Elizabeth II: Success or Failure?

Started by Russophile, July 28, 2017, 02:21:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Russophile

Elizabeth II came to power at a time when the British Empire was still largely intact. What are your opinions on her effectiveness as a monarch regarding ensuring the best interests of her people? After all as the monarch of the British peoples, she is the embodiment of her people, and should work to ensure their best interests.

Personally I see Elizabeth II as a failure, who watched as her Empire crumbled. I will never understand a monarch who puts their own dynasty in jeopardy by embracing cross-cultural mass immigration, which only furthers to dis-empower her own people while jeopardizing the future position of her family.

I keep thinking of her visit to those injured girls after the Arianna Grande concert attack, and can't help but wonder if she understands that she was meeting victims of her own multicultural ideology.

I find Elizabeth II an enigma who we actually know very little about regarding her personal opinions on political subjects that matter. My opinion is Elizabeth II could have done more to promote solidarity between her dominions of Canada, Australia and  New Zealand- even forming them into a union of sorts as a counter to the US-Russia power balance. I'm also disappointed at how she has focused so much on Canada, while squandering the opportunity to make Australia a regional power in Asia- instead this position has been inherited by China. And one only needs to look at the rude way the Chinese carried on during their state visit to Buckingham Palace to see the future does not bode bright for Briton, or her former dominions.

Elizabeth II, in my opinion, will be remembered as the monarch who lost the Empire, and watched as her own people became a dis-empowered  minority in their own societies and in the international community. It simply boggles the mind the disparity between the position of the British as a strong world power at the time of her accession, to the shadow of former greatness they are now.

Double post auto-merged: July 28, 2017, 02:54:17 AM


Also I would be interested in hear your opinions on the way Elizabeth II watched as Canada's Prime Minister Trudeau took it upon himself to make French the language an official language on Canada, giving it equal status with English! As the monarch of this nation she should have put her foot down and had his government removed and the law amended to ensure English stayed as the only official language. Cultural homogeneity is the bedrock of a stable nation.

Curryong

#1
Hi Russophile I don't know whether you know what the role of a monarch is in a constitutional monarchy, but actually Elizabeth's role is very very limited, as the role of monarchs have been successively weakened since the reign of Queen Victoria.

If King George V could not even prevent certain powers being taken from the House of Lords in a constitutional crisis in May 1910 Elizabeth II sure as hell would not have been able to 'stop' cross-cultural mass migration into Great Britain. (I'll forbear to ask by the way exactly what you mean by that statement.)

There have been successive waves of mass migrations across Britain since the Roman conquest by Julius Caesar. Romans, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans, not to mention in more recent times Huguenots then Russian and Polish refugees from the Tsar's pograms who flooded the East End of London towards the end of the 19th century.

The Queen has to sign government legislation into law. Yes, she has a duty to encourage and to warn and to be consulted, and that is virtually it, apart from a few residuary powers, which have not been used for centuries. It has been famously said that if her government decided to abolish the monarchy she would have to include that in her speech at the opening of Parliament. (She would of course fight tooth and nail behind the scenes to change the government's mind.)

What you have pointed to in migration is a result of dislocation and war in the Middle East, also as a result of Britain being in the EU and that legislation over-riding British law, ie European citizens being allowed to come into Britain.

The Queen neither formulates policy in the fashion you are suggesting nor does she have anything to do with its enactment in the Parliamentary process. She merely signs it into law. Even King George III in the 18th century would have hesitated to do what you are suggesting, and in those days things were a lot more fluid politically than they are now.

As for the Queen being able to wave a magic wand and create international power blocks in the way you are suggesting is the stuff of fantasy. She is Head of the Commonwealth, in a conciliatory and mediatory capacity, not dictator of the Commonwealth.

Australia, New Zealand and Canada are sovereign nations, in which the Queen plays no part. Governors General are her representatives but they have little power. They swear in governments and can act in a constitutional crisis in bringing two sides together, but that's all.

The Queen didn't 'lose' the Empire. The jewel in the Crown, India, got its independence years before her reign. In the 1950's and 60's there was no more political will by successive UK governments  to hold on to Empire. It just couldn't be done and so, in an orderly fashion for the most part, ex colonies gained their independence and mostly stayed in the Commonwealth. If they'd been 'lost' then they wouldn't have bothered.

As an Aussie I can tell you that my country, which is a medium size regional power, would absolutely loathe being set up as a power block against huge powers like Russia and China. We just simply do not have the international muscle or wealth to do it and that goes for all three countries actually.  We in Aus trade with China/Asia and have the Anzus alliance at our backs in case we're threatened and that's enough for us.

royalanthropologist

My criticism of EII is her passivity. Being a constitutional monarch does not mean being passive. We have many constitutional monarchies in Europe with even less power but one cannot accuse them of being passive. EII is an incredibly passive person, even where matters concerning her family are taking place. She just waits to follow protocol. Maybe some people like that...I don't. I prefer a monarch who is passionate and interested in people.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Curryong

I don't believe the Queen has been passive in either of her roles. The article below though shows she certainly hasn't been a passive Head of the Commonwealth. And the Commonwealth has been largely her creation.

Only the Queen understands the true value of the Commonwealth - Telegraph

amabel

Quote from: royalanthropologist on July 28, 2017, 07:16:33 AM
My criticism of EII is her passivity. Being a constitutional monarch does not mean being passive. We have many constitutional monarchies in Europe with even less power but one cannot accuse them of being passive. EII is an incredibly passive person, even where matters concerning her family are taking place. She just waits to follow protocol. Maybe some people like that...I don't. I prefer a monarch who is passionate and interested in people.
that's absolute nonsense.  A constiutinoal monarch does what her govt wishes.  She or he has no electoral mandate to do anything.

royalanthropologist

#5
No it is not "absolute nonsense" @amabel. Being a constitutional monarch does not mean passivity. It has never been taken to imply that you turn up look nice and eat great dinners. That is just a republican fantasy as a precursor to raising the question: what does the monarchy do? EII' predecessors were never passive. Even her father was very active in the war effort and boosting morale in a battered nation (together with his wife).

Besides in the UK "an electoral mandate" is not always necessary to get involved in issues and even public administration. The House of Lords and the Privy Council is a clear example that you do not have to be voted in by any majority to get involved in state affairs. That is a complete misreading of the unwritten constitution of this nation.

The Monarchs of Spain, Denmark, Norway and Sweden for example are not passive monarchs. They talk about the things that affect their people without breaking any constitutional conventions. The queen of Denmark has spoken about the need to integrate into Danish society, issues that have been spoken about by the kings of Sweden and Norway. The King of Spain has spoken about Gibraltar. QEII just looks on and signs whatever is presented to her (at least that is what it seems to me).

Even with the commonwealth the queen has been amazingly passive. Turn out for fancy dinners, dress nice and make small talk. Meanwhile many commonwealth countries have HDI (Human Development Indices) that are shocking. That inevitably leads to economic migration. Meanwhile the queen wears a tiara and has a dinner. That is what I mean by passivity.

Queen Victoria was the reals start of a real constitutional monarchy but even in her widowhood she lent an identity to an empire. EII has overseen the decline of the nation in virtually every aspect. I do not blame her for the disastrous government policy because she does make them. I simply feel that she is detached from the problems of her people.

No I do not expect her to be a brilliant politician like Elizabeth I or to be a tyrant like Henry VIII. Neither do I expect her to be impervious to constitutional restraints like Charles I. However, I would expect her to be a passionate and concerned monarch like her current contemporaries in other European monarchies.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

Curryong

Elizabeth 'wears a tiara and eats a dinner', with regard to the Commonwealth? Did you read the article I provided a link to in which some of the Queen's interventions at Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings were described?

Queen Elizabeth has been admired and praised by her fellow monarchs and by the politicians who have been PMs and Ministers in her reign. Even Tony Blair, no monarchist, admired her.

I suppose what you admire is someone like the POW, who wears his heart on his sleeve with regard to various causes. We are yet to see whether that sort of a monarch fits well into the British political system. He may well be told, politely but firmly, that as an unelected figurehead he should just butt out, and in fact in an era of much less deferential politicians I can clearly see that happening.

Elizabeth is not passive. According to political memoirs of various PMs and ministers they have seen very clearly where she is coming from on various issues. However, as Elizabeth is discreet, all conversations are kept private.

What is more, King George VI had a terrible war and mass bombing to bring his character to the fore in the nation's heart. If he hadn't then it's probable that his reign would have been virtually unremarked except for its coming into being as a result of the Abdication crisis.

royalanthropologist

Yes I actually do prefer someone like the POW @Curryong . Had Charles adopted the model of his mother, there would be no Princes Trust and the Duchy of Cornwall would still be making losses (it was making losses of about $6 million a year and is now making profits of about $30 million). The organic living movement, alternative therapy and even some historical properties would have struggled to find funding. Republicans wanted him to sit back, do nothing and say nothing. I for one I am glad he refused to follow that mold.

I do give the Queen some credit on speaking out about apartheid in South Africa but in many instances, she remains silent. The points raised by @Russophile do resonate with me in some respects.

Of course I do not know whether she raises these issues in audiences because we are not party to it. If she does then good for her.

I must say that the republicans love the QEII model because it bolsters their starting point that the monarchy is a useless archaic institution that is surplus to requirements. At other times they dismiss it as nothing more than a tourist attraction.  With someone like Charles, they may find it hard to push that line. Instead they will attack him personally and try to persuade him to abdicate so that they can have another good looking figurehead that does nothing and says nothing.

Tony Blair was never a fan of the monarchy as an institution. He was a "wicked stepmum" figure...seeming to help whilst destroying. Blair was the sly and manipulative face of republicanism and I am sure the queen is well aware that he meant her no good at all. His advisers are much more candid than him...but again they also have more honesty and integrity.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

tiaras

Immigration is a bogeyman that has been used for the past 2 years because of the migrant crisis in Europe. People moving from developed countries to developing countries don't get a mention in this toxic debate. Economic migrants come from wealthy nations too.

Russophile

#9
Thanks for the interesting insights. I guess I got a bit carried away reading so much Russian history recently it's easy to forget that Elizabeth II has no power. However that still does not seem to stop her from making her position on politics extremely clear when she wants to, as happened with the Scottish referendum, and as occurred with this most recent example-where she wore clothes clearly demonstrating her anathema at having to announce the UK's exit from the EU during her Parliamentary speech. I guess I just don't understand her motivations in not at least broaching the subject, as having a large non-Christian population puts her position and her families future position in jeopardy- so the decision to embrace multiculturalism is not in her interests. I personally think she is loved now, but that history will judge her much more harshly. I don't think the social changes we are going through now in the Anglsphere should be looked upon lightly.



I'm Australian. I would have preferred if Briton had decided to stay in it's position as world power, using it's brothers and sisters in Canada, Australia and New Zealand to create a version of a "British Union" that could act as a counter to America and the BRICS. I don't know about you but I think we have massive resources( we have a combined total area of 18 million square kilometers or 7 square miles- a territory larger than Russia) and could have easily set up our own nuclear ICBM weapons program and obtained autonomy from America. If little Briton can develop it's own ICBM program to keep it's autonomy from America than their is no reason why we couldn't. I just feel it was an opportunity lost. And I'm personally over being ruled by America and at the whim of China. We are a great nation and have to stop thinking of ourselves in self defeatist terms. We could have provided the world with a different more leveled political approach, compared to the crazy stuff we see America engaging in with their constant desire for waging war...America has become an unreliable ally.

Regarding immigration, I don't think there is any comparison to the huge numbers of people immigrating into former British dominions than there are emigrating to the developing world. All I am saying is I can go to my local shopping center here in Brisbane and I will always hear 3 different languages being spoken wherever I go. I just think we are setting ourselves up for a ticking time bomb of ethnic dysfunction. But it is pointless having an opinion on these things now- the irreversible damage has already been done. How the British never learned from the disaster that is Russian history simply escapes me. Or even bothered to examine why it was the British Empire broke up- it was because different peoples can not co-exist harmoniously together. Any moron studying the history of civilizations over the past 5,000 years can see the one glaring theme throughout that lead to the fall of multiple Empires is ethnic tensions. It boggles the mind people escaping conflicts around the world, the result of ethnic tensions in 90% of cases, flee to a culturally and ethnically homogeneous societies of the world- and nobody in the West stops to question why that is? The West is at a tipping point, we are in the process of being balkanized- it's only a matter of time before we become like the nations these people were escaping.

