Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Very Un-British Feeling
I’m proud of my country. Not in the Michelle Obama “first-time” sense, but one which, for once, I’m comfortable “sharing” (as the abominable Markle might put it).
My Lord, so many flag wavers. You’d think the country had turned “American” all of a sudden. Loved it, from the Horse Guards, to the Trooping the Colour, to the St. Paul’s service, to the “Party at the Palace,” and the grand finale of the pageant today. Cheesy, some of it? Certainly. Heartfelt? Definitely.
Not to mention the Paddington Bear skit. Can’t help thinking that stand-up comedy lost a master of comedic timing and delivery the moment Elizabeth inherited the throne:
Would that the 17-years-younger President of the United States were able to remember his lines and deliver them so perfectly, even with the aid of a TelePrompTer and when faced with real opposition, adversaries, or interlocutors. Never mind in a situation where he’s dealing with an imaginary green-screened CGI puppet. (At one point in today’s pageant, a hologram of 26-year-old Elizabeth appeared inside the gold Coronation State Coach. Just a thought, Joe Biden’s handlers, just a thought….).
At the risk of triggering all you anti-monarchical folks (you know who you are–and I probably do too), I stand with Mark Steyn, who comes firmly down on the side of a constitutional monarchy as an excellent form of government. In a recent conversation, Mark commented on the difference between the Royal Family (THE royal family) and the US President, pointing out that the Queen (THE queen) got stuck in traffic (because no special arrangements are made for the monarch’s travel), and arrived late on her way to Buckingham Palace the other day, remarking that such a thing would never happen in the United States because–prior to the President’s appearance at any local event–all the roads would be closed for his 45-85 car motorcade, and the citizens of the republic would simply have to deal with the indignity of their own needs counting for nothing while their betters sailed along.
Can’t argue with that. ‘Cause he’s right.
Plus. And (as the late Mr. She might have said): The entire Jubilee spectacle was a massive middle-finger-in-the-eye to the Covid hysterics.
So, there’s that. God Save the Queen!
PS: Full disclosure: Mum and Dad met the Queen and Philip on their 1956 tour of Nigeria. Dad’s favorite recollection is that of the Queen (THE queen), after a very long day, kicking back in a lounge chair in the Kaduna Catering Rest House, closing her eyes, and announcing “Cor, it’s nice to put yer pins up.” (Translation: “Lord, it is lovely to put one’s feet up on an elevated platform after such a day.”)
Haven’t we all felt that way, at least once in our lives?
Published in General
That’s the menarchist league.
We grow more like them every day.
I’m glad that the British are having a good bash for their Queen. But as far as trying to replicate what Britain has in other countries, including the U.S., it’s not possible to replicate it elsewhere. Even countries like Sweden or Spain that still has theirs don’t quite match up to the Brits, and that’s because Queen Elizabeth’s life included service in World War II. Once Prince Charles takes over, their monarchy will diminish like those other countries’s monarchies have.
There are indications that Prince Charles knows that and is planning for it.
And it’s not the constitutional monarchy per se that is the big advantage. Countries like Germany or Israel that have parliamentary governments with a figurehead president along with a prime minister that can be removed at any time without instituting a constitutional crisis have the same advantages as those with those monarchies do.
I’d be reluctant to switch to a parliamentary form of government, but if we were to, our new figurehead president would over time lose Air Force One, and the Oval Office would no longer be treated like a throne room. Nor would that person be able to justify secret service security that disrupts the free movement of ordinary American citizens whereever they go.
Our prime minister could also be a joke without diminishing an office that starts out that way.
Nope.
I have not watched or read an iota about it. Other than being on the front pages of newspapers I wouldn’t have known about it all. It’s beyond me why Americans care at all, but every time the British aristocracy twitch, all sorts of Americans want to know why. I have absolutely zero interest in the British monarchy. How do you like that for being an anti-monarchical type? ;)
Can you explain to me what exactly she does in government and legislation that has any impact other than being a figurehead?
Oh, lots of things. Cuts ribbons, gives out prizes, knights people, gives a speech every Christmas, dedicates things, reviews parades, attends Royal Command performances… tons of things!
It is true she is a figurehead, but she isn’t a mere figurehead.
Figureheads are mis-maligned, probably because they are assumed to be serving hidden masters.
The QoE serves the people, and functions the way our presidents do when they visit the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier or host the egg rolling thing at the White House on Easter.
But she never screws it up. She is never self-indulgent, ‘cute’, pretentious, or ill-mannered.
To be fair to our prezzes, the queen doesn’t have to make hard decisions or run for reelection. And to be further fair, while she is flawless, but the same cannot be said for all of or even many of her predecessors.
That Paddington video is one of the most telling cultural moments of the 21st century.
