Regina Mortua Est, Vivat Rex
[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]
The following message was issued by Britain’s Royal Family:
The Queen died peacefully at Balmoral this afternoon.
The King and The Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral this evening and will return to London tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/VfxpXro22W
— The Royal Family (@RoyalFamily) September 8, 2022
Even in the U.S. which threw off the British monarchy 246 years ago, the media will be flooded with coverage of the 96-year-old queen’s life and death. Reigning more than 70 years, Elizabeth of the House of Windsor has been the only reigning British monarch nearly all Americans can remember until now.
Condolences to those who mourn her passing.
Her eldest son Charles ascends to the throne with his mother’s death though it’s not clear if he will be known as Charles III or take another name.
Over the last 24 hours the royal family had flown to Balmoral, Scotland where Elizabeth had been staying when her physicians expressed concern about her health.
Elizabeth had appeared frail when she greeted UK’s new prime minister Liz Truss on Tuesday at Balmoral.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/3YL3AEKCZZO3DNLNU6I7FZCVM4.jpg)
Sic transit gloria mundi.
~ ~ ~
I am not a royalist. Britain in particular inflicted enormous challenges on my father’s forebears. Many colonized people, most Black and/or indigenous persons of color, will feel less than sentimental at the passing of the figurehead of a monarchy which seized, occupied, oppressed their people and lands.
While I feel for Elizabeth as a woman caught in history’s grip, a mother whose children and grandchildren have like most humans been mixed parts successful and failing, I can’t celebrate her reign. Even though the head of a constitutional monarchy, she had power she did not use as she could have to alleviate the suffering of former colonies let alone her own people. She did too little to assure her country was prepared to meet the future.
I will mourn instead the opportunities squandered.
May her eldest son have the courage to seize what power he now has to do better by his people and the colonies which once formed the British empire. May he do more and better at cleaning out the House of Windsor.
What is left of the United Kingdom in the wake of hard Brexit and Boris Johnson’s corrupt and feckless leadership will need whatever guidance Charles Rex can muster as his nation heads into one of its grimmest winters ever.
Treat this as an open thread. Bring all your other comments not related to Marcy’s and Ed’s topics here.
I feel for Marcy because the Irish and British media have already been swamped with coverage of the royals. I’d already blocked huge swaths because of the racist bullshit attacking Meghan Markle this past week but now I’ll have to block even more in order for other news to surface more quickly.
Noted:
Also noted by MMFA:
You’d think Charles was head of our government the way the major media outlets acted here. It’s an embarrassment when our Constitution pointedly says this nation will have no titles of nobility — no monarchs allowed.
It’s also an incredibly revealing truth about US corporate media that they aired stale crap instead of one of the most important speeches a US president has made, addressing the American public from the place where the nation’s founders declared independence from the British monarchy, expressing concern about the survival of US democracy.
Just checked the transcript: Biden used the word “democracy” 31 times in his speech, but both the GOP and corporate media treated it like it was a partisan campaign speech.
The US has much bigger problems than another country’s dead queen.
Easily the most well-measured take I’ve seen yet.
Thanks, Rayne.
I concur. So often Rayne articulates what I feel, sense and perceive but don’t have the brain/band width to put into words. My family has been significantly impacted by colonizaton and only now, late in life am I losing some of the heat of my collective rage.
Thank you, Rayne.
It would do white Americans some good to search Twitter for the phrase “Black twitter” right now, today.
I suspect far too many white Americans don’t have BIPOC friends who are from or descendants of former/current British colonies.
I need to go check “Irish twitter” as well because I suspect the Scots are being overly polite and the Welsh too quiet…oh shite.
Would you expand further the “power she did not use” as a constitutional monarch? Many thanks.
Oh come now, Philip, you’re a Brit. You could tell us rather than ask me.
But I’ll use one example and that’s her role in Johnson’s unlawful prorogation of Parliament in 2019. She should have told that spoiled sack of clotted cream to pound sand.
She should also have made a far more conscious effort not to look like a goddamned occupier. Exhibit A:
Don’t get me started on the ejection of Windrush generation, as if the opinion of the Queen couldn’t have influenced Parliament.
I’m a proud republican, eager to throw off the shackles of the monarchy, but I think you’re greatly overestimating the influence of the monarch, certainly on political matters. The first time a British monarch intervenes at all directly in any political matter will be the end of the institution. Elizabeth understood this very well, which is why she never did. It seems likely that, being a pretty smart person, she had an absolute contempt for Johnson. Furthermore there are strong rumours that she absolutely livid at being used for that illegal prorogation. But she literally could *not* do anything about it.
I’m not a fan of hers, or of her family, and they have a petty and corrupting influence on statute, but it’s much less important than the pervasive corrupting influence of the institution of the monarchy on the country as a whole. And they have no real power at all, absolutely zero.
Sure. No power at all but the massive amount of space the royals suck up in UK and international media. ~eye roll~
My condolences on the dent in your illusions.
My illusions are just fine, thanks, and it seems yours are also undented.