I think Elizabeth naively thought the British Empire was about bring different peoples of the world together under one flag, rather than actually realizing it was merely about Britons enriching themselves. To me it's confusing having a British monarch who is so left leaning, but I guess it explains a lot, such as why Charles will talk about the need for organic food all day, while real issues are simply swept under the carpet.

With Elizabeth I think the impression you get form her outward appearance is the complete opposite to the person inside. I used to admire Elizabeth and the royal family, but lately I have started judging them on their actions, instead of their titles, and come away feeling less than impressed. We all know they can throw their weight around when they want to, as Charles's letters to Parliament clearly demonstrate. I think it's a case of being naive and idealistic, as is always the case with us in the West.

People think the Anglosphere is on the cusp of a new golden era- they even call the reign of Elizabeth II Britons second golden era- but with all the ethnic divisions manifesting in the West today, all I see is a future completely alien to anything our ancestors experienced. I judge the success of a nation by it's capability to be high trust, low crime, and culturally homogeneous- criteria that seem lacking in any modern definition of a nations success. Maybe I am just too old fashioned and don't know what I am going on about.

 

Double post auto-merged: July 29, 2017, 12:04:35 AM


I guess I am saying I am frustrated by immigration- when it is clear no amount of immigration is going to save the billions of people living in poverty. You can allow millions of people in each year- that still doesn't stop billions from being in desperate need back home. You can't win with compassion. You have to at some point realize you can't save everyone, and that at some point these nations have to step up and look after their own. I don't see why Western nations that were working fine before mass immigration, have to demographically change because other nations are unwilling to take responsibility for their own people- which is all that immigration is about.

I'll never understand Elizabeth at all.

On a lighter note once I visited a friend of a friends place who lives beside government house in Sydney, and they told us they once saw Elizabeth on the balcony early one morning wearing her pajamas and looking across the harbor at the opera house, when she came for a state visit about 10 years ago.

Double post auto-merged: July 29, 2017, 12:53:10 AM


Don't get me wrong, I think Elizabeth II has been a success personally in terms of being a stable role model for her subjects. She is a beacon of integrity, morality, monogamy and tradition in a world where such things don't hold value any more. It is a shame she has not been so traditional politically. Although when one looks at all the complications in her family surrounding her children's failed marriages I can see how they let the ball down for her, and I daresay consume a lot of her time. Time that could have been put to better use in other more important areas.

I don't think children are a reflection on their parents, as you can have extremely good parents whose children end up utterly dysfunctional. Although I am disappointed her children didn't just suck it up and stay in their marriages and realize their positions as royals means they are the ones who set the social trends in society.

I think if your personal life is more important to you that you're not interested in living as a role model for your citizens then you should just renounce your claim to the throne and disengage from the royal family altogether like Edward VIII. Although Elizabeth II has been a good role model, her children have undone all that by being disastrous role models themselves. Divorces and rumors of pedophilia have tarnished the royal family for me, and I don't consider myself a prude- just someone who expects loyalty and integrity and is confused when people enter marriage so lightly.

Considering Elizabeth II inherited the throne at such a young age I do think she has done a tremendously good job relative to anything they could have achieved, as looking at the rest of her family, her reign could have been a complete disaster. Thanks for the replies, great posts everyone. 

tiaras

#10
Quote
I guess I am saying I am frustrated by immigration- when it is clear no amount of immigration is going to save the billions of people living in poverty. You can allow millions of people in each year- that still doesn't stop billions from being in desperate need back home. You can't win with compassion. You have to at some point realize you can't save everyone, and that at some point these nations have to step up and look after their own. I don't see why Western nations that were working fine before mass immigration, have to demographically change because other nations are unwilling to take responsibility for their own people- which is all that immigration is about

You do know that the poor can't afford a plane ticket and then rent and all other travel expenditure involved in migration and the immigrants are all high skilled immigrants who contribute to the country.

