Prince Andrew

[Bromptonaut]

Did she though? Or were we just told how great the queen, and the royal family are/were through various channels, often from an early age.

I've not met her but watching her work the room on say a TV documentary convinces me she was a stellar performer...

 

[newfhouse]

You seem to think the Queen should donate a vast proportion of her money to charity.

Why pick on her?

I find those that lead by example more inspirational than those that are fêted for their prowess at waving, smiling, and buggering off.

Would you do the same?

Now I’ve retired I’m giving more time than money, but yes, as a proportion of my wealth I expect I compare favourably, since you ask.

 

[icowden]

The difference is these people don't get to vet and reject parliamentary laws that they feel would financially disadvantage them. Nor do they live a life of luxury at the taxpayer's expense whilst themselves paying zero income tax (unless they choose to make a gesture) and zero inheritance tax. Nor do these people have the liquid funds to pay their offsprings way out of accusations of sex crimes.

You fail to mention that the price of that is that they must live their entire lives under surveillance with everything they do being reported by the media. The Queen spent her life unable to express political views and carrying out countless public engagements and official events. She didn't have the option of retirement.

I cannot think of one single tangible thing the Queen achieved for the nation. Possibly some untangible 'soft power' things...but these are exactly the same 'soft power' things carried out successfully by heads of state in other countries.

She supported over 2000 charities and it is estimated that her support was worth over £1.4bn. She spent her life being an ambassador for the UK around the world and was widely respected. She also oversaw the change from the British Empire into the Commonwealth of Nations. Above all she provided a very long period of stability as far as the monarchy was concerned and opened it up to the public a lot more.

She didn't even carry out her constitutional duties correctly as she allowed Johnson to unlawfully shut down parliament.

As you well know, she didn't have any option.

 

[All uphill]

You fail to mention that the price of that is that they must live their entire lives under surveillance with everything they do being reported by the media. The Queen spent her life unable to express political views and carrying out countless public engagements and official events. She didn't have the option of retirement.


She supported over 2000 charities and it is estimated that her support was worth over £1.4bn. She spent her life being an ambassador for the UK around the world and was widely respected. She also oversaw the change from the British Empire into the Commonwealth of Nations. Above all she provided a very long period of stability as far as the monarchy was concerned and opened it up to the public a lot more.



As you well know, she didn't have any option.

I take your point about stability (and continuity). I also recognise that a large proportion of the population like the institution of royalty.

They are the only redeeming features I can see in a profoundly undemocratic system.

I don't see my speaking up for an alternative system being 'sneering' as @Pale Rider says. Just exercising my right to have a different opinion from most people.

 

[Unkraut]

She spent her life being an ambassador for the UK around the world and was widely respected

I was in England when the Queen died and for the funeral, which I thought impressive, and must have had one of the largest TV audiences ever.

When I got back here for some reason I watched the news the day the Queen died and both presenters wore black as a mark of respect, something I didn't expect.

I am well aware of the faults of the monarchy and the ostentatious display of upper crust wealth but despite these the institution of constitutional monarchy has served Britain well for several centuries.

A Socialist republic with The President claiming to be 'one of the people' but in reality having a privileged life far above the common man he purports to represent is certainly no better.

 

[multitool]

She supported over 2000 charities and it is estimated that her support was worth over £1.4bn. She spent her life being an ambassador for the UK around the world and was widely respected. She also oversaw the change from the British Empire into the Commonwealth of Nations. Above all she provided a very long period of stability as far as the monarchy was concerned and opened it up to the public a lot more.

Intangible guff

 

[newfhouse]

it is estimated that her support was worth over £1.4bn

Estimated by who? Receipts or it’s just a made up number.

She also oversaw the change from the British Empire into the Commonwealth of Nations.

What does ‘oversaw’ mean? If she was involved then it gives the lie to her having no political power; if she simply watched it unfold - saw, not oversaw - then she was no different to the rest of us.

 

[icowden]

Estimated by who? Receipts or it’s just a made up number.

