Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
Today marks the 60th anniversary of the Queen's accession to the throne. I think I can speak for pretty much all of my compatriots when I say that this is a joyous moment, well worth celebrating, for the Queen is a remarkable woman, the very model of a modern constitutional monarch. She has reigned over her peoples (not just us British, of course, but the Commonwealth nations too) with the perfect balance of wisdom, discretion and dignity. There is simply no national figurehead who comes even close to matching her. Truly we are blessed and if I had my way she'd been reigning for at least another 60 years. (That should put her wretched son out of the picture, at least).
Just as much as we love our Queen and the events surrounding the Diamond Jubilee, so - and I believe again I speak for most of us - we loathe the other big event in Britain this year: the wretched 2012 Olympics. Maybe some of us got briefly excited in those heady moments when we first "won" the right to stage these Olympics (in the way you do when you're in competition with foreigners) but let me assure you that that excitement is now long past. We have since recognized, as most Olympic hosts do in the end, that hosting the games is a most burdensome expense which brings few rewards and endless headaches, such as the traffic chaos caused by statutory Zil lanes down which the Olympic nomenklatura travel from the airport to the games.
Robert Hardman has a brilliant piece on this subject in the Spectator, which I urge you to read. Here is a taste:
The tickets have all been handed out fairly and efficiently. No one has grumbled about crashing websites or foreign tour operators snaffling the best seats. There are no snatch squads of lawyers and police ready to pounce on inappropriate signs and seal off London’s A-roads for a few VIPs. Yet the overall crowd figure will stretch into the millions, with billions more watching around the world. The promotional value is incalculable. And the cost of this global event? The taxpayer is being charged £1 million for administration bills plus whatever it costs to police the public. At worst, the entire thing might cost, say, half a beach volleyball arena.
Having bumbled along purposefully and quietly for the last few years, the Diamond Jubilee tortoise is suddenly overtaking the £9.3 billion Olympic hare. And the contrast between the two mindsets is startling. Is it too late for the grandees of the Olympic movement — and they don’t come much grander — to learn a few lessons from one who really knows about winning hearts and minds?
Long before the Diamond Jubilee trumpet had sounded, the Queen had already taken a few important decisions about her 60th anniversary on the throne. The Lord Chamberlain’s Office, which patrols use and abuse of the Royal Arms, declared an amnesty on merchandise, to the delight of hard-pressed retailers and manufacturers. Every mug and tea towel is welcome, not just the official stuff from the Royal Collection. Nor would the Palace plan any big set-piece events. Instead, it would work with any private organisations or charities which wanted to organise one, provided there was no prospect of the taxpayer being left with a hefty tab.
Unfortunately the rest of the piece seems to be hidden behind a paywall, as so many of the best things are these days. Still, if you're discerning enough to subscribe to Ricochet, you'd be mad not to subscribe to the Spectator, too, no?
Anyway, happy Jubilee, Your Maj! And I'm only sorry the weather's so rubbish (due to "Climate Change", no doubt) and that I'm unable to share it with you, being as unfortunately, I'm sunning myself by a swimming pool in Puglia.
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '11
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
No. You most certainly do not speak for all of us in celebrating a depraved system. A polite monarch still is a hereditary ruler. Let us hope that such a depraved system remains as loathed today as it was in 1776.
Edited on June 3, 2012 at 2:59pmMay '11
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
When we had the Olympics here in Los Angeles, I expected traffic to be a nightmare. As it turned out, though, everybody must have left town or something, because I have never seen traffic so light. Of course, in London the traffic never moves anyway, so how would you know?
May '10
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
Good grief. He's not suggesting America revert to being controlled by a monarchy. We succeeded in our thorough rejection of it over 200 years ago, and the Brits who stayed behind did not. So, from this side of the ocean I thoroughly enjoyed reading what James wrote.
Apr '12
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
The historic thread of royalty is incredibly tough to beat. The Brits do their pageantry the best.
May '11
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
Andrea Ryan
Good grief. He's not suggesting America revert to being controlled by a monarchy. We succeeded in our thorough rejection of it over 200 years ago, and the Brits who stayed behind did not. So, from this side of the ocean I thoroughly enjoyed reading what James wrote. · 15 minutes ago
No matter the side of the ocean, it is still wrong and I think it is additionally unamerican to celebrate it. The Brits are our friends and we should instead be encouraging them to end the vestige of that system
Dec '10
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
Skyler
Andrea Ryan
Good grief. He's not suggesting America revert to being controlled by a monarchy. We succeeded in our thorough rejection of it over 200 years ago, and the Brits who stayed behind did not. So, from this side of the ocean I thoroughly enjoyed reading what James wrote. · 15 minutes ago
No matter the side of the ocean, it is still wrong and I think it is additionally unamerican to celebrate it. The Brits are our friends and we should instead be encouraging them to end the vestige of that system · 4 minutes ago
Off with their heads! Seriously. What, exactly, are the British to do with the royals? And who are we to lecture them when we've been unable to end the vestiges of the much younger institution of our welfare state?