Which 'Western nations' European countries? Eastern or Western European because they all have different cultures?  Australia & NZ? The US? Canada?

Russophile

Quote from: tiaras on July 29, 2017, 03:29:32 AM
You do know that the poor can't afford a plane ticket and then rent and all other travel expenditure involved in migration and the immigrants are all high skilled immigrants who contribute to the country.

Which 'Western nations' European countries? Eastern or Western European because they all have different cultures?  Australia & NZ? The US? Canada?

I'm talking about the British dominions Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and the UK herself. I think we could have been a  power united by our shared culture and British origins under the Monarchy who defined our own destiny, instead of becoming the lap dog of NATO(America and her EU puppet) and at the whim of the BRICS. Instead of becoming a minority in my own dis-empowered country, in which 25% of people are of non-European background and have no historical ties in founding this nation built on the concept of constitutional monarchy and democracy; I could be living in a nation that is a world power on par with the NATO alliance and the BRICS alliance, and be proud of my history and my people knowing that we all shared the same history and future destiny. As it stands now I don't know what the future holds- it is always uncertain- a direct consequence of changing our demographics.

And what happens when Western nations have a situation with a high IQ immigrant elite, who are marrying each other and producing the new generation of high IQ leaders? You think that is not going to lead to a situation where the best interests of the European derived majority are lost?  These people won't care one iota about the Monarchy or our historical traditions. It will be a form of colonialism inflicted on Western nations.

How can you justify the brain drain from developing nations that leaves billions in poverty in their homelands because all their high IQ people leave to live in the Anglo-sphere and the EU? How is that an ethical position to take? How can you justify corrupt elites from developing nations fleeing persecution in our nations and thereby stealing the wealth from their peoples back home?

I beg to differ that all those involved in migration are high skilled and employed. A quick trip to your local social welfare office would change your opinion on that. A large proportion of migrants who are coming here do so as refugees, and require no travel expenditure to get here.

It sounds as if you are defending immigration. I would be fascinated to know why. I get tired of defending my nations traditions and culture. If you want to give all that away for a false sense of gratification from helping people who should be helping themselves and their own nations than be my guest.

This is what I am talking about. Instead of creating a nation of people who take pride in themselves and history, Elizabeth II has watched on as her nation becomes one of people who have complete anathema for their own peoples and history and whose only desire in life is to help people from societies that are completely different to their own.

You look at the experience of the Chinese in Australia. They do not assimilate. You don't see Chinese men playing footy on a weekend at the sports grounds- it's always White Australian men. The Chinese don't have a tradition of democracy, so creating a situation where Chinese people consist of 1 in every 20 Australians is going to be suicide for our historically democratic nation. I am a champion of freedom and democracy- qualities that only arose in nations founded by peoples of British and European origins. You change the demographics and you change the culture- which will eventually lead to the loss, or at least erosion, of these historical British cultural norms.

By embracing people who have no desire to assimilate into our culture, you create the conditions for the nations failure. Maybe you should read about what Catherine II thought makes a society successful if you won't listen to a White male like me. A Forgotten Love Triangle: Voltaire, Diderot, and Catherine the Great - Cultural Weekly

It doesn't matter what I say on here anyway, Elizabeth II has made her mark on our society by embracing multiculturalism, it will be people living 100 years in the future who will have to live with the consequences of her decisions who will be her judge and jury.

Curryong

#12
I'm sorry, Russophile, but a lot of  your assertions on here have no foundation in fact at all (and seem to be derived from the handbook of Pauline Hanson, the frankly racist and badly educated Queensland senator and rabble rouser)  and I really don't know where to start. Hanson, for non Aussies here, is anti immigration and is always going on about Aussies being swamped by Muslim refugees and others and wildly inflating the figures to justify her arguments.

There is no justification for it, as Australian born people here are still in the majority. As most people applying for citizenship have to pass a citizenship test asking questions about our traditions, government institutions and way of life I'd say more migrants know facts about these than ordinary Australian-born Aussies!

