I don't think you are right about Queen Elizabeth. She was, as you say, in constitutional terms a mere figurehead. However, over 70 years, having 15 Prime Ministers, and meeting countless Heads of State she exercised a very quiet diplomacy that earned respect from all over the world. She helped, for example, to normalise relations between Britain and Germany after WW2, and between Britain and Japan. Taking a longer perspective, by giving Charles a lot of freedom to pursue his interests he was able to spearhead developments in organic farming and other areas that might otherwise have taken much longer to materialise. She was the patron of over 400 charities and I'm sure that must have helped those organisations raise money and their profile. As for Suez, perhaps that debacle might have been even worse had she not been on the scene. Also, I think you may have underestimated the deep affection and respect many of us Brits had for the Queen. We haven't all been brainwashed by the media!
I admire and am jealous of - the way you write about your feelings. We all feel different ways about every different thing, but there is no "pussy-footing" around with your observations, and analogies on politics.
I have to say that while I don't embrace Canada's current political choices, I like our chances better than the prospect of having another Trumpian Presidential reign of (fill in the blank) ________________.
I thank you for your compliments. I am sure Canada has a much healthier political environment than the US. At this perilous moment in US history, something very vicious has gripped the people. The parallels with Europe, in the 30's, are extremely ominous.
The far right very often spews the sort of lunacy that used to put people in mental hospitals. A trumper from the South killed his two children as he believed that they had "evil, serpent DNA."
The Q anon crowd,. which initially said that leading liberal dems captured children and sold them into sexual slavery, now sometimes says that Hillary Clinton sucks the blood of young children. And Marjorie Taylor Greene, who was elected to Congress and actually sits in Congress, says that there are fires in the American South West because they were lit by laser beams, originating in outer space, that are under the control of Jews such as George Soros.
Terry,
I don't dislike Queen Elizabeth. I actually think she was probably a very nice lady. I read your piece about Elizabeth and just posted a rather long comment which extolled your piece and praised changes in the royals which, I explained, came about, perhaps, because of seminal developments in World War Two.
However, with all due respect, I find it difficult to accept the proposition that she played a significant role in domestic or foreign policy. I have met several Britons who have maintained that she did play an important role, who have said that her diplomatic manner, politesse and good will steered the ship of state in the right direction, but they generally don't have anything really concrete to say to prove their point. For example, you said she played a role in normalizing relations with Germany and Japan after WW11, but I find it hard to believe that she really had anything but the most marginal and peripheral role. I think that in large measure the normalization in relations came about because of the Anglo American desire to have the Germans and Japanese on our side against the Russians.
Actually, I almost feel sorry for the royals, especially the males. In America, men derive pride from what they do, work at and achieve. However, the British royals are not allowed to stake out any political ideas or endeavors which are not approved by the government. To add insult to injury, the press has a thoroughly warped notion of what they should do. The free press is a valuable institution when it roots out corruption and uncovers waste and negligence and malevolence which harms the people. However, the British press is UTTERLY OBSESSED with digging into the private lives of the royals.
The press is a hybrid of Torquemada of the Inquisition and a little old lady gossip who gets her cheap thrills by looking at other peoples' underwear. I WOULD HAVE CHEERED ELIZABETH IF SHE HAD SENT SOME OF THE THOSE PRYING PERVERTS OF THE PRESS TO LONDON TOWER AND SHOUTED, "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS."
I don't think you are right about Queen Elizabeth. She was, as you say, in constitutional terms a mere figurehead. However, over 70 years, having 15 Prime Ministers, and meeting countless Heads of State she exercised a very quiet diplomacy that earned respect from all over the world. She helped, for example, to normalise relations between Britain and Germany after WW2, and between Britain and Japan. Taking a longer perspective, by giving Charles a lot of freedom to pursue his interests he was able to spearhead developments in organic farming and other areas that might otherwise have taken much longer to materialise. She was the patron of over 400 charities and I'm sure that must have helped those organisations raise money and their profile. As for Suez, perhaps that debacle might have been even worse had she not been on the scene. Also, I think you may have underestimated the deep affection and respect many of us Brits had for the Queen. We haven't all been brainwashed by the media!
PS I myself have written a "sappy story" -- though not about her as a grannie, about which I know zilch! It's here if you're interested: https://terryfreedman.substack.com/p/my-queen-and-i
I admire and am jealous of - the way you write about your feelings. We all feel different ways about every different thing, but there is no "pussy-footing" around with your observations, and analogies on politics.
I have to say that while I don't embrace Canada's current political choices, I like our chances better than the prospect of having another Trumpian Presidential reign of (fill in the blank) ________________.
Peace!
I will respond to Paul and Terry.
Paul,
I thank you for your compliments. I am sure Canada has a much healthier political environment than the US. At this perilous moment in US history, something very vicious has gripped the people. The parallels with Europe, in the 30's, are extremely ominous.
The far right very often spews the sort of lunacy that used to put people in mental hospitals. A trumper from the South killed his two children as he believed that they had "evil, serpent DNA."
The Q anon crowd,. which initially said that leading liberal dems captured children and sold them into sexual slavery, now sometimes says that Hillary Clinton sucks the blood of young children. And Marjorie Taylor Greene, who was elected to Congress and actually sits in Congress, says that there are fires in the American South West because they were lit by laser beams, originating in outer space, that are under the control of Jews such as George Soros.
Terry,
I don't dislike Queen Elizabeth. I actually think she was probably a very nice lady. I read your piece about Elizabeth and just posted a rather long comment which extolled your piece and praised changes in the royals which, I explained, came about, perhaps, because of seminal developments in World War Two.
However, with all due respect, I find it difficult to accept the proposition that she played a significant role in domestic or foreign policy. I have met several Britons who have maintained that she did play an important role, who have said that her diplomatic manner, politesse and good will steered the ship of state in the right direction, but they generally don't have anything really concrete to say to prove their point. For example, you said she played a role in normalizing relations with Germany and Japan after WW11, but I find it hard to believe that she really had anything but the most marginal and peripheral role. I think that in large measure the normalization in relations came about because of the Anglo American desire to have the Germans and Japanese on our side against the Russians.
Actually, I almost feel sorry for the royals, especially the males. In America, men derive pride from what they do, work at and achieve. However, the British royals are not allowed to stake out any political ideas or endeavors which are not approved by the government. To add insult to injury, the press has a thoroughly warped notion of what they should do. The free press is a valuable institution when it roots out corruption and uncovers waste and negligence and malevolence which harms the people. However, the British press is UTTERLY OBSESSED with digging into the private lives of the royals.
The press is a hybrid of Torquemada of the Inquisition and a little old lady gossip who gets her cheap thrills by looking at other peoples' underwear. I WOULD HAVE CHEERED ELIZABETH IF SHE HAD SENT SOME OF THE THOSE PRYING PERVERTS OF THE PRESS TO LONDON TOWER AND SHOUTED, "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS."