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.
Sorry, I didn't realize Mr. Delingpole is British. I would have altered my comments to the extent that I am happy for him and hoped that his country would end its bigoted class system which this queen promotes.
Dec '10
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
I know lots of people who've made plans to be as far away from anywhere in England, and London in particular, as they possibly can during the two weeks of the Olympic Games in July and August.
This is because they know that the Games will royally (to coin a phrase) screw up their lives, their ability to work, and their enjoyment of whatever it is that they like to enjoy at all other times when the Olympic Games are either not going on, or are going on somewhere else.
I don't know ANYBODY in the last two hundred thirty six years (and counting) who has bailed on Britain because of the mess that the Monarchy has made of their lives.
God Save James Delingpole!
Dec '11
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
James Delingpole:
Fear not, you do speak for many of us Yanks/devoted Royal watchers/subscribers to Majesty. I'm the sort who manages to get up at the crack of dawn to watch every Royal funeral and wedding and will continue to do so forever. The pomp and ceremony, pageantry, history and tradition, are glorious to behold, indeed.
Long Live the Queen!
Edited on June 4, 2012 at 4:10amApr '12
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
The Monarchy is the figurehead for Britain, and democratic Brits prefer being represented by a dignified queen to ever-changing heads of states. They finds it unites them, as she is above and outside politics.
As a Canadian, I have been ashamed of some of the Prime Ministers elected to represent me, Stephen Harper excepted. Perhaps Americans feel that about some of their Presidents.
Edited on June 4, 2012 at 4:14amDec '11
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
It is a lovely representation made even more poignant by the likes of Queen Elizabeth II. Hopefully, 'Wills' will follow in the tradition of his grandmother.
Mar '11
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
Absolutely nothing wrong with a Constitutional Monarchy if the people want it. It can be a good form of government. Skyler and I line up a great deal philosophy-wise, but on this we differ. Brits... and everyone else... should keep the system as long as they're happy with it. Unlike a lot of people here, I do not think the American system of government would automatically do well elsewhere. It's uniquely suited to our temperment. Freedom should mean "what you want to be", not necessarily what we want you to be. The lack of this most basic understanding has caused us some hairy foreign policy problems.
Dec '10
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
Yes, our poor cousins across the pond. How wretched it must be to live under the unforgiving yoke of the Queen and her royal ilk. As we all know, the Queen rules Britain with an iron fist and her word is law!
Turning my snark off, I have to wonder, why are you so venomously hostile to the Queen? The royal family--as others have mentioned--are figure heads, not rulers.
If the British want to keep a centuries old tradition, then let them. There is nothing bigoted about it.
I find myself casting a suspicious gaze upon anything that contains the word "bigoted". It reeks of pretentious self-righteousness and reminds me too much of the nonsense that liberals love spouting off.
Jun '10
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
I have to agree with Skyler in his assessment that monarchies are objectively the wrong way to run a country -- at whatever level of participation from the royal family. Surely no one would ever agree on who would be the royals if a new country was started up from scratch -- think that through and I'm sure you will agree. It is fundamentally wrong and the nostalgia associated with it should never cloud our vision on what is right and what is wrong.
Don't forget that this queen's uncle was Edward VIII. Read about him if you have any doubts about what an absolute disaster he was with regard to the Nazis and WWII. This man was a serious and dangerous dunderhead.
Now, that said, I would like to also state how much I admire this queen as a woman, a leader and a truly righteous person, a Tzadeikas. It's not her fault that she is in this position and she should never have to take any blame for her position since she was only born into it and didn't wrest it from others.
No sentimentality, no monarchy, true democracies only -- we should always be clear.
Apr '11
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
Skyler
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 · Jun 3 at 8:00am
I'll leave it to Americans to decide whether or not it's "unamerican" for Americans to mark the Diamond Jubilee (and if so whether or not it's OK for them to be "unamerican" in this respect). But for the 95½% of the world's population that is not American, the charge of being "unamerican" just doesn't cut it as a jibe I'm afraid. Pretty much every expression of patriotism by them will by definition be "unamerican". Autres pays, autres mœurs. Deal with it.
Now that that's out of the way, as a patriotic Australian and unashamed supporter of our constitutional monarchy I would like to wish my Queen all the best on her sexegenary. And as a friend of America I would also like to add my well wishes to the United States and its republican (small r) Government. God save the Queen and God bless America.
Edited on June 5, 2012 at 3:17pmDec '11
Re: Queen: Good. Olympics: Bad.
Agreed. Look what happens to these dunderheads; they marry poorly, socialize with ne'er-do-wells, and lose their influence because they refuse to acknowledge the cultural and historical traditions/power of Western Civilization.