The Queen has nothing to do with refugee and migrant intake in Britain and certainly nothing to do with the rate in Australia or other realms. Even if she wanted to protest against government policy in this area it would make no difference.

In a previous post you talked about Charles sending 'letters to Parliament'. He doesn't and didn't. He writes letters to the PM and government ministers for most of the time. I don't agree that he should, but that's quite another kettle of fish.

Yes, some refugees are extremely poor, some can't speak English, some exist on pensions and benefits. That doesn't mean they will always be in that position and their children and grandchildren almost certainly won't. I work in a community centre and was speaking only the other day to a woman refugee of Afghani background. Not much English, no husband,  but her eldest son and daughter are both at uni and doing very well. She hopes her other children will go too! You think they won't contribute, won't assimilate, won't take any Aussie culture or traditions on board?

As for your assertions about the Chinese in Australia, the Chinese as a group have been in Australia a long time and have assimilated into the community. It's far more than 'playing footy'. They started coming to Australia in the gold rush of the 1850s, and in spite of physical attacks and official restrictions many stayed.

Chinese were prominent in the establishing of banana crops and trade in North Queensland. There were a lot of market gardeners and store owners in NSW and Victoria (with Aussie customers.) Fishing and fish curing businesses were operated by Chinese in Melbourne and Sydney. In the 1890s censuses Chinese names crop up as scrub cutters, labourers, cooks, launderers, tobacco farmers, cabinet makers, drapers and a host of other occupations. Chines excelled at cabinet making but the various colonial governments brought in restrictions on Chinese in trades so they had to stop. You don't think any of the above interacted with their fellow Aussies?

Don't assimilate? Quong Tart was an extremely popular man who ran a very well-patronised tea house in Sydney. He was a generous philanthropist and he and his family were often in Australian newspapers. Lowe Kong Meng and Louis Ah Mouy were well known merchants.

Because of the restrictive White Australia policy after Federation the Chinese population shrank. However out of that very small base (and restrictions on non Europeans, including our Aborigines,
becoming soldiers) 198 Chinese enlisted in World War One, against the odds. Billy Sing became a famous and decorated sniper.

Because of the war in the thirties between Japan and China more Chinese came and stayed. Today, most migration from China is skilled migration and there are students here. There are Aussies of Chinese background in Federal Parliament and in State. They presumably know of Aus history and democratic traditions.


Some modern day Chinese that have contributed to the Australian community and interact with it, only a few of the hundreds I'm not posting (some of them were knighted so knew about the Queen and the monarchy) Victor Chang, well known surgeon; Cindy Pan, women's health expert; Terence Tao, mathematician; Charles Teo, neurosurgeon; John Yu, paediatrician and former Australian of the Year; Marita Cheng, founder of Robogals; Sir Leslie Hooker, founder of property firm LJ Hooker; Trevor O' Hoy, former CEO of Foster's Group (beer); Jeff Fat, Wiggles performer; Ivan Lee, Anglican Bishop. There was a RC bishop on my list too.

And how exactly do you know, Russophile, that Australian Chinese don't play footy? There are literally thousand of local footy matches and competitions that go on every week in Australia, in local comps and suburbs and country towns. Have you done a survey of all these and the bush leagues? If not then it's a wild assertion, isn't it?

sandy

I think the Queen's reign is a success.

Curryong


Queen's top aide quits in dramatic shake up of Royal staff | Daily Mail Online

Yes, this is the Daily Fail,  :D but a shake-up has been reported for some time, especially with regard to Miguel Head, Private Secretary to Will, though KP has been denying it. Also thinking of moving on is ELF, Edward Lane-Fox, Prince Harry's Private Secretary.

More surprising, I suppose, is that the Queen's Private Sec., Sir Christopher Geldt, is leaving, probably to be replaced by his female deputy. Robert Jephson in the Standard suggested yesterday that Prince Charles is likely to become Regent when the Queen reaches 95. I'd suggest that Charles may well be acting unofficially as her Regent from next year. The Queen might very well just perform her constitutional role and those duties and engagements pertaining to it, but be seen less and less doing public engagements from 2018.

