|
RIP Liz II
This lady has died today after living a posh, eventful and long life.
bigger
Despite all controversies about the British royals, their public roles and riches, many people in the United Kingdom have had some genuine love for her as a person.
I doubt that her successors will ever gain similar sympathies. Indeed the UK may over time wean itself off from such an undemocratic, and very expensive, institution as the monarchy is.
Another recent picture from Britain, on the current cover of the New Statesman, depicts the other Liz at the bow of an ocean liner.
bigger
What will the people of the British Islands do when they find out that they are indeed on the Titanic with a captain who does not understand that the economic icebergs drifting in front of the ship are an imminent danger?
@Pacifica_Advocate@200
“You are mistaking the institutions of a capitalist state with the tattered regalia of a feudalism.
The land owners, for example are of various backgrounds but their power is derived from their wealth and their control over the economy. Their titles, or not, have nothing to do with it.
..The idea that she herself doesn’t wield power…ever heard of “The House of Lords”? Ever heard of that Good Ol’ Boys’ club “The British Aristocracy”? “Landed nobles”? That exclusive group of people are riddled throughout the British military, police, and intelligence agencies, as well as occupying many of the highest offices throughout the British government and the NGO landscape.
“They all answer to her. They all quite literally swear an oath of allegiance to do her bidding whenever they take office or convene. To openly act against her expressed wishes is to literally commit treason…””
+++++++++++++
I look forward your answer to bevin:
“”… the idea that she didn’t wield enormous political power is just absurd; there are too many examples in the world that prove it, as well.” Cite a single one of them, then.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Your statement hints at the power Her Majesty did wield whilst describing an arena in which she didn’t wield much at all.
The House of Lords. Ever been in it? VERY hard to stay awake!! As many of the Peers evidence. The main way they stay awake is scratching the flea bites they get from wearing those funny old wigs!
More seriously, I think part of the reason she became such a presence in the life of the nation, even during the 60’s, the 70’s, the 80’s and so on is because she was a woman. Moreover a woman wielding a type of power that is now what can be called ‘feminine lineage.’ The British monarch does not wield traditionally masculine power – armies, executive control, power of veto and so forth. They are not even allowed to make their own speeches to Parliament when they deliver speeches. They are written by the Prime Minister for them to read. If they voice personal political opinions about topical subjects, let alone a crisis issue like war, strikes, riots, famine etc, they will be reprimanded first verbally, then by letter, then in Parliament and then deposed which Parliament I believe has the power to effect.
But they do wield significant soft power, except the word wield is inappropriate. They can greatly influence both key individuals – especially the Prime Minister with whom they hold weekly private conferences that are strictly confidential – and the nation as a whole by their example, by how they carry themselves, express connection, concern, compassion, class, humour, stoicism, family values whatever. So a Queen has a natural advantage in the soft power art of being a constitutional Monarch for the United Kingdom and her Commonwealth of Nations.
Charles III has observed his mother for decades and been prepared to step up since boyhood so we’ll see how well he’s understood these things. He has given many signs over the years that he has not, that he wants to be more dynamic and assertive. That is quite understandable but he will be kicking against the system and by doing so giving them plenty of reasons to kick back which will be counterproductive and might even spur republican movements in the realm. That said, he does understand the role very well and he might even find ways to be more dynamic without breaking the rules. Time will tell.
But I think your notion of the Queen’s power was too materialistic. No doubt there were some things done in the background but mainly, I suspect, dealing with initiatives involving individuals, scandals and suchlike, not policy, politics, official administration. The House of Lords is basically a bunch of lawyers shuffling sentences around. Some of what they do might sometimes be a little significant but not much.
Anyone who knows more please correct me if this is wrong.
Posted by: Scorpion | Sep 9 2022 22:12 utc | 224
|