Then the Royals are choosing to protect their Firm at the expense of the country.
Not much of an excuse.
Indeed. The wielding of soft power in the UK, with its unwritten constitution, is especially effective, not least because it is often wielded secretly.
Thanks, Rayne. As usual your insights are sharp but I think we have to distinguish power from influence.
I’m no Monarchist and would be the last person to descend into hagiography, but the power of a constitutional monarchy is extremely limited, and if truth be told we will probably never (or only after decades) know how she used her influence.
I respected her as the person who was the Monarch. I think she believed that her public role must remain distant from day to day politics, and that Parliament was “sovereign” in UK government, not the Monarch.
To address your specific points:
I believe she felt compelled to act as she did in the prorogation of Parliament.
To have tried to influence Parliament publicly over Windrush would have been simply unthinkable (we simply don’t know what she said privately and to whom).
As for the picture of her in Aden, it’s simply not the case that “she” “ruled ” Yemen. To say that totally misunderstands the role and (lack of) power of a British constitutional monarch.
I’m willing to believe (yes, it’s only a belief) that she used her position with personal integrity and a sense of duty.
For many of us, her respect for the limitation of her role was of great importance.
Yes, there is much to object to in the actual institution of the Monarchy (and its concomitant institutions). The Queen’s death will probably hasten its decline.
And then…?
Personalities hawking wares and services on YouTube and TikTok are examples of influence.
Unless you’re not actually living in a constitutional monarchy, the Queen (and now the King) had power even if it was soft power.
As for personal integrity and sense of duty: her daughter-in-law was hounded to death by the UK media in no small part because there was implicit permission to do so — the absence of overt power expressed by personal authority. Her grandson and his wife were driven out of the family and the UK in the same way. You and I have very different ideas about integrity and duty.
I agree, obviously, that influence is soft power, but one point I’m trying to make is that, rightly or wrongly, we don’t know how she exercised that.
I still believe she demonstrated integrity and duty as Monarch, and at times those duties in particular were seen by her as a priority.
As for Diana and the Sussexes, I will just say that I think the family dynamics may have been more complex than you suggest.
As usual, you make me examine and refine my position with your incisive replies. Thanks.
I initially asked for your expansion on “power” in order to respond more specifically!
BTW Thanks to everyone at Emptywheel for keeping me informed daily. I read every post.
the queen and family dynamics:
yes, it is easy to accuse queen elizabeth of having a life cushioned, padded, and genteelly insulated, but it is not only princess diana and the sussexes situations that had to be navigated.
the tensions surrounding her father’s succeeding to the throne after the abdication of her uncle, thereafter the aggrieved duke of windsor; and, as head of the church of england, her having to nix her own sister’s marriage to the man she loved — most of us who have family drama and tragedy do not have to navigate them on the world’s stage, in addition to being heads of state and bearing four children.
compared to trump, putin, and feckless boris johnson, give me queen elizabeth, at very least a head of state of decorum and service.
women rule and symbolize the need for stability!
the queen and family dynamics:
yes, it is easy to accuse queen elizabeth of having a life cushioned, padded, and genteelly insulated, but it is not only princess diana and the sussexes situations that had to be navigated.
the tensions surrounding her father’s succeeding to the throne after the abdication of her uncle, thereafter the aggrieved duke of windsor; and, as head of the church of england, her having to nix her own sister’s marriage to the man she loved — most of us who have family drama and tragedy do not have to navigate them on the world’s stage, in addition to being heads of state and bearing four children.
compared to trump, putin, and feckless boris johnson, give me queen elizabeth, at very least a head of state of decorum and service.
women rule and symbolize the need for stability!
One of these three things is not like the other. The Hostile Environment Policy was implemented in 2012 by Theresa May as Home Secretary. The advice to prorogue parliament was given by Boris Johnson as prime minister in 2019 (“advice” being a legal fiction; it was Johnson’s decision). The monarch has no business interfering in either matter.
I also don’t think Elizabeth II bore much responsibility for the government back in 1954, either, but she can be personally criticised for her posture in a photo! On a more serious note, she could have done more to criticise colonialism after the end of the empire (although I imagine that the critical comments by Charles and William in recent years had her sanction). In addition to the institutional considerations, she was a product of her time.
I don’t really want to know how this “The monarch has no business interfering in either matter” works in a supposed constitutional monarchy; the UK’s new leader wasn’t elected by the citizenry but blessed by the monarch before she went off the twig, kicked the bucket, shuffled off her mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible. But the monarch has no business interfering.
The average Briton doesn’t realize they’re living in a white supremacist plutarchy which hornswoggled them with populist xenophobic campaigning into voting against their best interests. The same xenophobia encouraged the continuation of colonialism throughout the last +70 years.
The monarch is effectively ceremonial. Government or parliament decides stuff and “asks” for “advice” or “assent”. The monarch has no business deciding contrary to the advice given or refusing assent. Were they to do so, our system of government would surely change.
