13 ms·

An interesting perspective I've heard is that she should have been more political in a few extreme cases. She is the head of state and her actual job should be

by zpeti 6y ago

An interesting perspective I've heard is that she should have been more political in a few extreme cases. She is the head of state and her actual job should be to bring left and right together in the very controversial, almost unsolvable issues, and get them sorted out. She should really be like a couples therapist for political leaders. She never did this. She always stayed out of politics.

mFixman 6y ago
Can you think of a single case where this is true? King George VI publicly praised Chamberlain for appeasing Hitler and apparently preventing another world war. I'd be wary of making _any_ public statement of that sort as a royal with that kind of precedent.
- zpeti 6y ago
  Didn't know that, thanks. Great point.
- Eliezer 6y ago
  People underestimate how much of an honest, plausible mistake this can be if you've lived through World War 1 but not World War 2.
- sgt101 6y ago
  Also Edward VIII was pretty controversial as a political figure. I think that this may have framed The Queens engagement with public life.
- hnlmorg 6y ago
  In fairness, even many in the German military believed Chamberlain and Hitler had reached an agreement too. What happened at that time was exceptional to say the least -- I can't see many people holding current royals accountable to such a precedent.
mattowen_uk 6y ago
There's a reason for this, I'm a bit vague on the details, but when Parliament took control of the country from Charles II, one of the agreements was that the monarch would keep out of political affairs.
- sgt101 6y ago
  Well, it was Charles I, it was done with an Axe, and then there was a complicated tooing and froing for a long while until about 1918 when universal suffrage finally came in.
  - dghf 6y ago
    > about 1918 when universal suffrage finally came in. It was 1928.
    - iso1631 6y ago
      Yes, 1918 allowed some women to vote -- over 30, and property owners (or married to such). In 1918 all men over 21 could vote. 1928 equalised it to everyone over 21
      - sgt101 6y ago
        1928 is what I should have written.
        iso1631 6y ago
        Most people think "1918" as that was the first time some women were allowed to vote, and later in the year they were allowed to stand for parliament (and Nancy Astor did so in 1919) Like most things, Suffrage was a scale - before 1835 most men didn't have a vote either, working men got it in 1867, 1918 all men over 21 and property holding women over 30 got the vote, in 1928 all women over 21 and in 1969 everyone over 18. In devloved areas like Scotland suffrage is even lower (16). Unlike in the US I don't think it's ever regressed
philistine 6y ago
I argue that because she focused so hard on being seen positively that she hurt the monarchy in the long run. Her son has nowhere to go but down. She also forced the British Supreme Court to invent the idea that advice given to her can be unlawful, and did not stay out of politics as you said: she was laser-focused on making sure her privileges and money didn’t get touched by denying Queen’s consent. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette... She didn’t want to have to wear seatbelts on public roads passing through her property. That’s being involved in politics; it’s just the public didn’t know about it.
- sgt101 6y ago
  "She didn’t want to have to wear seatbelts on public roads passing through her property." If this is your idea of a political issue then I strongly recommend the reading of newspapers and engagement with local institutions. Also, I am of "the public" and I knew, due to reading Private Eye which had reported on all this repeatedly for the last 10 or more years.
  - philistine 6y ago
    I gave a really stupid sounding example. How about the denial of rights to long-term leasers on her duchies? Oh and maybe don't attack my character. My ideas can be vilified, but you don't know what I know or don't.
- DanBC 6y ago
  She didn't have to wear seatbelts on public roads through her property. The Queen cannot be prosecuted in England.
  - myrandomcomment 6y ago
    She also does not need a drivers license, etc. as they are all issued in her name.
- dghf 6y ago
chongli 6y ago
Yeah. She dedicated her life to her own likability. A never-ending schedule of official state visits and wreath-layings. Venturing into politics would have pissed off a lot of her fanbase.
- zo1 6y ago
  It would have also "forced the issue" of whether or not people want her to have and exercise the power she currently has "on paper". If she were to impose her will and use her power on some sort contentious issue, she may well end up forcing the country/government/people to take the power away from the monarchy entirely.
bidirectional 6y ago
It should be noted that the 'staying out of politics' is a public phenomenon. In her weekly meeting with the Prime Minister, The Queen makes her political stance well known (that is the entire point of the meeting).
- gadders 6y ago
  She's worked with 14 prime ministers, starting with Winston Churchill and going downhill from there. She might know a thing or two.
  - arethuza 6y ago
    She got on rather well with Harold Wilson.
  - jen20 6y ago
    > going downhill from there While the office may have had consecutive local minima, one would be hard pushed to suggest Major, Blair or even Brown - were "downhill" from Callaghan.
    - gadders 6y ago
      No, but I was more suggesting that they are all downhill relative Churchill. I'm not implying it's a smooth slope.
- bengale 6y ago
  It feels like the better way to do it tbh. The PM gets the benefit of her experience without having the media use her words to beat him with if he choses a different direction.
  - Balero 6y ago
    Or a better way for a very wealthy person with far more power and influence than the average person to, in secret, lobby the leader of the government. Frankly I would rather have this lobbying out in the open where it can be held accountable.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
The Queen holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister. It's unlikely they make chitchat about the weather. The monarch also vets laws while they're being drafted and can make suggestions for changes if they affect their interests. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette... The Queen isn't just the head of the armed forces - they swear an oath of loyalty directly to the Monarch, not to the people or the country as a whole - she's also one of the richest people in the world, running an organisation with centuries of experience in internal diplomacy, impression management, and PR. So it's a complete myth that the monarchy is apolitical. The monarchy is the centre around which the (antiquated) British political system revolves.
- Angostura 6y ago
  The Queen is the disabled root user of the constitution. The government are the sudoers. She doesn’t get to ‘vet’ laws in any meaningful way. She rubber-stamps them. The fact that the armed forces swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen is simply because she is head of state. Nothing in your comment actually demonstrates politicality.
  - lambada 6y ago
    If you had read the article the parent comment linked you would know she does actually get some say in how some laws are drafted. She doesn’t, practically, have a veto once both houses of parliament have approved the law but she is sometimes consulted by the government on laws it is drafting to submit to parliament and she does make suggestions that are sometimes incorporated
  - icegreentea2 6y ago
    The link OP posted is talking about a different process ("Queen's Consent") from the publicly known rubber stamping process ("royal assent"). Queen's Consent happens before parliament votes, and details on what actions occurred (other than the number that were screened) are not known. The lack of knowledge, combined with the pattern of laws she has screened provide the space for making the inference that the Queen may have actively lobbied or modified laws for some purpose. What the purpose is (actively politically, or merely "self-serving") is unknown.
nmeofthestate 6y ago
She's always stayed out of politics, apart from when she "stays constitutionally impartial" wink wink https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29200359 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29200...
jariel 6y ago
"her actual job should be to bring left and right together in the very controversial, almost unsolvable issues, and get them sorted out." No, definitely not 'bring together'. It's 'stay above'. Even 'mediating' is 'interference'.