She is real; he is not. But they occupy the same space, the same moment. They both embody the same cultural values, high and low. She seems to recognize his presence, engage with it – and on one hand it’s just good role-playing: she’s going along with the bit. That in itself is remarkable: they told this old lady to pretend she’s talking to a stuffed bear, and she was amused and understood exactly. She gave away, in an unconcerned casual chat, the mystery of the contents of her purse. But that little friendly conversation seemed to hand off the whole essence of the abiding culture to computerized fiction, trusting that it would abide and carry on. She is mortal, but the code that summoned Paddington into being is not.
It’s interesting how Paddington is not a subject. He’s respectful, but it’s out of love, not rote deference to class. His offer of a marmalade sandwich, his favorite, might seem cheeky – you simply don’t tell the Queen what she might want, you wait to hear what she requests – but it has a friendly eager quality that might come from someone unschooled in palace protocol. The courtiers are horrified! But lo: she likes the sandwich, too. Always has. Galvanic bolt across class, uniting all in one culture.
This simple connection has to end, because a long-serving member of the mysterious class that serves the royals announces that the People have assembled. Her duty is to them, so the tea is concluded. Of course Paddington understands, since his fealty is to the nation, and the people represent it as much as she does. But social conventions permit him a gracious exit, and he expresses his gratitude in words that have the sound of goodbye.
I am no particular fan of royalty, but I do love England unreservedly, and God Save the Queen.
I am also imagining an American version where Bugs Bunny is sprawled across a chair chomping on a carrot and making cracks at Ronald Reagan.
“Y’know, ya coulda ducked, like you said.”
“Well, it wasn’t duck season, Bugs, it was wabbit season.”
“Eeeeehhhh, you gotta point.”
The royals, including the Queen, primarily spend their days going to event to event, most of it for charity, making pleasent conversation about nothing.
And it has to be mind-numbing. They have to be aware that most of the people they meet are experiencing a one in a lifetime event that they will remember for the rest of their lives, and they can’t show how mind-numbing it is.
It’s hard to see what they are doing as a sacrifice, and they are rewarded very well for what they are doing.
But I can also understand a big reason why her uncle abdicated, not because he couldn’t marry the women he loved, but because the job was mind-numbingly boring.
One of the reasons the British monarchy is successful is that it generally has a strong tradition of service. The ribbons they wear are not for show, they were earned. There is an old tradition of duty that is still viewed as valid. Being a monarch is bigger than a person, it is a national institution.
When you wield that level of respect, you can tolerate a comedian playing court jester, or a childish character acting silly around you. This is beyond celebrity, and represents something much more important.
Yes, the Queen is the cultural lodestar for Great Britain. Her successor is likely to be less inspiring, although I hold out more hope for William than I do Charles.
Mark Steyn would say (and I agree) that her role as head of state is to diminish the politicians and provide continuity from the one clown show to the next that eventuates in Westminster over the years. Foolish and venal as many of the British politicians may be, there’s very little of the “Senator-For-Life,” “Congressman-For-Life” vibe that we see in the US, where we discover that a man who’s spent his entire life in “public service” is able to retire with tens, or maybe even hundreds, of millions of dollars from we know not whence, while his children and his siblings are also–miraculously–set up for life. British politicians just aren’t that powerful, and there’s incentive for them to try it on.
From what I’ve seen, countries with presidential heads-of-state (and a corresponding PM on the side) aren’t immune from that sort of corruption either.
Bravo!
Now Elizabeth is a dignified and wholesome woman. What if she weren’t? What if she brought embarrassment and shame? What if she were a druggy transgender with a body full of tattoos? Would you still be for her position?
This is why the defense of culture matters. Drugs, tats, tranny lifestyle and so forth; these are all well worth rejecting, minimizing, shaming, and driving out of the public sphere. The monarchy (THE monarchy) is one instrument by which a culture defends itself. This in turn forces the monarchy itself to exemplify the values defended.
I of course wouldn’t support one here, and arguably we now have a monarchy of filth and greed these days anyway. Sigh. There are many inter-related processes which have to work, but which reinforce each other. The US is now sliding down the backslope of these processes not working. We had it going for a while. We’ve lost it.
Good Luck Britain! Or at least England.
Thanks for asking. I’d point to Prince Andrew and Prince Harry as exemplars of those who bring embarrassment and shame, and what happens to them when they do.
“Oh,” you say, “But neither of them is the actual monarch. What if one of them was? What then?”
Thanks for asking. I’d point to Edward VIII. While his social faux-pas (the desire to marry a divorced woman) may not seem earth-shaking today, it was earth-shaking back in 1935-36. And his apparent fascination with a certain German chancellor wasn’t helping matters.
So what did his family (most notably his mum, Queen Mary) and his Prime Minister (Stanley Baldwin) have to say about that? Basically they said to him, “You can’t have both. You must choose. In or out. One or the other.” And so he did.
Thank God he chose the way he did and removed himself both from the monarchical gene pool and from a role in history thenceforth.
There’s a long tradition of such matters in English history. We’ve chopped off King’s heads before, amirite?
#15June1215
Edward VIII was a dumb, sybaritic, Nazi-sympathizer. Now, if he could have kept that to himself (for all I know, the Queen (THE queen) may hold political opinions I disagree with, but she’s smart enough not to make an issue of them) then perhaps the British people would have supported him through the years, and perhaps he would have inspired and led the nation through the difficult WWII and subsequent years as his painfully awkward brother, and his sister-in-law actually managed to do.)
Or Not.
I agree to this extent: Many aspects of the job are “mind-numbingly boring.” Something I think Ms. Markle couldn’t cope with because it didn’t meet her expectations of the princess lifestyle.
But you know what? Many aspects of life, at all levels, are “mind-numbingly boring.”
I know.
Still, we shoulder the burden, and we get on with it. And it’s seeing that which brings respect, both for the royal family and for the guy down the road who gets up and goes to a mind-numbingly boring job every day in order to support his family and bring them the trappings of a decent life.
Prince or pauper, we do the best we can. Those who aren’t up for the struggle may deserve our pity, but–often–they don’t deserve our respect.
@She Slightly off-topic, but perhaps you (or someone) could write a post on why England and the UK seem to do better under Queens than under most of the Kings? Or am I mistaken and it just appears that way?
You could incite a civil war, and wasn’t there a civil war over the King’s religion at least once? Anyway, I do wish the British well. I do like them in general. They gave us a wonderful language, and of course William Shakespeare!
Firstly, her position as a figurehead is far more important than you imply.
She is the head of what might arguably be called the world’s best PR firm. Wherever she appears you can be sure every appropriate business in town proudly displays goods made in the UK. Her presence should not be underestimated.
She heads a commonwealth of 50 some countries that are visited by either she or members of her family and which means her small island nation continues as a player on the world stage. Maintaining the commonwealth is no small thing requiring invitations to elaborate state dinners at Windsor or Buckingham Palace and hours of conferences with the government of which she is the figurehead.
While she certainly doesn’t actually choose the prime minister, the little ceremony requiring his/her presence at the palace after his party receives the necessary votes in parliament recognizes his authority with the people.
Billions of dollars go into the treasury each year from tourists who are drawn to visit her palaces full of priceless art, antiques and other reminders of the long history of royalty still very much alive today.
I could go on and on, but you might get the idea from the few examples above.
The English Civil War was about much more than religion, and was precipitated by the Stuart’s adherence to the idea that they ruled by Divine Right with absolute power. As with previous skirmishes in the same arena, Parliament wasn’t so on board with it, and the result was inevitable, given the singlemindedness of the parliamentarian leader Oliver Cromwell. Also given his brutal, authoritarian regime during England’s foray into “republicanism,” it’s hardly surprising that–only slightly more than ten years after he assumed absolute power and after his death from malaria–Cromwell’s son Richard resigned, ending the Protectorate and events were set in motion which resulted in the restoration of King Charles II.
William Shakespeare was a creature of (Queen) Elizabeth I. During the (republican) reign of Oliver Cromwell, and for a few years following, all theaters were closed in the interests of preventing public disorder and “lascivious mirth and levity.” That would have included all Shakespeare performances.
“Down with monarchy!”
Yay, Cromwell, kill the lot of ’em!
“And an end to lascivious mirth and levity!”
…lol, wut?
That’s a very interesting question, and one I’ve never thought about. But I’ll think on it and get back to you. In the meantime, if anyone else would like to have a go, have at it!
EDIT: First, rather non-scientific thought is that the laws of primogeniture through the male line favor an overabundance of men over women. For example, a king who had only daughters while there were other potential male heirs in the mix insured that none of them would inherit, and that his brother/son/cousin/whatever who actually produced a male, would take precedence. A quick look at the line of succession since 1066 tells me that there have only been 7 queens, but 35 kings. Fewer kings and queens of England over almost 1000 years than Presidents of the United States in a quarter that time. Perhaps, because of that, and because a few of their reigns have been unusually long, the women seem more consequential?
I was working on a paper while I cadet at the Air Force academy and I was dealing with logistics and supply issues. I was in the research section of the academy library and I came across a picture of her practically sitting inside the engine compartment of a truck working on it. That photo has stuck with me my whole life.
Thanks, @She. That’s kind of what I thought. Appreciate the response.
@jameslileks: Just realized why I find your comment so endearing:
Over 40 years ago, when (as they say) our love was young, the late Mr. She hied off to a Medievalist Conference in Washington DC in the course of attending which he met several world-class scholars. He had a blast. So did they.
What he brought back with him was a napkin (which I’ve since lost) detailing, on a remarkably festive evening, his work–he whose PhD was actually in linguistics–tracing the etymology of the Anglo-French word “handkerchief” as it developed from the Anglo-Saxon word for the same thing, “snotrag.” Completely coherent and correct, from glottals to labials, to fricatives, to the great vowel shift, and everything else in between.
Time was, when academicians had real insight, as well as a sense of humor and perspective about themselves, their work, and the world. One of the reasons I enjoy Steve Hayward on Powerline so much.
Thanks for your gift, this late in my game.
Lilibet, I do believe the correct timing setting is four degrees before top-dead center.
I prefer to say “We retained…”