The people voted an absolute majority of Conservative MPs, which was essentially a vote to be governed by the Conservative party for a parliamentary term. The Conservative party chose a new leader according to its internal rules. The departing leader “advised” the monarch.
Yes, it’s sillier in some respects than a Monty Python sketch. It’s particularly problematic for party members to have a direct role in selecting a party leader if the leader of the party is the prime minister. If left to MPs, it would be an exercise of representative democracy.
How do you define “white supremacist plutarchy”? And where does the UK lie relative to the US? I’m also unsure what you mean by “the continuation of colonialism”. Yes, Brexit was a hornswoggling (great word), but there was a lot more to it than racism and xenophobia.
“How do you define ‘white supremacist plutarchy’?”
Dude, you can google this. Don’t waste valuable thread space with this laziness. As for UK versus US comparison: imagine the US Senate selecting a president if Trump had quit/been removed/died — a body representing a minority of Americans, a body which remains overwhelmingly white and wealthy. No. Just no, not here, at least not yet.
As for “more to it than racism and xenophobia,” yeah. It was about massive lies and stupidity. Like this bullshit lie Leave voters swallowed hook, line, and sinker: https://youtu.be/cA3XTYfzd1I
How many Britons died because NHS was increasingly distressed during the pandemic, especially since more non-white health care workers left the UK because of Brexit? Britons would be doing themselves a favor to boot Farage off their shores.
I worry for your island nation because winter is coming and it’s not merely a meme. Your people have been fucked under the Tories and Johnson’s corrupt kack-handedness and Truss shows no signs of real improvement, no indication there will be answers to
hungry children https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1564719745672384517
and exponential increases in energy profits https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1564157639621312512
Even more Britons are going to die at this rate.
I’m aware of the dictionary definition of “white supremacist”. This is the first time I’ve seen it suggested that (modern) Britain is a white supremacist country, hence my question. Given your response, I have no more to say on the matter. My question about the UK relative to the US was in relation to the “white supremacist plutarchy” claim, so I could place the claim in context.
I’m familiar with the joys of Brexit, Farage, and governance by the Conservative Party. I voted Remain, and I vote for either Labour or the Greens. Brexit is by far the most complicated political phenomenon in the modern history of the UK; racism, xenophobia, and “massive lies and stupidity” all played their part, but there was more to it than that. Cameron committed to a referendum on 23 January 2013 and Brexit didn’t happen until 31 January 2020. In the interim, there were three general elections, two pre-election changes of prime minister, and more besides.
PMQs ought to be interesting next week. As for Scotland, the SNP and FM Sturgeon are already starting to lay the groundwork for another referendum on independence because of Brexit, but I would suspect the FM will wait to see what Charles says first.
Brexit on its own has created a slew of problems for the UK (the list is rather long) that were essentially unforced errors and could very well have been a Russian FSB op. The current Tory government won’t investigate since they are heavily implicated in Russian footsie, like our GQP.
Brexit was a shared goal for Russia and many Conservatives, and there are links between the Conservative Party and Russian oligarchs. On the other hand, Johnson gave a lot of political support and lethal military aid to Ukraine. It’s hard to know for sure what’s going on.
If someone calling the UK a “white supremacist plutarchy” makes you uncomfortable, if being called out for failing to examine that on your own makes you itchy, it might behoove you to examine why that is.
Take a good look around you: Great Britain and the United Kingdom are 86% white. Who are the 14% and what role do they play in the UK? Are they fairly represented?
Source: Ethnic diversity in politics and public life
By Elise Uberoi, Richard Tunnicliffe, 15 November 2021
House of Commons Library
As for Cameron and the commitment back in 2013: he caved to the same xenophobia and lies then. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-21157884
FWIW, I’m an American who has been working continuously on multiple projects in London for the last 2 years. I was actually surprised to see the statistics quoted above, as the diversity I’ve encountered working there has been awesome. Black, white, asian, Australian, Scottish, British, Irish, Welsh, Turkish, Tunisian, Eritrean, Somali, I’ve worked with all of them. I’ve also noticed that fully 50% of the team members I’ve worked with are women. I’m not sure exactly what it adds to the conversation as it’s technically anecdotal, but all I can say is that the diversity I’m encountering is nothing like 86% white.
That’s like saying “I’ve been working in London and my team is diverse.” The demographics I’ve quoted are from the UK’s own census, and the report I linked was produced by their own House of Commons — in other words, even the UK’s House of Commons knows it has a diversity problem. You may also not be working in an industry or area which is representative of the overall population of the UK. Swansea, for example, is 97% white. London and the West Midlands are the most diverse areas of UK where Northeast and Wales are the least (report).
None of the recitation of population demographics addresses the gap in representation in Parliament, or the continued widening of income inequity which may increase tensions inside the UK.
As for adding anything to the conversation: you’re going to have to speak louder over the deafening chatter of UK tabloids bashing Meghan Markle for having the temerity to marry one of their now-former royals.
Kenster42:
London is the most diverse region in the UK. 43% White British; 15% White (Other).