It says in the DM article that Charles is feeling quite 'bruised' by his sons tribute doco to their mother which didn't mention him. The POW pays for much of the KP operation and might try to bring it under CH superintendence again, especially its Press and media dealings. He tried once before but William wasn't having it, so KP eventually got its autonomy back.

However, it may succeed this time, especially if new people are brought in at KP.  Clive Alderton, Charles's Private Secretary, is much more senior in Royal service than either ELF or Head, and would certainly be above any new hands brought in. There seems to be a concerted effort here to rein KP in. Whether that will help the rivalries that are there between all the staff at KP, BP and CH remains to be seen.



amabel

Quote from: sandy on July 29, 2017, 11:45:10 AM
I think the Queen's reign is a success.
in what sense?  She has no political role.. so at least she is not to blame for the many many problems of the country and the mess that it is in.  However I think that she failed to an extent in terms of managing her family... though they also have some blame for that.  She should have intervened  bit sooner with the marital problems particularly of Charles, and insisted on an earlier divorce once they had separated.

royalanthropologist

I do agree. That divorce ought to have come much, much earlier: at least to give the parties a chance to start their new lives away from each other. The insistence on maintaining a fiction of a marriage caused undue stress and hurt to all parties concerned. It also helped to divide and polarize the nation.  I have never rated QEII as a good mother at all.  Sorry if I am being judgmental but I find her passivity very disturbing.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

amabel

I don't think they should  have divorced at all but if they were so miserable ad their estrangment and other relationships were so well known that they could not continue to do their job as partners, it was better to get a divorce. However the queen kept hoping that they'd be able to keep up some kind of marital relationship when separated.. and IMO she should have insisted on a divorce with appropriate confidentilalty agreements from Diana 2 years after the separation.

sandy

I think the Queen is a success as a monarch. I think there are two different conversations. her ability as a mother vs. her ability as a Queen. I do agree that she should have done things differently with her children.  She just let problems accumulate until it reached a crisis point. I think for one thing the Queen should have heeded the warnings about CHarles being with married women and discouraged him relying on mentors like Lord Mountbatten and not marrying unless he was in love with his prospective bride. She herself did not have that sort of problem, it was a love match but her parents still told her to wait a year until she was "sure." Maybe the Queen should have told Charles to wait another year too. He could have heirs later.


amabel

Her role as a constitutional monarch is to do what the Govt wishes.. and to wok for "Team UK" by charity and other work.  She does this mostly quite well.  however she did also have a role as Queen which involved her being a mother... She had to prepare her family to take on the monarchy to the next generation. and IMO she didn't do that very well.  Chalres and Di were a mismatch, perhaps she didn't realise that.  However, I think she could have probably encouraged him to find a wife a bit sooner, before he was getting rather old to be dating a girl of 19 or 20.  and I think she should certainly have refused to allow Andrew to marry Sarah...

sandy

Her father was quite ill, he had smoked a lot (his daughter Margaret did too of course) and died young. I do think Charles should have perhaps had the same scenario as William and had a long engagement and married at 30. The QUeen liked Lady Jane Wellesley but she apparently did not want to marry into the royal family. Sarah and Andrew should have had a longer engagement. Sarah had recently been living with an older man who did not want to marry her so Andrew appeared to a rebound.

amabel

what on earth has George VI or his death got to do iwht the queen's role?
and WIlliam didn't have a long engagement.  he had a long courtship with Kate but that was because of changing social conditions.

sandy

Well obviously if her father had not gotten cancer or had been healthier, she may have had more time with her family for say about 20 more years. She became Queen at a very young age and had a young family. She could have been raising her children and maybe had her third and fourth children sooner and spent a lot more time with her family. It has plenty to do with it.

THe courtship was long yes. They were pretty much together except for their breakup in 2007 and some cooling off periods. But it was not as if they dated for a few months only then got engaged.

amabel

I doubt it.  the queen wasn't worried about spending a lot of time with her first 2 children.. and in any case I don't see what is has to do with what she did with them as adults.

sandy

Well it has a lot to do with it. Charles may not have complained.