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.

Realistically the PM is head but the queen is the figurehead. She's busy running the church of england (hmmmmm).

Erm ...... may I politely point out the major voting discrepancies during the final Presidential election of George Bush Jr. in that bastion of democracy, the United States of America

It was actualy his first election, but I digress. To dimiss the concept of an elected head based on the administration of voting procedures in a few districts in Florida 12 years ago is absurd. That was a procedural issue, not an indication that an elected head of state is a bad idea.

It almost ranks with 'better the Queen than President Blair/Cameron/Incle Tom Cobley' as a piece of non-thinking. That's the point YOU get to pick who you want, if you don't want any of the above , don't vote for them: you could even stand yourself! The Czech Republic voted their leading playright to be their first President. I think Alan Bennett would make a lovely president, he could bring tea and macaroons to the state opening of Parliament.

Rather that then whatever is thrown up by the (limited) gene pool of the House of Windsor

Ok, I'm not british (french), so it doesn't really concern me, but PLEASE don't get rid of your queen! I think she's great, she has done an excellent job riding whatever wave life threw at her.
Trust me, you don't want a republic. It's dull, it has no sense of drama, history, majesty.
On the "she should be more human" argument, I completely disagree. We live in an age of sentimentality and saccharine niceness, we crave openess and emotional indulgence too much. So really I think it's good to see the queen showing some restraint and dignity. She doesn't wear her heart on her sleeves and good on her!

s'okay catus, nobody is getting rid of her.

I sure hope not, I love her!

catus - I don't want to just'get rid of' the queen, it does seem churlish to just discard her after being in that role almost all her adult life. Whatever one's views on her record as monarch (& I don't disagree with your praise of her or claim that she hasn't got many things right, just that she is not above reproach) I think she has earned respect.

That doesn't mean I want the monarchy to continue after her though. I beg to differ: I DO want a republic, and so do a lot of us. You are entitled to your views but I would point out that France is a republic (became one by guillotining their monarch) and we don't tell the French how to run their country. And it is funny but I never thought of France as 'dull' with 'no sense of drama, history, majesty' compared with Britain.

I'd vote for Alan Bennett too ComposHat. He would make a charming head of state.

To quote Mark Bolland, former press officer for Prince Charles, "the Windsors are very good at working three days a week, five months of a year and making it look as though they work hard".

A republic is an idea whose time will come. Just like Lords reform and gay marriage. The enlightenment marches ever on.

Lifehope11. I agree France does have a sense of drama and history, of course it does. But not in the institutions of the state, even though the french republic does still have some monarchic aspects, more so than other europeans republics.
I understand being a republican, on an intellectual level, because the monarchy is a relic of the past, that is an unescapable fact. Wanting a republic is reasonnable, logical and enlightened. But, I think a monarch is a great symbol of national indentity and unity, greater than a president is, and I think symbols matter greatly, even when they are not rational. In addition, she is a living link between past and present, which again is a great symbol.
And finally, I just think a monarchy has more allure ( it's shallow, but there you go!).
I wouldn't want a monarchy in France, obviously. That boat sailed a long time ago (mind you we came close to keeping it several times in the 19th century, but the monarchists camp were almost completely inept, and we ended up with a republic).

I know I'd be seriously worried if my DM (also 86) was still working three days a week for 5 months of the year (where was that quote from MrJasc?) - I think at that age she's entitled to slow down and take things a little easier.

Far more people want to keep the Royal Family than want to ditch it - although the actual percentages change over time. Obviously it's pretty high at the moment, as many of us are enjoying the partying - whilst others look on with miserable faces!

Janet Street Porter's BBC programme in 2005. I took it from the Republic website, so happy to admit vested interest in the source.

It is very interesting how so many so willingly accept the cultural hegemoney, and just how much the "impartial" BBC supports it. I do look forward to the day that I am a citizen, not a subject, but frankly there are bigger fish to fry right now.

Despite the posts on here the whole Jubilee will be a great success with hoards of people joining in.

Hi cactus - symbols are only of value if most people believe them as it is not the symbols themselves that matter but what they stand for. The monarchy for me and for a GROWING number of people represent and underpin the privileged elite who are all doing very nicely indeed while many other people are suffering deprivations.

The vulnerable and disabled are having major cutbacks to services whilst the monarchy elite who are both out of touch from the realities of daily life in the uk are enjoying an ever bubbled world of unrealistic lavish lifestyles. They do not represent the norms of the people of the uk, neither do they reflect the diversity of the uk, ie of religions, ethnic backgrounds, class status, education, poverty, social mobility and sexuality - being exclusively white, privileged, Church of England and (at least outwardly) heterosexual. So I would dispute monarchist claim that they can represent the nation in any meaningful way.

ajandjjmum - just because a majority is deemed to support monarchy doesn't mean that republicans like myself should stop opposing it - because you see we think it is wrong in principle. Just the way that women's and gay rights etc were promoted even when only a minority supported them. Anyway, a few polls conducted during a very extensive Royal PR campaign (paid for with our money) is no substitute for a proper debate and referendum. By the way it is monarchists not republicans that think the Queen should have to work until she drops.