I asked how you defined “white supremacist” because it’s absurd to say the modern UK is a white supremacist country. You were either using the wrong word or your opinion was ridiculous. On seeing it was the latter, I tried to politely exit the conversation.
There’s a not insignificant percentage of people who might otherwise be persuaded to pay more heed to race-related issues, but who will be put off by hyperbolic and offensive arguments such as yours.
And no, this is not tone policing, because I’m also saying your argument is wrong on the merits (the very figures you cite disprove your position). The modern UK is not a post-racial country, but it is far from a white supremacist country.
Wow, the single largest city in your country is not all white. A country with an economy roughly the size of California’s (which is ~38.3% non-Hispanic White) and a land mass roughly similar to Michigan (which is ~76.6% non-Hispanic White) has a diverse city. Woo, excite.
Why don’t we claim the US is free of white supremacy because of the existence of the city of Detroit (~80% non-Hispanic white)? How ridiculous would that be, when the state with the largest Black population by percentage — Mississippi at ~39% — has a congressional delegation of 3 white male representatives, 1 white male senator, 1 white female senator, and 1 Black representative? When all of US Congress still doesn’t mirror its ~42% non-white population, being only 23% non-white?
Let me point back one more time to Parliamentary representation your nation has for all the non-white persons living in London and the rest of the UK: that study I shared says that there should be roughly 30 more MPs who aren’t white. Why does that gap exist in spite of London, or Manchester or Birmingham or other UK cities where minority populations exceed 20%?
Don’t even get me started on the House of Lords, the continued existence of which is intended to ensure the sustained power of white capital owners even if primarily advisory in nature.
Your polite attempt to exit is merely a refusal to confront your nation’s racism and xenophobia, which was exported to the colonies hundreds of years ago. By all means, continue to look baffled and in the other direction.
Here’s what was said about London: (1) Kenster42 was surprised by the stats you cited regarding the racial makeup of the UK, because they felt London was racially and generally diverse; (2) In a post explicitly directed at Kenster42, I said that London was the most diverse region of the UK.
It’s mind-boggling to see you present that as anything other than me advising Kenster42 that the discrepancy is because London’s population is not representative of the UK. It was plainly about geographical distribution of population; it had literally nothing to do with attitudes on race.
My first post in this thread referred to “the evils of the British Empire”. My first reply to one of your posts noted that Elizabeth II “could have done more to criticise colonialism”. My polite attempt to exit was exactly what I said it was.
Rayne is correct. Devising and executing ministerial policy may be the government’s prerogative, but the monarch’s influence over it is not as limited as it says in textbooks.
Moreover, ignorance is not an excuse. A monarch is capable of being supremely well informed – overtly and through the best grapevine in the world – if they have an interest. Not having an interest itself grants a kind of carte blanche. Examples include the measures taken to suppress independence in 1950s Kenya and 1960s Congo (the UK approved of Lumumba’s assassination), and the Home Office’s longstanding and intentionally hostile mismanagement of its own function. One could say the same about decades of underfunding of the NHS.
And here’s an example of soft power from the Vietnam war. John Lennon had less power over American foreign policy than the current monarch of the UK has over its foreign policy. But he frightened Dick Nixon, who hated and hounded Lennon for years, because he had the power to influence millions through a song.
I’m British and Branston Pickle has more relevance to my life than the monarchy. “Very old person dies” barely qualifies as News in my book and I can’t grieve for someone I really, really didn’t know.
LOL Branston Pickle is quite relevant here as well as an example of transnational business. The Branston label has been owned for nearly a decade by a Japanese condiment manufacturer.
Don’t tell my mum. She still has me or my brothers hunt around stores to find this, along with other UK “delicacies” (e.g., Heniz Baked Beans in Curry). I shudder to think of the diatribe that bit of news might unleash. She is four years younger than Elizabeth, so today I found her in tears.
I’m not going to pop her bubble. She probably doesn’t realize the Heinz beans she’s eaten for decades were navy beans from Minnesota, Dakotas, and Michigan.
Some brands have become so localized that many Brits assume they’re, well, British. Campbell’s soup and Kellogg’s cereals are famous example.
Their success is rather like that displayed when the proverbial Japanese girl marveled, on seeing Disneyland in So. California, that there was one in the US, too. Marketing professionals consider such things as major successes. There are few marketeers better than the royal family.
What a momentous time in history. King Charley the 33rd will now don the cape of royal pheasant slayer./s
Thanks Rayne.
Longevity of powerful women who reigned over England:
Queen Elizabeth II – 70 years
Queen Victoria – 63 years
Queen Elizabeth I – 45 years
I’ve often thought about that. These 3 women reigned for 178 of the last 464 years. Add Queen Anne (reigned 1702-1714) and you have 190 years; Queen Mary would add 5 more just before Elizabeth I. All told, nearly 40% of the last half-millennium under one Queen or another, mainly one of these 3 long-lived sorts. Of them, the newly departed Elizabeth II certainly had the saddest reign from the nationalist perspective.
Charles will indeed rule as Charles III.
Trumpists have a strong monarchist streak, fed today by DJT himself. Here’s a funny take on it from Ben Collins:
https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1567953261021339648
Wouldn’t that be “Carolus Rex”?
I guess if I was referring to him by his regnal name translated into Latin, yeah. But I meant when I wrote that he was still Charles and king but regnal name was not yet certain — therefore, at the time, Charles Rex.
The Qeen held a bit too strongly to some of her perquisites, at a time when it would have better served the monarchy to let them go. I include especially her ability to secretly influence legislation that immunized her from complying with labor laws – pay, working conditions, freedom from racist, sexual and other abuse – and enhanced her wealth. The latter includes the anachronistic practice of keeping secret the wills of royals. She could have done more to reduce the appalling level of secrecy with which wealth, and especially land, in Britain is held.
I applaud her ability to avoid publicly commenting on the abysmal acts of many of her political servants. (Charles will predictably not be so hesitant.) She has only occasionally been well-served by her prime ministers and cabinet officials. The last several Tory administrations have been painfully corrupt, but they have no monopoly on it. Cabinets throughout the fifties and sixties kept hidden their sometimes murderous colonial practices. The virtual knife-fights throughout the sixties were legendary. And then there was the social destruction wrought by Margaret Thatcher.
The Queen went through a painful learning process over how out-of-touch her entire family were, with the death of Princess Diana. However much she resented having to make adjustments, enough were apparently made. I hope Charles continues and accelerates that belated modernization, and that he meets less resistance than the modernizing popes of the 1960s and ’70s.
Huzzah Earl
I suspect that the vast majority of UK citizens are ignorant of the monarch’s involvement in and immunity from certain legislative processes and legal requirements. Here’s to hoping that the change of monarch will make it more acceptable to highlight and argue against this absurdity – at the very least, such arguments can no longer be misunderstand or misrepresented as attacks on Elizabeth II. I’m inclined to give Elizabeth II a pass regarding her reaction to the death of Princess Diana. The response by a portion of the public was, frankly, utterly insane. The Royal Family had to take into account the existence of two bereaved children, while the public did not.
QEII’s direct powers are quite limited, especially in the political realm. About the only direct political power she had left when she ascended to the throne was to pick the Tory leader and exercised it in the 50’s to pick Lord Home as PM. However she was unquestioned as the head of society and the head of the military and thus the point Rayne made about being able to do more is quite valid. The Crown can now (and has done in the past) provide the moral foundations. As head of the various parts of government and other organizations (such as the Anglican Church) some of the jockeying for positions we see here in the States was avoided.
Directing the political operations of the House of Commons had a shock when Charles I was executed, and had further shocks after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 where as a price for its support Parliament extracted concessions from William III as he removed James II. Personal power does not always lead to success, for example Charles II had his flagship towed away on the Thames by the Dutch (but lots of personal power) whereas Anne who had very little power oversaw the greatest expansion of the Empire within 30 years afterward. More concessions were made as part of selecting George I (to keep the Catholic Stuarts out) to where Victoria was made a political cipher in spite of her best efforts to influence Parliament. Any monarch that flouts the House of Commons doesn’t do well, and the House of Lords also lost its veto (IIRC) in the late 19th or early 20th century as well as hereditary peerage in the later 20th.
In a reign of 70 years there will be good and bad. Let’s hope Charles III picked up the right lessons. I think the intransigence that led to the loss of America (note how Canada was handled better within the Commonwealth) and the trouble with Eire (well-deserved criticism there, plus the classic observation that Victoria’s empire was so large because God didn’t trust the British in the dark).
Much of the former intransigence and mulishness over perks is gone, a sign that the royals do wise up. I would expect that learning to continue, some under Charles III but more rapidly under William when he accedes to the throne as William V. We can thank Princess Diana for that change.
I don’t think I’ve met a single UK citizen who would agree that Elizabeth II “was unquestioned as the head of society and the head of the military”! Also, Macmillan apparently did advise Elizabeth II to appoint Home as his successor. According to Wikipedia, the last monarch to be “actively involved” in choosing a prime minister “was George V, who appointed Stanley Baldwin rather than Lord Curzon in 1923.”.
In today’s parlance, the monarch is an influencer, not an overt decider. After waiting so long to assume his appointed role, Charles will predictably chafe at how indirect his role is meant to be.
Governments, of course, want monarchs to confine themselves to the role of tourist attraction. But that’s a way to keep them in check, as the rules about mourning are a way to help keep the populace in check.
A former head of Public Diplomacy for the State Department demonstrates he’s not fit for purpose. Commenting on MSNBC, he was wondering how Charles, or any successor, could fill Elizabeth’s “high heels.” An odd turn of phrase to describe a short monarch, who didn’t wear them, and dismissive and unsympathetic about the new king’s prospects. It’s easy to see why public diplomacy is now his former line of work.
Sic transit gloria mundi indeed Earl
She seems to have been a very practical person. (How many queens have been ambulance and truck drivers?)