May '12
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
The royals took a PR beating over that whole Diana fiasco. They appear to have learned a lesson or two - at least about not being more expensive than they have to be.
May '10
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
It is funny to read a libertarian laud the reign of a monarch, however impotent her power. How he calls a fellow Brit whose greatest accomplishment was being born to the right parents "Her Majesty," and then refers to the fecklessness of a Romney presidency is miopic at best. But we all can be accused of that on something. Yet there is nothing "majestic" about the royals, and I don't know why British subjects continue to finance such conspicuous consumption.
May '10
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
The subjects of the kakistocratic Peoples Republic of Illinois cheered, sotto voce (because you never know who's listening or watching on one of the hundreds of videocams throughout the land), "Thank God" when Chicago lost its bid to host the Olympics.
Mar '11
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
It wasn't all sotto vocce. The resistance movement actually drew fire from Hizzoner Da Mare once or twice.
In the end John Kass took the blame for the bid's failure.
Sep '10
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
In context, when James wrote that "I speak for most of us" he was speaking "for pretty much all of my compatriots", i.e. Englishmen. He did not mean Ricochet.
Skyler
No matter the side of the ocean, it is still wrong and I think it is additionally unamerican to celebrate it.
But James is not an American. To criticize him this way is like criticizing me for being un-British.
Furthermore, Ricochet is not exclusively American. It's an international venue. We should welcome anti-leftist patriots from all nations, not castigate them for being "un-American".
May '11
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
The Queen is the Head of State, not the head of government. I, for one, see the merit of separating these two functions, if for no other reason than that it would free us Americans from the idiocy of having a Head of State who goes around the world apologizing for us.
In any event, the Monarchy is a major tourist attraction, and brings in hundreds of times what it costs to maintain.
Jun '10
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
So the British welfare state is putting on a Diamond Jubilee combined with Olympic Games. Bread and circuses, anyone? Meanwhile, the barbarian hordes are already inside the gate. And will the yobs muster for a riot or two during the soccer tournament? Stay tuned.
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
Ah, James, proof, yet again, that you are the soundest man in Britain--or, if you're still sunning yourself in Puglia, in Italy.
But even were you unsound, I would still read every word--I've even gotten into the habit of nipping over to the website of the Telegraph to read you blog. Your prose! Irresistible.
May '12
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
Tourism. Why would anyone go to the UK in the first place? The food? *ba-dum tish*. As pointed out by Larry, it brings in hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of pounds p/a. Don't expect that to change either, especially if last years Wills-Kate wedding was any bellwether. The trappings and pageantry of British Royalty are like crack cocaine for women. They just can't get enough of it.
Jan '12
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
Skylar. Ask yourself why the Commonwealth has the Queen as its head. If you can work it out you will see some benefit in a Constitutional monarch - they do and most members of the Commonwealth are republics. It is of little use conflating the Constitutional monarch of today with George III. Yes it is hereditary unless Parliament chooses otherwise.
Skyler: No. You most certainly do not speak for all of us in celebrating a depraved system. A polite monarch still is a hereditary ruler. Let us hope that such a depraved system remains as loathed today as it was in 1776. · 6 hours ago
Edited 6 hours ago
Jan '12
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
I must admit I do have great sympathies for a republican form of government and have been known to propound it. However to save the UK (and others) from having a written constitution and layers of checks and balances to keep it honest a modern constitutional monarchy is a small price to pay.
However the benefits of the US constitution are worth preserving but once they are gone they are gone. Isn't that what Ricochet is trying to preserve against an onslaught of liberalism?
Jan '12
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
Peter I take that as an affront to my soundness. But as I like you I will forgive you this time.
Peter Robinson: Ah, James, proof, yet again, that you are the soundest man in Britain--or, if you're still sunning yourself in Puglia, in Italy.
But even were you unsound, I would still read every word--I've even gotten into the habit of nipping over to the website of the Telegraphto read you blog. Your prose! Irresistible. · 2 hours ago
Apr '12
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
@dogsbody - thank you for welcoming us non-Americans on Ricochet. I do need your encouragement. The Brits are to be commended for their Jubilee celebration welcoming boats from everywhere. The Canadian coverage was subdued compared to CNN. There are few countries in the world where history is so entrenched. America is one of the few where many outsiders can name many of the Presidents.
Jan '12
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
Your country. Your monarch. It's OK to think she's OK. We had one once, but got over it.