3 ms·
Unless she's been very active behind the scenes, and we find out later, I think she'll go down in history as one of the worst British monarchs ever. Even as a
by zeveb 10y ago
Unless she's been very active behind the scenes, and we find out later, I think she'll go down in history as one of the worst British monarchs ever. Even as a constitutional monarch, she has influence and she has some reserve powers, but from what I've seen she hasn't used any of it to prevent the disasters of the past half-century of British history. Yes, if she exercised some of her power it'd probably spark a constitutional crisis and she'd probably be overthrown — but that's her job, to act as a last-chance sanity check when the people, the aristocracy and the government itself have all gone mad.
It's very, very sad. She seems like a nice lady, but she has (apparently) been extremely ineffectual.
Like I noted, maybe someday we'll discover that she's actually been extremely involved, preventing one disaster after another, and that Britain's fall would have been much worse without her expert guidance. I don't expect that's the case, but maybe it'll happen.
- pjc50 10y agoI disagree, in that I think everyone's long accepted that the Queen should be "above" or at least apart from actual politics, and therefore intervening would be an unpopular disaster. Ever since King Edward VIII was forced to abdicate, nominally due to marrying a divorcee but secretly due to Fascist sympathies ( https://www.lrb.co.uk/v10/n16/paul-foot/the-great-times-they-could-have-had https://www.lrb.co.uk/v10/n16/paul-foot/the-great-times-they... ). It's just not her responsibility and no blame attaches to her. (I'm also reminded of the line from the Australian constitutional crisis, "God save the Queen, for nothing shall save the Govenor-General!")