Queen Elizabeth II; Longest to reign over us

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

The UK public don't think so.
Seven out of ten Brits want the Monarchy.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle
Because many people see her as a kind of "universal grandmother".
Something called "affection".

a reply to: DISRAELI

No it is infection and she has done every person on this planet a great deal of pain.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree



Yeah the evil queen eats babies...
Pfft as long as the British people want a Monarchy as do I we will have them.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Seven out of ten Brits want the Monarchy.

That's like saying seven out of ten cows want to be milked.

I have been against a constitutional monarchy since about the age of 12 when I was taught about the 'accident of birth = head of state" thing in politics lessons at school.
That said, I don't know the woman but she clearly works hard at the job in her old age so I feel no ill will towards her personally.
I'm damn sure I wouldn't want the work rota and public engagements she has when I'm in my 80's.

I don't want to be reigned over by anyone, let alone an old hag with a special hat. The concept itself is ludicrous.

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
I don't want to be reigned over by anyone, let alone an old hag with a special hat. The concept itself is ludicrous.

I completely agree that the 'head of state decided by accident of birth' thing is ludicrous, even ridiculous in the 21st Century, but old hag is a bit harsh fella.
My Mam is around the same age as the queen and I wouldn't want anyone calling her that.
If you have some evidence that the queen (personally) has done something terribly immoral and hurtful to the British people then attack that by all means, but I prefer to criticise the concept of constitutional monarchy in general.

Kind of like the ATS adage, attack the post, not the poster.
I don't know the queen, I don't recognise or offer her any deference as any kind of leader over me, but I'm not aware she has done anything 'wrong' except being born into a particular family.
That ain't her fault.

a reply to: grainofsand

Admittedly I have no evidence to support that whatsoever; just suspicions, tenuous connections and a general disdain for the role.

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
a reply to: grainofsand

Admittedly I have no evidence to support that whatsoever; just suspicions, tenuous connections and a general disdain for the role.

Agreed, and I am as passionately against the whole concept of a constitutional monarchy.
That said, I'd love an honest chat with her over a cup of tea, she's worked with what is it 12 different Prime Ministers now?
I bet she knows things that would make the greatest threads ever on ATS.

The 'institution' is bigger than any human being who is born into the role for sure, and I imagine any future monarch wanting to do the right thing and 'spill the beans' would suffer an unfortunate accident quite quickly.

As an on topic (ish) aside, in my early days of my former Crown service career I had the task of visiting people who were about to turn 100 years old on the late afternoon, day before their birthday. It was dressed up as a 'welfare check' but it was really to confirm they were still alive before the queen sent the happy birthday telegram, avoiding potential embarrassment.
I always told the truth, how do you BS someone who is nearly 100 years old? I used to say "You've got a big birthday tomorrow and I'm just checking you are still breathing before Her Maj sends the telegram" and always got a chuckle and an interesting chat over a cup of tea.

Then back to the office and a phone call to London saying "Yep they are still alive, all good for the telegram" Lol.

Excellent article on Liz:

www.macleans.ca...

originally posted by: grainofsand
I completely agree that the 'head of state decided by accident of birth' thing is ludicrous, even ridiculous in the 21st Century...

I put it to you that the accidents of historical survival have actually left us with a very important feature of constitutional democracy- namely, having a Head of State who is by definition "apolitical". Someone who does not belong to any political party, and is completely neutral in the questions that divide us. That has to be an element of stability. Whatever else happens, we have the chance of uniting ourselves around that focus of unity. In the middle of a political crisis, there is someone who can be accepted as a neutral umpire. That's why people get worried by the apparent tendency of Prince Charles to "get involved".

Where the country has a Head of State who belongs to a political party, that state of neutrality can't be achieved so easily.
I remember reading a newspaper story in the De Gaulle era, about some Frenchman who had been criticising his government and found himself in hot water for implicitly attacking the Head of State (which, of course, threatens to undermine the foundations of the state).
We can see on this site how the "elected President" system affects the American political outlook. The fact that Americans cannot criticise their government without going against the man who is at the very centre of the nation must be contributing to the bitterness of their divisions. They can't identify with anyone as a neutral focus.
No, "political neutrality" is the way to go. If we did not have it already, we would have had to invent it.

If we did want to invent this concept from scratch, of the poltically neutral Head of State, how would we go about it?
Elect one? But how the dickens do we keep politics out of an election? Even if the candidates promised faithfully that they had no politics, like Ernest Worthing, the voters themselves would be influenced by perceptions of their political views. Draw names out of a hat? (That would be Aristotle's definition of true democracy). But that could have catastophic results, because there would be no guarantee of wisdom and moral character.
The only way to go about it would be to select a family to take the job on an hereditary basis and get themselves educated for it from birth, so that they could move into the role (including the essential neutrality) as a matter of routine.
Now there's just the problem of choosing the family. No. it's all right, we've got one already.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Interesting thoughts but you have not convinced me that choosing a head of state based on accident of birth alone is acceptable or relevant in a modern society.
Ireland does okay with it's elected presidents, just a symbolic role, but one that every Irish citizen can aspire to.
Nope, there is no argument in my mind to support hereditary heads of state.

I'm not bleating though, executive power is in the elected government, but the principle of a constitutional monarchy I continue to disagree with.
Not such a problem though, I reckon in a few generations more people will see things the way I do, even if I'm dead by then lol.

It's not true. The clouds have been raining over us for a hell of a sight longer than her. And undoubtedly better at doing so.

I mean, Britain's famous for it.

a reply to: CJCrawley
Not continuously, without interruption.
I'm sure we had a summer this year, for example. I believe it was on a Tuesday.

a reply to: intrepid

Mad to think for 63 years she has been meeting with the Prime Minister.
I got to wonder If she was given absolute power would we in the UK be better off? with her experience and wisdom.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Her influence is felt. Read that article, it's comprehensive. The PM's meet with her every Tues. They never miss.

a reply to: intrepid

It is why I would love an honest chat with her over a cup of tea, even though I'm absolutely against the system of constitutional monarchy for the UK.

a reply to: grainofsand

That sounds like a pretty cool and rewarding job to be fair.

Am not sure if I'd have anything to say to the queen if I met her but I'd certainly have a few choice words for her husband before I get put in a hole in the woods for my insolence.

Also somewhat dubious that her role is mostly ceremonial.

a reply to: MagnaCarta2015

It was a cool job, met some amazing old folk with unique stories

Regarding how the UK runs though, the trinity that is Crown/Parliament/Judiciary actually works quite well in my opinion, they are all fiercely independent in negotiations.
Replace the Crown with a president who has equal limited powers and I see no reason why it could not work well.
That, or introduce legislation so the monarch sharing an opinion does not become a constitutional crisis.
At least then we would have an idea about whatever the head of state actually thinks about government policy and its effects on citizens.