Dutch royalty is also relatively down to earth, and has made an effective transition to the modern world. It accepts, for instance, abdication of the monarch and passing the baton to a younger generation during the monarch’s lifetime, something Charles must have looked at with envy.
French royalty’s reluctance to cede power gave its transition to the modern world a sharper, less enlightened edge to it.
Posted a response to Rayne, but it has disappeared without moderation!!
Received??
Look, Philip, the moderation here is staffed by a couple of volunteers. We do have to yield to human needs. If a comment is tripped up in moderation by a number of triggers like keywords, fairly new user, infrequent commenting, odd IP address, so on, they will need to be cleared by a volunteer. Right now that’s me and I’m trying to cook dinner.
Relax. Take a breath. The clock says it’s 11:15 pm Greenwich time, so have a bedtime toddy.
Smile, well said…keep up the good work.
Mea culpa! Not a criticism at all. I assumed it was my fat finger! Now midnight, and I’m off to climb the wooden hills to Bedfordshire in the land of Nod! After feeding the foxes!
Queen Elizabeth was never without her purse. I have always wondered what she carried in her purse. Apparently, a mirror, lipstick, mint lozenges, and reading glasses. Plus used to send discreet signals to staff. Her handbag on a dinner table, signaled the event to end early. Clever.
Briton here. I feel no grief at the passing of Elizabeth II, only sympathy for those who knew her, tempered by the fact that she lived a long life and had a peaceful death. My abiding memory of her reign is of her sat alone during the funeral of her husband of 73 years, observing the COVID-19 regulations that – as we later discovered – our then-prime minister chose not to adhere to.
Elizabeth II was popular, even among non-monarchists, and she was the only monarch most of us ever knew. Her popularity buoyed that of the monarchy, and her death will lead to a reduction in support for the institution. Such a decline was inevitable, but it will be accentuated by the identity of her successor – Charles was not a popular prince; I doubt he’ll be a popular king. However, he has spoken out on climate change, and one hopes he’ll do so again as Charles III.
The succession should be a spur to reckon with the past and rethink the future. The monarchy is one of many anachronisms still accepted in UK; others include the presence of 92 hereditary peers in the House of Lords, and the lack of a written constitution. These relics are linked to our retention of a monarch as head of state, so the more the monarchy is questioned, the more these other trappings of a bygone age will also be questioned.
On the international front, some of the Commonwealth realms will doubtless change their head of state. Equally, generational change will hopefully lead to greater acknowledgement of the evils of the British Empire by the royal family, which will in turn influence the general public.
@Rayne, I also wished Elizabeth had accepted Meghan. Hard to imagine the racist coverage/ harassment continuing at anywhere near the same volume, had Her Majesty made it clear she was not amused. Just maybe, a proper example in that instance might have made some Britons more accepting of interracial romance in general. Or at least made public disparagement of it less cool.
I realize that this is a time for unmodified praise and affection for a person and Queen who has passed. But the stream of unqualified superlatives I do find grating. “She was not polarizing, not at all,” for example. One would think that sentiment varies greatly with one’s perspective.
Very different opinions out there once one steps away from Anglophilia.
You go, girl!
An examination of this changing of the guard, and such things as the purposes of mandatory mourning rituals, would be a nice addition to Ed Walker’s series on power.
The expectation about mourning, for example, keeps the Overton Window narrow, and protects the social and wealth hierarchy, of which the monarch is head.
Down in the Antipodes; Charlie is now our King and head of state.
What with Rupert Murdoch’s henchmen having hacked phones and so revealing Charlie’s expressed desire to be Camilla’s tampon to the world, and his popular views on ugly modern architecture, and a probable desire to see climate change addressed there may be some positives to the change. Doubtless there are negatives too.
Otherwise we continue to have what looks like yet another “worst way (except for all the other practicable ways)” of having ourselves a (absent foreigner with very restricted powers) head of state.
Liz Truss and her new ministers, Jacob Rees-Mogg, overseeing the energy sector, and Ranil Jayawardena, the environment secretary, are all fossil fools who don’t understand and don’t want to understand renewables I gather from what I’ve read and heard.
King Charles may have something to say here, probably by example more than words I’d expect.
Tallaght Stadium’s September 2022 schedule is available here: https://www.tallaghtstadium.ie/upcomingevents/
The last event was 04 SEP SHAMROCK ROVERS MEN’S U19 V UCD
The next event is 11 SEP SHAMROCK ROVERS V FINN HARPS
It follows there’s been no event at Tallaght Stadium since the death was announced. You’ve been taken in by a fairly obvious fake.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please advise if this is the username you’re going to stick with going forward. It’s an improvement over your previous username “Alan” as it is more differentiated so that community members can recognize you. /~Rayne]
First, make certain in the future when responding to a particular comment that you have clicked the Reply link directly below it.
Second, I shared a tweet for shits and giggles. There’s something to be said about Irish chanting, “Lizzy’s in a box” no matter the timing.
