight and grandeur of the monarchical system, the legacy of its longest-reigning Queen, the past and future of Britain and the great loss so many have to bear. A truly great discussion: 14 minutes, https://youtu.be/_5os9bT9zuo
“Students are celebrating”. Strangely, there was an exchange under an article on the Telegraph in which a number of people mentioned their surprise at how upset their children, from teens to considerably older, were at The Queen’s passing. Then again some comments have been vile.
I disagree about The King’s message yesterday. I found it reassuring myself and most certainly not limp, but my husband, now deeply cynical about the political class and royalty (other than respect and love for The Queen and her service) expressed himself surprised and impressed by its sincerity. As did many, many posters under the Telegraph item discussing it.
Each to his own of course. After the last several years of deeply disappointing government one would be foolish to have particularly high expectations, but I feel rather better about the future than I have for some months. We’ll see.
The 56 years of hurt ended this Summer with the England women’s team winning the European Championship. How did HT miss that outpouring of national elation?
Bit strange anyway that she chooses such a specifically English achievement as the World Cup win to support an otherwise pro-Union case. It’s a heartfelt and affectionate piece, but it doesn’t add up.
Judging from the article, one has the impression that it is not the Queen, who always served as a stand in for the “Britain is Best” meme”, who is being mourned but that with her passing the desolute situation of the nation as a US satrap can no longer be hidden.
Most of these authors write as if they are personal friends of The Queen. Considering the personal inherited wealth of the Royal Family who have done nothing to merit it, the least you can expect is that they carry out their boring engagements without complaint.
Look up In Defense of Not Mourning Queen Elizabeth at Reason magazine.
Nobody said that you have to mourn her passing, however you respecting her live endeavors would not go amiss!
Not sure what he meant, but the article is actually not bad.