by zpeti 6y ago

mFixman 6y ago

Can you think of a single case where this is true? King George VI publicly praised Chamberlain for appeasing Hitler and apparently preventing another world war. I'd be wary of making _any_ public statement of that sort as a royal with that kind of precedent.

zpeti 6y ago
Didn't know that, thanks. Great point.
Eliezer 6y ago
People underestimate how much of an honest, plausible mistake this can be if you've lived through World War 1 but not World War 2.
sgt101 6y ago
Also Edward VIII was pretty controversial as a political figure. I think that this may have framed The Queens engagement with public life.
hnlmorg 6y ago
In fairness, even many in the German military believed Chamberlain and Hitler had reached an agreement too. What happened at that time was exceptional to say the least -- I can't see many people holding current royals accountable to such a precedent.

mattowen_uk 6y ago

There's a reason for this, I'm a bit vague on the details, but when Parliament took control of the country from Charles II, one of the agreements was that the monarch would keep out of political affairs.

sgt101 6y ago
Well, it was Charles I, it was done with an Axe, and then there was a complicated tooing and froing for a long while until about 1918 when universal suffrage finally came in.
- dghf 6y ago
  > about 1918 when universal suffrage finally came in. It was 1928.
  - iso1631 6y ago
    Yes, 1918 allowed some women to vote -- over 30, and property owners (or married to such). In 1918 all men over 21 could vote. 1928 equalised it to everyone over 21
    - sgt101 6y ago
      1928 is what I should have written.
      - iso1631 6y ago
        Most people think "1918" as that was the first time some women were allowed to vote, and later in the year they were allowed to stand for parliament (and Nancy Astor did so in 1919) Like most things, Suffrage was a scale - before 1835 most men didn't have a vote either, working men got it in 1867, 1918 all men over 21 and property holding women over 30 got the vote, in 1928 all women over 21 and in 1969 everyone over 18. In devloved areas like Scotland suffrage is even lower (16). Unlike in the US I don't think it's ever regressed

philistine 6y ago

I argue that because she focused so hard on being seen positively that she hurt the monarchy in the long run. Her son has nowhere to go but down. She also forced the British Supreme Court to invent the idea that advice given to her can be unlawful, and did not stay out of politics as you said: she was laser-focused on making sure her privileges and money didn’t get touched by denying Queen’s consent. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette... She didn’t want to have to wear seatbelts on public roads passing through her property. That’s being involved in politics; it’s just the public didn’t know about it.