Sure, let’s all talk around the fact that monarchies still exist in the most developed, mostly white, nations. What does it matter how polite the Queen is able to be around BoJo? She’s a monarch, and quite happy to be one.
Relatedly, I don’t quite understand how Canada and other countries in the Commonwealth can continue to accept the monarch of the UK as their own titular head.
This reminds me of department meetings where, whenever we bring up racism or sexism, the white males will make it a conversation about some kind of “proper” behavior but not talk about discrimination.
It’s just too hard to say “this is a bloody monarchy and has no place in developed nation”. Period.
On Charlie being King of Australia:
This frees us from either;
A. having some celebrity sportsjock/ess, or a rich jerk using their millions, get themselves elected head of state in a popular vote, or,
B. having the parliament (in name but really the governing party) choosing a head of state who is to their liking.
Both of these options show, C. real risks of the position being politicized and/or used for personal gain. SCOTUS being an example of how involvement of politicians in selection has had negative outcomes.
King Charlie on the other hand lives far away, has very little skin in the local games, has the happiness of his wives and mistresses and UK civic duties to keep him busy, doesn’t cost much to keep, will only need to be replaced once and that process will be cheap, quick and non-divisive. And he comes with public propriety, traditions and protocols built-in, and those can be, as DJT made so very clear, surprisingly useful and valuable.
Like our compulsory voting – which I used to see it as a unjust imposition but which does make it unnecessary for politicians to heighten emotions to get people to the polls – I now think Charlie is unfortunately the better option going.
I’d be more than happy to get rid of the monarchy if A,B, and C can be reliably avoided and some setup with most of the positives Charlie possesses created.
The Irish seem to manage OK: they’ve had a succession of great presidents avoiding A, B, and C.
He is now “Charlie”? Really? Am going to guess that the thought of an Imran Kahn type taking over does not sound good, and that is fair. Does it really affect AU at this point? That is an honest question, but from afar think you may be right that it really doesn’t. It is a pretty interesting question.
AIUI:
If the Govenor-General (the sovereign’s representative) went very bad then the sovereign could step in – the king functions also as a fail-safe device.
But that case has only even been approached once in 121 years.
(But then DJT’s stream of corruptions were unimaginable even in the G.W.-Cheney-Rove era.)
Maybe having the back-up would matter once every 250 years?
As to monarchy or republic my strong preference, all else being equal, would be a republic. Having a king makes us his subjects. That is demeaning. (But so much less than us demeaning ourselves by allowing; abuse of children in institutions, mass mistreatment in our aged care industry, failure to protect veterans against suicide, punching down on the poor, pretending that climate change lets us keep mining coal, shutting out of Aboriginal voices with the consequent tragedies. Our parliamentary system has failed over decades to get these horrors addressed. )
In New Zealand the ‘Crown’ is a party to the Treaty of Waitangi (1840), an agreement between the British and Maori regarding Queen Victoria’s sovereignty. Typically, there was an English and a te Reo version of the document which were ‘slightly’ different and not all Maori signed up to it.
The usual confiscation of land and dignity ensued and it wasn’t until the 1980’s that Maori dogged insistence on the Treaty’s terms started to get traction. The Treaty has since become an imperfect mechanism for (some) redress; to recognising land, culture and dignity. Inequality is still rife, but the status of the ‘Crown’ as a party to the Treaty means that the monarchy has importance to Maori and the country as a whole.
The rule of law was ignored for a very long time and then very reluctantly acknowledged. Queen Elizabeth was part of this history and understood this.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. This is your second user name; because it may have been quite a while since you commented last, you may have forgotten you used “JARrch” last time. Thanks. /~Rayne]
“the media will be flooded with coverage of the 96-year-old queen’s life and death”
In this morning’s Sky News website, UK section, on my phone every single news item (about 20) is about the queen’s passing, literally every one. FFS.
Forwarded to me from my family in the Caribbean, along with a graphic:
BREAKING NEWS, THE UK ENERGY CRISIS CLAIMS ITS FIRST PENSIONER.
(I’m not suggesting it originated there)
The British monarch has no actual power. Earlier monarchs abused their position to such an extent that they were either killed (Charles I, beheaded by Parliament in 1649 after plunging the country into a Civil War) or forced to accept an increasingly diminished role. The monarch today is mainly a figurehead but s/he also provides something a republic or democracy doesn’t have, a spiritual or moral touchstone, a symbolic shared conscience above politics — or so it should be if the monarchy and the country want to continue. Elizabeth was great in the role, compared to Charles… He’s naturally divisive so I doubt he can fulfill the same symbolic purpose. As far as colonial plunder and rape though, I would look to Parliament & their corrupt oligarchic supporters more than the monarch who again was subservient to Parliament starting in 1649. And even while the king may have signed charters, for example for the East India Company which pillaged for centuries, it’s unlikely the monarch knew details of abuses and he was also probably also lied to. The colonies were far away… It’s likely he just believed his “trusted advisors” and as long as profits were rolling in why doubt? It wouldn’t be the first time advisors lied to their boss while embezzling large sums off the top. The monarch also couldn’t complain about or stop the abuse or bloodshed of brown people if they never heard about it. This isn’t necessarily an excuse, a diligent monarch (like Elizabeth) could have asked about conditions and pursued alternate sources of info.. But IMO the real evildoers of the colonial times were the manipulators, wheelers & dealers in the Parliament.
