The Queen's Speech

[BgMstr4u]

 

A voice of wisdom, compassion, experience and sweet resolve in the midst of this crisis.

[CuriousByNature]

 

A voice of wisdom, compassion, experience and sweet resolve in the midst of this crisis.

She's awesome.

[irfy]

meaningless drivel, her family have not abided by the rules her govt have imposed on the rest of us.

[CuriousByNature]

meaningless drivel, her family have not abided by the rules her govt have imposed on the rest of us.

I hadn't heard about that... I was under the impression that the Royal Family had stopped all engagements, etc.

 

I agree with @BgMstr4u in his assessment of the speech. Whether or not one is a monarchist or a republican, it is difficult to argue that the Queen is not a calm voice of encouragement and hope in these times. Much as she has been since her first public speech 80 years ago.

 

And recognizing that the Queen is an apolitical figurehead, my intention is not to make any political statement here in this forum, as per the rules ?

[Spursy]

In any event, the Queen looks damn good for 93.

[CuriousByNature]

In any event, the Queen looks damn good for 93.

Absolutely... and she'll be 94 in 3 weeks ?

 

Her mother made it to 101 and her great-aunt to almost 98, so heres hoping she outlives them both with ongoing good health and a sharp mind.

[rvwnsd]

meaningless drivel, her family have not abided by the rules her govt have imposed on the rest of us.

You might want to check this , then read this , and then look at one of these.

[TruthBTold]

I liked that she appealed to the best of our common nature and that by pulling together and practicing actions that may now seem painful we will in the end achieve our common goal. Here's a shout out to the NHS which takes care of Britain's citizens. At any rate, it is a somewhat different look than what we have across the great pond.

[+ Charlie]

I hadn't heard about that... I was under the impression that the Royal Family had stopped all engagements, etc.

 

I agree with @BgMstr4u in his assessment of the speech. Whether or not one is a monarchist or a republican, it is difficult to argue that the Queen is not a calm voice of encouragement and hope in these times. Much as she has been since her first public speech 80 years ago.

 

And recognizing that the Queen is an apolitical figurehead, my intention is not to make any political statement here in this forum, as per the rules ?

Although I appreciate your intention, the queen is a political figure despite her careful attempt to always appear non-partisan. Anyone who has constitutional power within a government is by definition a political figure, as the automatic comparison/contrast here with the other heads of state makes clear.

[Populist Fury]

People still worshiping these so-called royalty creatures in the year 2020 is scary...

[CuriousByNature]

Although I appreciate your intention, the queen is a political figure despite her careful attempt to always appear non-partisan. Anyone who has constitutional power within a government is by definition a political figure, as the automatic comparison/contrast here with the other heads of state makes clear.

True enough...

[CuriousByNature]

People still worshiping these so-called royalty creatures in the year 2020 is scary...

Yes, that would be scary. But I think one can appreciate what the monarch embodies from a cultural and historical perspecive, and value the job that has been done, without it crossing over into worship. A person doesn't even need to support a system of entitlement from birth (I don't, by the way) to recognize the importance of the monarchy on a variety of levels.

[Becket]

Quoting many commentators, in five minutes the Queen gave us more strength, hope, and leadership than two months of The Donald blathering on in his two hour (so called) press briefings.

[Mo Mason]

I'm pretty sure that's the first time in my life that I've heard her speak. Didn't even know what her voice sounded like. So that's kind of neat.

[IndyGuy]

I have to admit that while I'm fascinated by the concept of royalty - I completely don't understand it. It may very well be from a lack of understanding of the role the monarchy plays - it just seems so outdated...

[JulianLondon]

For anyone who doesn't understand the significance and importance of the monarch in the UK just take a look at the photo below of the NHS (National Health Service) staff standing to listen to her broadcast in the newly built Nightingale Hospital.

 

[MEDIA=twitter]1246881763814670347[/MEDIA]

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/06/nation-reacted-queens-speech/

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52125059

[+ bigjoey]

I have to admit that while I'm fascinated by the concept of royalty - I completely don't understand it. It may very well be from a lack of understanding of the role the monarchy plays - it just seems so outdated...

 

 

All societies have customs that seem strange to outsiders. These customs become the glue that holds a civilization together. For example, on meeting someone in some Asian societies you bow while in our society you shake hands. If we were to meet and you held out your hand and instead of extending my hand I gave a short bow, you would think me strange.

 

Pretty much universally, people honor their country’s flag. Think about it: honoring a piece of cloth? Yet, almost everyone does it.

 

It is not just a king or queen that some societies honor. In communist countries it can be a founder (think:Lenin’s body in Moscow) or a founder’s family (think:Kim family in Korea). In China, remember the wife of Mao Tse-Tung:

[+ bigjoey]

People still worshiping these so-called royalty creatures in the year 2020 is scary...

 

More frightening is our society’s worship of the famous. Think: Hollywood “Stars” like the Kardashians ?

