Posted on 06/05/2012 5:53:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It rained on the grand flotilla on the Thames marking the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II. How appropriate. It meant that at the center of all the pageantry of the 1,000-boat extravaganza, an 86-year-old woman stood in the elements and waved to her subjects for hours, without betraying a hint of discomfort or complaint.
Queen Elizabeth is a miracle of dutifulness. In an era of irresponsibility, she always does what is expected of her. In an age of self-expression, she has subsumed herself in her institution. In a time of informality and ill manners, she observes all the rules, with grace and dignity.
Who knew that the British monarchy would assert its continued relevance by remaining so admirably out of step? The queen personifies almost everything disdained in our hyperdemocratic times when the “new new thing” is always celebrated. She is tradition incarnate, and — despite, by all accounts, a dry wit — unfailingly abides by the unwritten command that she never do or say anything interesting.
No PR person, no politician would ever counsel acting like the queen. A stuffy devotion to propriety isn’t supposed to sell. Yet her approval ratings in Britain are nearly 80 percent. She is adored throughout the other 15 countries she formally rules. The Thames flotilla drew 1 million people, and her jubilee was the slightly jarring spectacle of a 21st-century celebration of a centuries-old institution.
In the 1990s, Prime Minister Tony Blair wanted to nudge aside the timeless Britain represented by the queen with his “Cool Britannia,” a new, hipper Britain held together less by the monarchy than by execrable shlock. Now, it is Blair’s formerly with-it projects that are fit for a time capsule. He claimed his Millennium Dome, a vast structure housing an exhibition to celebrate the advent of the third millennium, would be “a triumph of confidence over cynicism, boldness over blandness, excellence over mediocrity.” The dome turned out to be one of the world’s great white elephants, an expensive waste that demonstrated the essential callowness of its creators.
What the monarchy has that can’t be simulated or invented on the fly is legitimacy. It is the accomplishment of Queen Elizabeth to have preserved and marshaled it. She knows that she is a national symbol, “a living flag,” to use Lenin’s phrase in explaining why the Romanovs had to be eliminated as a standing threat to the Bolsheviks. Even Britain’s silly royal rituals — the queen owns all the mute swans on the Thames, which are tallied up for her every year — have a whiff of majesty on account of their ancient pedigree.
If the makers of the European Union and its misbegotten experiment of a common currency had studied the British monarchy, they might have quit their foolhardy exercise in seat-of-the-pants nation-building long before they brought the Continent to the edge of the abyss. They might have understood the organic and distinctive nature of nations and the limits of deracinated bureaucratic rule, with no meaningful symbols, no long-standing traditions, no hard-earned legitimacy.
None of this is a brief against change. The British monarchy has lasted so long because it has been so supple and adaptive, in an expression of the pragmatic British temper. Robert Filmer, the 17th-century theorist of the divine right of kings, would look on the diminished role of the British monarchy with contempt. Queen Victoria, dubbed “the grandmother of Europe” because her relations were spread around so many royal houses, would view the shrunken influence of the crown with alarm. But Elizabeth is still queen, and in a few years could pass Victoria as the longest-reigning monarch in British history.
That is a testament to her work — some 2 million hands shaken and countless ceremonies endured — and her devotion to the role appointed her by history. In other words, she did her duty. “God save the queen,” the British sing. In Elizabeth, they have a queen worthy of the saving.
— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2012 King Features Syndicate
“Parliament holds the power to make and enforce laws.” CA
Yes, and that power was granted to Parliament by ...wait for it...
The Crown.
Parliament can also be dissolved by the Queen. Although that would be an extreme measure, the Queen has the military to back her. As a practical matter, it is unlikely to happen, but that is not the debate.
BTW - My ancestors served in both the revolutionary war, in Washington’s army, and in the war of 1812 with distinction.
All of which MUST be done on the advice of her Minsters. Who MUST command the support of a majority of the House of Commons.
As I stated in my previous post, the reserve powers exist, but would only be used in a Constitutional Crisis in which the existance of Britsh democracy and constitutional government was at stake.
Also, remember Parliament determines the Crown, it has deposed one King (James II & VII), and a Government forced a second to abdicate (Edward VIII). It goes both ways.
Hence the concept of Crown-in-Parliament. Soveregnty is vested in the Parliament, consiting of the Crown, Commons, and Lords, all of whom are directly or indirectly answerable to the people.
Yes, but how many hundreds of years ago? About 700? This is a different world. Again, Elizabeth has no real power at all.
"Parliament can also be dissolved by the Queen. Although that would be an extreme measure, the Queen has the military to back her. As a practical matter, it is unlikely to happen, but that is not the debate."
I commented on this in an earlier post.
"BTW - My ancestors served in both the revolutionary war, in Washington’s army, and in the war of 1812 with distinction"
That's wonderful, truly. But I'm not quite seeing the bearing of it on this discussion....?
“As I stated in my previous post, the reserve powers exist, but would only be used in a Constitutional Crisis in which the existance of Britsh democracy and constitutional government was at stake.” -GLC
Ok - I will settle for that...
(BTW - I notice you didn’t comment on the British military oath. Not needed. I am declaring victory on this and not looking back.)
Swearing an Oath to the Queen is effectively swearing an Oath to the British Constitution. The Queen functions as a living symbol of the Constitution. The oath is sworn to a non-political monarch and LAWFUL heirs and successors as opposed to the government of the day. Which also means that if a King were removed by parliament and replaced, Like King James II & VII was, then the oath transfers to the new King, and the deposed King has no claim on their loyalty.
(Unlike, for example, the Oath sworn by Heer officers to Adolf Hitler, a personal oath to a politician, which had disastorous real world consequences.)
Also, the test of the Oath sworn by the Army, Royal Marines, and Royal Air Force, is set by Act of Parliament and can be changed by them at any time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)
Except our military, esp the army, pound for pound, the finest in the world. And our history, our culture....
Good on you, mate! Good points!
Thanks for the post!
From that initial Spiritual loyalty to which they subjugated their fortunes, honor, and lives, their progeny have fallen through malfeasance, irretrievably beyond redemption, IMHO.
He has a bladder infection.
Who understands fashion?
Hey..not so fast! Theres me, and scotsman, and agere-contra...and... :)
He got a bladder infection on monday. Apparently he is much better now.
Not me ... and British hats are a uniquely complex sub-topic.
Are you denying that anything that happens on this Earth does so without God’s ultimate control?
A robot wouldnt look as good in that hat :)
I dont believe the current queen has ever refused to sign an act into law.
Yes, and that power was granted to Parliament by ...wait for it...
The Crown.
Granted in perpetuity.
BTW - My ancestors served in both the revolutionary war, in Washington’s army, and in the war of 1812 with distinction.
Sounds like you're still fighting those wars.
Kind of makes you wonder if the initial rejection was such a good idea, doesn’t it?
Are you daft, people? There is a whole lot of claptrap on this thread which started out being about the dignity and duty with which Elizabeth has fulfilled her role.
I admire her.
(Not directed at you, scotsman)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.