sgt101 6y ago
"She didn’t want to have to wear seatbelts on public roads passing through her property." If this is your idea of a political issue then I strongly recommend the reading of newspapers and engagement with local institutions. Also, I am of "the public" and I knew, due to reading Private Eye which had reported on all this repeatedly for the last 10 or more years.
- philistine 6y ago
  I gave a really stupid sounding example. How about the denial of rights to long-term leasers on her duchies? Oh and maybe don't attack my character. My ideas can be vilified, but you don't know what I know or don't.
DanBC 6y ago
She didn't have to wear seatbelts on public roads through her property. The Queen cannot be prosecuted in England.
- myrandomcomment 6y ago
  She also does not need a drivers license, etc. as they are all issued in her name.
dghf 6y ago

chongli 6y ago

Yeah. She dedicated her life to her own likability. A never-ending schedule of official state visits and wreath-layings. Venturing into politics would have pissed off a lot of her fanbase.

zo1 6y ago
It would have also "forced the issue" of whether or not people want her to have and exercise the power she currently has "on paper". If she were to impose her will and use her power on some sort contentious issue, she may well end up forcing the country/government/people to take the power away from the monarchy entirely.

bidirectional 6y ago

It should be noted that the 'staying out of politics' is a public phenomenon. In her weekly meeting with the Prime Minister, The Queen makes her political stance well known (that is the entire point of the meeting).

gadders 6y ago
She's worked with 14 prime ministers, starting with Winston Churchill and going downhill from there. She might know a thing or two.
- arethuza 6y ago
  She got on rather well with Harold Wilson.
- jen20 6y ago
  > going downhill from there While the office may have had consecutive local minima, one would be hard pushed to suggest Major, Blair or even Brown - were "downhill" from Callaghan.
  - gadders 6y ago
    No, but I was more suggesting that they are all downhill relative Churchill. I'm not implying it's a smooth slope.
bengale 6y ago
It feels like the better way to do it tbh. The PM gets the benefit of her experience without having the media use her words to beat him with if he choses a different direction.
- Balero 6y ago
  Or a better way for a very wealthy person with far more power and influence than the average person to, in secret, lobby the leader of the government. Frankly I would rather have this lobbying out in the open where it can be held accountable.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

The Queen holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister. It's unlikely they make chitchat about the weather. The monarch also vets laws while they're being drafted and can make suggestions for changes if they affect their interests. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette... The Queen isn't just the head of the armed forces - they swear an oath of loyalty directly to the Monarch, not to the people or the country as a whole - she's also one of the richest people in the world, running an organisation with centuries of experience in internal diplomacy, impression management, and PR. So it's a complete myth that the monarchy is apolitical. The monarchy is the centre around which the (antiquated) British political system revolves.

Angostura 6y ago
The Queen is the disabled root user of the constitution. The government are the sudoers. She doesn’t get to ‘vet’ laws in any meaningful way. She rubber-stamps them. The fact that the armed forces swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen is simply because she is head of state. Nothing in your comment actually demonstrates politicality.
- lambada 6y ago
  If you had read the article the parent comment linked you would know she does actually get some say in how some laws are drafted. She doesn’t, practically, have a veto once both houses of parliament have approved the law but she is sometimes consulted by the government on laws it is drafting to submit to parliament and she does make suggestions that are sometimes incorporated
- icegreentea2 6y ago
  The link OP posted is talking about a different process ("Queen's Consent") from the publicly known rubber stamping process ("royal assent"). Queen's Consent happens before parliament votes, and details on what actions occurred (other than the number that were screened) are not known. The lack of knowledge, combined with the pattern of laws she has screened provide the space for making the inference that the Queen may have actively lobbied or modified laws for some purpose. What the purpose is (actively politically, or merely "self-serving") is unknown.

nmeofthestate 6y ago

She's always stayed out of politics, apart from when she "stays constitutionally impartial" wink wink https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29200359 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29200...

jariel 6y ago

"her actual job should be to bring left and right together in the very controversial, almost unsolvable issues, and get them sorted out." No, definitely not 'bring together'. It's 'stay above'. Even 'mediating' is 'interference'.