Posted on 09/11/2015 12:50:52 PM PDT by Kaslin
Some time in the early evening of Wednesday, London time, Queen Elizabeth II broke a record: she became the longest-serving monarch in British history, beating her great-great-grandmother Victoria's reign of 63 years and 216 days. She is also, at 89, by a solid stretch the longest-lived British monarch.
And still busy at work, with hundreds of public appearances every year and reading official papers every day in red boxes and meeting with the prime minister every week. The sovereign, as Walter Bagehot wrote in "The English Constitution" some 150 years ago, has "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn."
Exactly how Elizabeth II has exercised these rights with her 12 prime ministers from Winston Churchill (born 1874) to David Cameron (born 1966) has not been revealed by any of them, or by heads of government of her other 15 realms from Canada and Australia to St. Kitts and Nevis.
The Queen lacks political power, but she is the most visible example of how a constitutional monarch can provide stability and a national rallying point in the way seldom available to a president or prime minister in a republic. She has been, as Margaret Thatcher's official biographer Charles Moore writes, "a figure of peace, courtesy and trust," one which "mixes morality with a touch of cunning."
That was apparent in her trip to the Irish Republic in 2011 or when, on the eve of the referendum on Scottish independence, she let herself be seen as encouraging -- or warning -- Scots to "think very carefully" about their vote. It has been apparent in her active involvement as head of the Commonwealth of Nations, which has expanded during her reign from eight nations to 53, with about one-third of world population.
"The combination of monarchy and democracy helps a country be free and secure at the same time," Moore claims, citing four of Elizabeth's realms (Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) and four others (the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway).
This is in vivid contrast to opinion a century ago. One of the things that vanished in advanced countries after World War I was the idea that monarchy -- not constitutional monarchy, but one where the monarch exercised governmental powers -- conferred legitimacy on the state. The theory was that the masses would regard one who came to his position by blood as having authority by act of God.
This notion was thoroughly discredited by the way that monarchs with real power -- the erratic Kaiser Wilhelm II, Queen Victoria's oldest grandchild, and the dim Tsar Nicholas II, husband of her favorite granddaughter -- made decisions that led to a war that killed tens of millions. Nicholas lost his life and Wilhelm lost his throne, as did the heir of the Kaiser-King Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary, whose reign of 67 years and 355 days may be equaled by Elizabeth in January 2020.
The subsequent history of Germany, Russia, Austria and Hungary shows that there are worse forms of government than hereditary monarchy. Victoria, as Moore notes, was "furiously opposed to race prejudice," treating Indian maharajas as equally royal and her Jewish subjects as equally British. Wilhelm never demonized or persecuted Jews, and Franz Josef three times vetoed the election of an anti-Semitic mayor of Vienna.
Nicholas, for all his faults, was not a mass murderer like Stalin. The Armenian massacres of 1915-1918 were the work not of the Ottoman sultan, by then a figurehead, but that of the Young Turk leaders Enver, Cemal and Talaat.
Monarchs, it seems, tend to have an instinctive aversion to genocide and to catering to bigotry. That's not true of those who run people's republics and national and/or socialist dictatorships.
Queen Elizabeth in this respect has followed her great-great-grandmother's good example. Her assiduous interest in African Commonwealth nations has been attested to by many of their leaders. She personally chose to award the Order of Merit to Nelson Mandela (born himself to a Xhosa royal family).
The problem with monarchy, constitutional or otherwise, is that its success depends on the character of the monarch. Elizabeth has carefully disciplined herself since childhood. As her sister Princess Margaret observed, "Lilibet has always known the right thing to do."
For all its virtues, monarchy would never suit us small-R republican, small-D democratic Americans. But we can partake vicariously in celebrating the achievement of our Anglosphere cousins' sovereign. So let's join them in saying, "God save the Queen."
Ahahahahahahahaha, that's perfect.
2 Simple questions: (1) Can the average, non-rich, non-aristocrat keep a handgun in your home? (2) Can the same kind of person legally carry a handgun on your person?
Admit it: the answers to both are NO.
Handguns were restricted after the Dunblane shooting. And no loopholes for the rich. Kneejerk bad gun law. Overall, anyone with even moderate means can own guns, all reasonable priced as in the US.
I am afraid your earlier post was full of the usual ill-informed stereotypical UK ‘facts’ I read from the US. Hence my reply. I will be happy to correct any errors and answer any questions about the UK.
p.s 99.99% of British people aren’t aristocrats.
1. Can ANYONE in the UK besides those in Northern Ireland legally own and keep a HANDGUN at home?
2.Can ANYONE in the UK besides those in Northern Ireland legally carry a HANDGUN, either openly or concealed?
Admit it: the answer to both is NO, and you know it.
I spent five years in the UK in the 1970s. I hung out in a lot of different pubs throughout the realm. In almost every place, the customers seemed genuinely to revere HM Elizabeth II. They may not be so wild about the rest of the Royal Family but Her Majesty is A-OK.
Her Majesty may be a fine lady, but the UK is not a free nation, and I wish people would stop pretending it is.
And America is?.
As I said, you don’t even have the (constitutionally protected) right to vote (no you don’t, stop arguing). American women are legally equal only by the catch all of an amendment, and failed to gain equal rights by law (the ERA). And America like any nation has restrictions on what people can do.
So you see we can pick holes in each others ‘freedom’.
And if we are talking guns (and as a UK gun owner we agree the UK laws are far too restrictive btw), then surely any US restrictions make you unfree as well.
I never said anything about voting! Who's talking about that besides you?
And if we are talking guns (and as a UK gun owner we agree the UK laws are far too restrictive btw), then surely any US restrictions make you unfree as well.
In the Free States of America, we are shedding restrictions all the time. By the way, when is that vote to remove the massive infringements on the right to keep and bear arms in the UK? Oh, yeah, the 7th of NEVER.
Call me back when you can carry a pistol on your person, or even keep one at your home.
You'll have to excuse me; I'm going to go shopping at the local store, with my Glock in its holster in my waistband.
Good for you.
Even as a gun owner, I don’t live in a country so violent, I need to carry.
Of course. Nothing ever happens until it does. And if it does, the Bobbies will protect you. And even if they don't, nobody else is allowed to have a handgun. Oh, wait, except the criminals, who do not obey laws.
Your mindset is precisely that of my own countrymen who claim I (and hundreds of millions more) do not need the ability to carry to protect ourselves.
And that brings us full circle to my previous points about freedom, and the lack of freedom in the UK, despite the 'praise of monachy' expressed by the article.
You see carrying as a sign of freedom, and I get that fully, I do.
Others look at it as you live in a country with such a level of violence and gun violence that you don’t feel safe without some sort of weapon.
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.