Personally I’m fearful now of the lack of any collective, shared living model symbol of conscience. Technocracy without humble human grace & devotion doesn’t lead to nirvana. Elizabeth’s loss leaves a vacuum.
[Welcome to emptywheel. Please use a more differentiated username when you comment next as we have more than one community member named “Maya” or “May.” Thanks. /~Rayne]
The monarch’s power is not as inconsequential as that, but it cannot overtly obstruct government. In a culture like England, the monarch’s soft power is considerable, if more so the less it is used.
We’ll agree to disagree about the British monarch’s power.
Brings to mind events like this one which wholly shaped public opinion:
No power. None. A powerless woman hounded to her death because she had no power.
I’ll agree that there’s a void now which Charles and his eldest son aren’t up to filling.
What are the odds that TFG is moping about not being invited to the Queen’s funeral, and that he crashes the event? After all, he has his passport back, he can afford a private jet, he can pretend he’s just going to play golf at his Scottish resort, and the UK hasn’t extradited a former top politician for years.
I hope the British monarchy and UK government are prepared for something like this. But I’m betting it’s too inconvenient and it’s a funeral after all, not exactly the kind of event one wants to go out of their way to make a splash because it could do more damage to optics. And we know the orange cockwomble is all about optics.
He won’t be the official US representative, for certain. However, Individual-1 simply cannot stand being out of the papers and will blow a gasket if no one talks about him for the 10-day mourning period. My guess is he’ll crash the funeral like he crashed weddings at M-a-L.
Whether Joe Biden goes for the USA or sends Kamala Harris (or Jill since she’s met the other royals) remains to be seen. I can’t see W and Jimmy Carter’s pretty frail himself.
My money is on Kamala and her spouse attending because of Biden’s relationship with Ireland. High-level US presence but high-level US recognition of UK’s need to maintain the Good Friday agreement. He’s not going to want to give too much precedence to the UK’s leadership especially after Truss was such a mouthy witch about US-UK relations:
The US isn’t going to be hurting for natural gas this winter.
The wit in that comment says more about Truss than the special relationship, which has always been a little one-sided. I’s not as if Airstrip One has too many other friends waiting to take her out just now.
You are generous calling it wit. Really quite stupid to talk trash about UK’s largest export buyer.
Well, it reinforces that the Tories have the same, self-destructive problem as MAGA Republicans: they adhere to fixed talking points at the expense of rationality, self-interest, and everything else.
Not to mention the odd tourist, happy to spend their now more valuable dollars.
When next June’s trooping of the color comes round, it will be interesting to see how well a former polo player continues to sit on his horse.
Biden has said he’ll be attending. I doubt very much Trump will be invited. Whether that means they won’t invite the other living former presidents (excluding Carter whose health won’t permit it) so as not to create an issue remains to be seen.
Thanks, I hadn’t seen the commitment by Biden to attend. I have to rethink this…is he going to lean on Truss and her foreign secretary Cleverly while there? At least State Dept has a previous relationship with Cleverly.
We’ve chuckled before about favorite mistranslations. (Mine, from a Hong Kong hotel room: “The manager has personally passed the water served in this hotel.”) This chyron from CBS Evening News almost fits that category:
When I first read that, I thought it said, “where” the plane was trying to land: in San Diego Bay. @nycsouthpaw points out that, while the jet itself might risk blame for that landing, “the humans who tried to land in that weather were barely involved.” The pilots probably hope the FAA comes to the same conclusion, rather than focusing on pilot error. Ah, the perils of the passive voice.
https://twitter.com/CBSEveningNews/status/1568375456172236800
Just noticed while out for a walk that the stars and stripes are at 1/2 mast at the supreme court. Why? for the queen? really?
But the British monarch has no power, don’t you know.
Biden ordered it, no idea why unless he is making up to UK for some specific reason. Until the funeral seems really excessive.
ADDER: US flag is flown at half mast on 9/11, which is Monday. Flag was flown at half mast for one day in February 2021 to recognize US dead due to COVID — that’s it, one whole day for half a million US dead. Hmm.
But, at the court, too? ugh.
“US flag is flown at half mast on 9/11, which is Monday.”?
Maybe it’s just Uncle Sam doffing his hat to the Special Relationship.
When news of the death of George Washington arrived in the British Isles in January 1800, the ships of the Royal Navy’s Channel Fleet fired a cannonade in his honour, while the British squadron blockading the French port of Brest lowered their flags to half-mast as a mark of respect to his memory.
I do find it interesting the Queen’s casket is making its progress around the country in a Mercedes hearse. What ho Rolls Royce?