[TruthBTold]

More frightening is our society’s worship of the famous. Think: Hollywood “Stars” like the Kardashians ?

 

Please don't make me.

[Rudynate]

Although I appreciate your intention, the queen is a political figure despite her careful attempt to always appear non-partisan. Anyone who has constitutional power within a government is by definition a political figure, as the automatic comparison/contrast here with the other heads of state makes clear.

 

 

Of course she's a political figure-she's the head of state. What is more, she is the Sovereign - the sovereign power of the government resides in her- it gives the government legitimacy. It's no accident that the government is referred to as Her Majesty's government. In monarchies, the monarch has an almost mystical role-the Monarch embodies the history, values and common principles around which the people unite.

 

Here in the US, we're too adult for that-the People are sovereign. When I last looked, that wasn't working too well.

[+ Charlie]

One of the knocks against the Adamses in the early 19th century was that they seemed to think of themselves as a kind of royal family. Part of both the attraction to and instinctive reaction against the Kennedys and the Bushes is that they seemed to fall into the same pattern. Some people are comforted by the notion of royalty, others are disturbed by it.

[MscleLovr]

Some people are comforted by the notion of royalty, others are disturbed by it.

 

When it comes to the Monarchy, I’m a theoretical Republican. You may not be aware that there is a strong Republican element in the UK population. Polls consistently say that the Republican element is a minority albeit significant.

 

Yet you never hear or see criticism of the Queen herself. She remains above politics and no-one knows her views. Polls routinely record about 75% of Britons having a positive view of her while those feeling negative barely reach 10%. Partly this is a tribute to her longevity and partly to her admirable and stoic behaviour; she remains hardworking even though in 2 weeks time she will become 94 years old.

 

I suspect that many people share my sympathies as a theoretical Republican. The problem is that if the Monarchy were to be abolished, the replacement Head of State (or President) would inevitably be a superannuated politician. When I look around the world at the current crop of venal, incompetent and corrupt Presidents, I’m grateful that the Queen endures.

[+ bigjoey]

Of course she's a political figure-she's the head of state. What is more, she is the Sovereign - the sovereign power of the government resides in her- it gives the government legitimacy. It's no accident that the government is referred to as Her Majesty's government. In monarchies, the monarch has an almost mystical role-the Monarch embodies the history, values and common principles around which the people unite.

 

Here in the US, we're too adult for that-the People are sovereign. When I last looked, that wasn't working too well.

 

I think the difference has to do with our national “stories.” Until the recent waves of immigrants, no one had to ask a British citizen what does it mean to be British, they instinctively knew and felt it (Japan is still that way as they have allowed almost no immigration).

 

In the United States, in 1776, we had no single national story. In our early years, there were so many different threads that our founders created our story with power coming from the people. A revolutionary idea as at that time, the kings were either gods or god’s appointed representative and ruled in god’s name. Even in our time, the Emperor of Japan was considered a god.

 

We need a different “story” than places like Japan or Britain or Denmark because our society has a different base and origin. Even now, our “story” keeps changing; in the ‘50’s I was taught about us being a melting pot where we were all headed to blend into a single new identity. Now I hear about instead of a melting pot, being a stew where each addition retains some of its original characteristics while still part of a common whole.

 

Currently, a queen fits the British culture, an emperor fits Japan’s culture and we have what we have. I would not belittle another culture for things that fit with their “story”. What works for one culture may not work for another. As you note, to be honest, I do not think things are working out so well for us at the moment; we should not be throwing stones from our glass house.

[TruthBTold]

When it comes to the Monarchy, I’m a theoretical Republican. You may not be aware that there is a strong Republican element in the UK population. Polls consistently say that the Republican element is a minority albeit significant.

 

Yet you never hear or see criticism of the Queen herself. She remains above politics and no-one knows her views. Polls routinely record about 75% of Britons having a positive view of her while those feeling negative barely reach 10%. Partly this is a tribute to her longevity and partly to her admirable and stoic behaviour; she remains hardworking even though in 2 weeks time she will become 94 years old.

 

I suspect that many people share my sympathies as a theoretical Republican. The problem is that if the Monarchy were to be abolished, the replacement Head of State (or President) would inevitably be a superannuated politician. When I look around the world at the current crop of venal, incompetent and corrupt Presidents, I’m grateful that the Queen endures.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Queen passes on and Charles takes the throne (I assume he will not abdicate). At that point will Scotland really work to become a different state, although as I understand it Parliament must OK that and at this point I cannot imagine them doing that easily. However I am not sure that Scotland has the same devotion to the throne (as embodied in Elizabeth) as they would have toward Charles.

[+ Charlie]

Maybe the more important question is how the English will feel about Charles as monarch. They have never felt the kind of respect and affection for him that they have for his mother. With the Windsor genes, it is possible he could spend a couple of decades on the throne.