I think it came from here:-
https://fundraising.co.uk/2012/06/07/queen039s-charities-raise-14-billion-according-caf/

What does ‘oversaw’ mean? If she was involved then it gives the lie to her having no political power; if she simply watched it unfold - saw, not oversaw - then she was no different to the rest of us.

https://www.ed.ac.uk/impact/opinion/the-queen-helped-turn-the-ruins-of-british-empire
and

The Monarch and the Commonwealth​

The Queen has played a largely neutral role as Commonwealth Head, staying out of its major crises. However, she reportedly feared a Commonwealth split if tougher measures were not taken against apartheid-era South Africa. The London Declaration set out no specific role for the Commonwealth’s Head. As the historian Philip Murphy has written, it has become a more substantial position “very much due to the Queen’s efforts.”

In her role, the Queen pushed to attend CHOGMs when her governments have feared them potentially too controversial. From 1971 to 2015, the Queen missed only two of these biannual meetings.

Between February 1952 to 2015, when the Queen last made an overseas visit, she also visited all but two Commonwealth countries (Cameroon and Rwanda) making near 200 trips and visits to Commonwealth and UK Overseas Territories. With many undertaken in the context of Cold War rivalry and tensions over decolonisation, these visits aimed to sustain the Commonwealth despite its racial and ideological divisions.

There are still fourteen Commonwealth realms where the Monarch retains a ceremonial role as head of state. More states may follow the example of Barbados, which became a republic in 2021.

However, despite the growing number of Commonwealth republics, the Crown’s role as Commonwealth Head seems secure for another generation. While the role of Head of the Commonwealth is not hereditary, in 2018 Charles, Prince of Wales, was appointed the Queen’s designated successor (PDF).

 

[newfhouse]

it is estimated that her support was worth over £1.4bn.

Research by the Charities Aid Foundation to mark the Diamond Jubilee reveals that the charities of which Her Majesty The Queen is patron raise a total of £1,427,000,000.

These two statements have very different meanings.

How much would those charities have raised without royal patronage? It might well be less, but by how much? Nobody knows, but it won’t be the entire £1.4 billion.

 

[newfhouse]

https://www.ed.ac.uk/impact/opinion/the-queen-helped-turn-the-ruins-of-british-empire

That opinion piece merely supports what we already know - the royals do indeed meddle in politics. Even if you believe the meddling produced worthwhile outcomes, and that’s not a given, where’s the democratic mandate?

 

[theclaud]

The Queen spent her life unable to express political views

LOL. She seemed to express a lot of political views to me. Stuff like 'all this is mine' and '£12M should be enough, right?'

 

[Rusty Nails]

That opinion piece merely supports what we already know - the royals do indeed meddle in politics. Even if you believe the meddling produced worthwhile outcomes, and that’s not a given, wheres the democratic mandate?

With outcomes such as Brexit the democratic mandate is overrated.

The Monarchy is an anachronistic symbol of privilege in the UK but there are far more issues holding this country back than an old lady and her pension-age son. If we had decent politicians they would tell any monarch, even a little old lady, Gawd bless her, to butt out...they have the power.

 

[newfhouse]

there are far more issues holding this country back

Yes, of course, but it’s astonishing how many derive from the power of unearned wealth, status, and deference. Ditch the monarchy and some of the structural inequality crumbles. Symbolism, innit?

 

[Rusty Nails]

Yes, of course, but it’s astonishing how many derive from the power of unearned wealth, status, and deference. Ditch the monarchy and some of the structural inequality crumbles. Symbolism, innit?

It will take a lot more than ditching the monarchy to move power and wealth (even unearned wealth) away from those who already have it.

The monarchy is a symbol of all that's good about the country to some and a symbol of everything that's wrong to others. I fear that getting rid of it on its own will make very little difference to the plight of the masses.

I suspect it will go the way of other European monarchies such as Sweden, Denmark and Norway in the next 40ish years.

 

[newfhouse]

It will take a lot more than ditching the monarchy to move power and wealth (even unearned wealth) away from those who already have it.

Agreed. It’d be a satisfying start though.