AIBU to think the current Queen has been a mediocre to poor Monarch?

[ComposHat]

Anyone else think all the praise lavished on her is undue? We are all told that she has done a 'good job' but has she really? The servile media, including the supposedly balanced BBC won't broker any attempts to criticise her in any way. We are simply told that she has been 'beyond reproach.'

I'd argue that she's been a dull and unimaginative Monarch, clinging to hidebound tradition and fighting to preserve arcane privileges like a Royal Yacht (actually a mini cruise liner) and resisting paying tax on her income. At crucial moments in her reign she's dallied and shown weak leadership.

On her watch the monarchy has at best stagnated and at worst slipped into an inexorable decline and has begun to feel like an anachronism.

I'll venture that history will not judge her as kindly as all these fawning contemporary commentators do. Her reign will be seen as the point at which the rot set in.

Diana also had James Hewitt and a bodyguard, squishygateness, she was a lot less subtle.

Maybe she could have pulled rank and didn't, I am not saying she hasn't made mistakes but that only makes her more HUMAN.

He was in Malta permanently however she wasn't there all the time, it doesn't mean that she wasn't maternal but there were great expectations on her and her future and probably what she was allowed to do with a future heir (wasn't there a point where there weren't allowed to all travel together in case of an accident?)

I think she is a great example of a good monarch for the period of time she has been in the job, I think it will be the end of an era unless William and Catherine can pull something out of the bag.

But what and who would fill the void? I don't think I could cope with the horrific louch 4 second celebrities......and ego's.

Diana had about five extra marital affairs

Can't find it, but there was an article about the Duke of Edinburgh a few years ago, and the reporter in his thirties said he was knackered prancing after him all day (on a typical day of engagements) and didn't know how he did it (standing out in the rain and being interested in people - when the reporter just wanted to go home!). Can I imagine my parents doing that level of engagements, and not putting a foot wrong or insulting people at their age - NO WAY and they are 10 years younger!

She wasn't expecting to be queen from an early age, they knew what it would entail and the responsibility for life - I think Margaret was meant to have said "Poor you" or something similar to Elizabeth on hearing the news their father was to become king.

Plus everyone who comes and visits me from overseas - all want to go and see Buckingham Palace, the changing of the guard, and if we are in any doubt - just look at all the blasted postcards of things to do with the queen round London. They wouldn't produce them if they didn't sell!

Anyway I like her - she behaves with more decorum than most politicians, has to grin and bear it through meetings with heads of state that are useful to the government, even if she finds them repugnant. Heads of state are keen to be invited, and gets the Prime Minister useful brownie points, seen to entertain them without having his ear constantly bashed etc etc.

Oh and the idiots who thought it was more important that the family should be sharing their grief with the public over Diana's death, than protecting those two boys, who were forced to play their grief out in public - now people those I really dislike! Or OMG the boys went to church = disrespectful to Diana - our media just make me cringe.

Rant over - I'm just glad I don't do her job and can have off days be rude and not make headlines or whatever.

YABU and incorrect on many of the points you raise (but this has probably already been well covered - I can't read 10 pages - it's bedtime)

And don't forget ohmygosh you and I can out and get drunk and vom in our hair if we want and snog unsuitable men and watch strippers and buy vibrators and do all of this without anyone giving a shit. As have said previously not enough money imho.

And she is genuinely interested (or seems it) when she speaks to people, on one occasion that I know of her "people" had organised for her to be at an event for 30 mins and then have a rest period prior to her next engagement, she stayed and spoke to everyone and got introduced to everyone. 2 hours later and straight to the next engagement. And she was well over 80 at the time and is interested and observant and incredibly nice to everyone. I would have gone mad. And I am likely to have to namechange now

the royal family wanted us to share their grief when the queen mother died, with the laying in waiting and the men standing guard for an hour.

Eek, what void, Pooh? I suppose there would be a void for a lot of people if the monarchy wasn't there and I'm not deriding that but adoration/adulation for someone I don't know personally is just not me. I just agree with the original OP that the praise lavished on her is undue - just my view. But you clearly think she's wonderful as do many others and that's your perogative.

I think it's fairly well documented she left Charles in the Uk when he was one and went and lived for 2 years in Malta between 1949 and 1951 with philip who was stationed there - I'm sure she popped back to see her son sometimes but she was largely absent. There have been documentaries on this and speculation about Charles needing a 'mummy' figure in Camilla because his own mother was absent/distant in his formative years. Anyway, we're going round in circles so I'll leave you to it.

And most people wanted to celebrate the Queen Mother's life in that way, if you didn't want to you didn't have to go, but there is a certain age group who do and did respect her. Again that was probably a decision made by other people as to what the right thing to do was. They also didn't do too shabbily for Diana's funeral.

Lol at all the bitter and twisted comments.

Elizabeth has been an amazing Queen, we'll not see her like again.

Can't wait to celebrate the Jubilee weekend - it's going to be amazing!

Porky - yes. My DCs are entitled to enjoy a jubilee knees-up now: they're too young to know any better. But if, when they're adults, they decide to go all gaga for all things royal, then I shall proclaim: Off with their heads!

I just don't want a void to be filled with someone like Katie Price.........horrid thought.

I would admire anyone who worked to the age the she and her husband are, it is very admirable and it does bring joy to many people's lives. At the risk of repeating myself I don't think there will be anyone like that again in the future and I don't think that it would be appropriate either. And that is why I think she should be treasured. I like her, I don't adore her and I don't fawn all over her but I do respect her. I am not the kind of person who has Queenie memorabilia but I do think that it is worth sticking up for her when lots of people don't understand some of the things that she has done. I came on this thread to try and prove the original OP. I don't think she has been a poor or mediocre monarch, I do think she has done a great deal for this country that isn't often seen or has a great big PR spin which I also admire her for as she obviously does these things for a good reason and not to get on the press bandwagon.

A lot of the snobbery and weird things surrounding the queen are more likely to be the response of other people and not her. She might be seen as dull but better dull than controversial (her uncle) and yup she might not have done well with all of her children but will we all? Who knows what the future holds?

I also admire these two and perhaps because my parents are much older they still hold a great deal of respect for them, I doubt my children will feel the same way and the children probably won't at all.

their children

I love her! Not sure why, but I can work myself into a frenzy if I see one of her walkabouts on the tellybox. She's the only 'sleb I give a shit about.

Oops, wrong thread for that earlier post!

I think she is probably alright. I don't really know her ;) I do think that so much of the pomp and pretension that is associated with the royalty comes from their fawning toadies, rather than themselves.

err, about the tax situation, she did it to head off mounting criticism at that time about the Civil List and her income in general. She's fairly astute (or has been given very good advice over the years) but her biggest mistakes seem to be in regard to her own family.

I don't mean the 'opening-up' and 'modernising' of the royal family, but how she actually bought up her own children, (i.e. fairly remotely) none of whom seem to be very happy, and whose personal lives have all imploded fairly spectacularly at one time or another.

And when her great-great grandmother Victoria ascended the throne in the early 19th century, she was in debt. Just 150 years later, around the time of the present Queen's silver jubilee, she was widely described as one of the wealthiest women in the world. Hmmm. Not bad going.

Time for a change IMO

Diana had about five extra marital affairs

The People's Princess, loved by so many :o

She's the monarch of a democracy, op. What do you expect her to be doing?

The next person who tells me how hard the royal family works I will push under the nearest truck.

When HMQM died, No10 advised the Palace that the plans for the lying in state should be scaled back as it would be embarrassing to have large provision but few comers. The Palace went ahead with original plans, and had to extend the time available because of a queue stretching back from Westminster to the far side of Lambeth Bridge and along the far side of the river.

The BBC was also caught out badly, by not insisting on conventional marks of respect/mourning in presenters (anyone else remember Jonathan Ross doing the right thing with a black tie, but news presenters not so doing?)

Public support, for the institution, and admiration for the current incumbent, is higher now than then. Even when the monarchy was at a much lower ebb, Australian republicans failed to carry a referendum to remove that Antipodean role. The idea of a British republic is far, far more remote.

creighton
Nobody made people queue for hours to show their respects to the Queen Mother - they can hardly force people to share their grief.

seeker those of the Royal Family who work hard work very hard, but there are many than don't mainly in the younger generation, well younger than the Queen.

No one is forced to go and see the Queen. I wouldn't stand around for hours and have seen her twice, once by accident in London when she passed by for the state opening of parliament and once at the silver Jubilee when my father met her at a reception. I am a general supporter of the monarchy-at the moment- but a silent, unseen one. People will be out in droves-they want to. She is successful, she has popular support and people may moan on here- but they are a minority-as will be seen in a fortnight. If OP was correct the event would be like a damp squib-I could bet money that it won't be-even in heavy rain!

I think she has done her job quite well- sticking to representation and keeping politics out of her role which is what one requires of a monarch in a democracy- but that she (and her advisors) have made serious misjudgments about her family. One such misjudgment being the lack of personal involvement in the upbringing of her children, another being the mishandling of Charles' love life: letting him be pushed into marrying somebody totally unsuitable to whom he had little or no commitment without making a protest.

I call it a misjudgment because it was based on an idea of what the British expected from their royal family that was totally out of date: people were no longer living in an age where it was seen as an acceptable thing to marry politically and keep a mistress. Would have been fine in the 18th century, unacceptable in the 20th.

Protocol can be changed if it is seen as a wise thing- it depends on the insight of the people in charge. After all, no European royal family is living according to 17th century protocol; it has been changed over and over again, and not seldom according to the wishes of the monarch. The king of Sweden changed protocol to marry a commoner long before Charles married Diana, because the time was ripe for it.

Not looking forward to King Charles though: I think he will continue to make poor judgments across the board, not only in one area.

Still in favour of a constitutional monarchy though: presidents come no cheaper- or indeed more respectable.

She has put her job first. I have been on a feminist thread where women are supposed to want careers with power and money, if you have jobs at the top they have to come first. She has put duty first-it is bound to have an effect on personal relationships. Qualities that make for a good monarch do not always make for a good parent.
The monarchy has to change with the times-I am only a supporter of the monarchy at the moment. Charles is too self indulgent,too fond of saying 'do as I say and not as I do' and has no idea how most people live. The only hope for it to survive is to change to fit 21st century.