I agree with MrJasc that republic's time will come - I hope it is in my lifetime.

Not true LifeHope - the numbers in support of the Monarchy are currently increasing NOT decreasing. Obviously is cyclical, but the figures in support are currently as high as they've been during the reign of QE2.

As a supporter of the Monarchy, I suspect that the various royals see more of the vulnerable and disabled throughout the country on a regular basis than you or I do, and contribute more in time and money to help them.

And now I know it the wise words of Janet Street Porter, I'm totally convinced!!!

But of course LifeHope, you're entitled to your opinion....as am I.

and contribute more in time and money to help them.

I think you misunderstand what is meant by a royal supporting a charity. They don't give money (it is our money as taxpayers anyway) or spend time ladelling soup out in a homeless shelter. They turn up for a photo op and then unveil a plaque that says they unveiled a plaque.

"mediocre to poor" - compared to what?

Compared to English/British monarchs throughout history, she seems to have done a sterling job. I can't name one who has done any better.

It is, I acknowledge difficult to make direct comparisons, especially as you'd have to be on your 70s to really remember a previous monarch.

However , when she dies, will the institution of the monarchy stronger than she inherited it - i'd say no.

Has she equipped her heir to do a good job? - I'd say not.

Has her reign put a distinctive stamp on the institution of monarchy - no, she has not really deviated from the model of monarchy invented by her grandfather: (austere and remote).

The last point I think is her biggest failing, when she dies she will leave an institution that is barely fit for the 20th let alone the 21st century.

piprabbit, Henry VII? No one ever cares because he isn't famous but check him out.

I'd chop all their heads off, of course.

IT(and utterly)A. How many people are still working as hard as she is at her age. She has given up her whole life to serve this country and has done so without complaining and with grace. It is certainly no job I would ever want. So what if her reign has been boring, I think that is a really good thing.

"The queen was born into a wealthy family which although royal, were not going to have to bother with the actual job of being monarch. Then her uncle abdicated and her families whole world changed. The job led her father to an early grave - she saw what it did to him. She has never complained. She has pots of money and lovely houses - so do loads of other people. But her entire life is under scrutiny. She has well and truly devoted herself to this country. You can complain about the concept of a heriditary monarchy - I can totally see why people want the monarchy scrapped. But HRH has worked very, very hard. I know people will say she is not down a coal pit or stacking shelves at asda but it is still hard work.
I admire the queen greatly - the rest of her family - well thats a whole other thread!"

"After some tooing and froing she declared that she would start paying tax to appease the people."

This could be turned around and phrased as "listened to what her country wanted".

I'm interested to know what the price difference would be if we had a president instead of a Queen.

I live in a country with a president (U.S) and I have to say, I really like having a neutral head of state that doesn't have to take time away from their post to campaign every four years.

YABU. Much of my respect for the Queen arises from the way she does not behave like a 21st century celebrity. She just keeps diligently showing up week after week, year after year, keeping her dignity intact and her feelings private. It is a completely refreshing approach and one from another era.There is very little else in public life that provides that sort of continuity.

ComposHat
The Queen does make personal contributions to charities - obviously doesn't shout about it. And don't forget that whilst unveiling that plaque, she talks to people and makes their day (in the majority of cases). Most of us would remember the rare occasions we may have met the Queen with pleasure and pride.

And the Royal Family as a whole are a lot less remote now than they were at the beginning of her reign, beginning with a conscious decision to open up more with the Royal Family documentary. Still a long way from celebrity type opening up (except for the odd minor royal skirmish with Hello), but I would suggest that most of us think that's probably a good thing!

I don't think the Monarchy is perfect, but I think it's a darn sight better than any alternative and I really think we shouldn't under-estimate the support that the current Queen gives to the PM of the day, using her years of experience.

ajandjjmum - on what do you base your claim that support of the Monarchy is increasing? On one poll of around 1,000 people, conducted at the height of a taxpayer-funded PR campaign? Actually I suspect that opposition to the monarchy is high, probably higher than these polls suggest....this and other blogs demonstrate this.

But as I say opinion polls are no substitute for a proper debate and referendum, free from propaganda and royalist media...until that happens I take these opinion polls with a pinch of salt.

You 'suspect' that royals support the vulnerable and disabled....well actually my husband has been active on behalf of the disabled, we have a disabled DC, and we know the hard thankless graft that many people put in to support them. I agree with ComposHat that turning up for photo ops and unveiling plaques is not 'charity work'. Also, it was recently revealed that the Queen had applied for a 'poverty grant', intended for the vulnerable, to do up Buckingham Palace; that speaks volumes to me re how much she cares for the poor and needy in this country.

the idea that the royal family work hard is bollocks.

they awake, have breakfast made for them and clothes laid out for them.

They are then transported in luxury to the engagement. Staff will have prepared all the briefing notes.

they arrive, shake hands say how wonderful it is all is and then are driven to their next engagement.

They don't have to cook, clean or worry about paying bills.

I like the queen. But it is NOT hard work

LifeHope11 Ipsos MORI have carried out polls on this regularly. Support for the monarchy is consistently between 70 & 75%. It has only dropped below this twice in last 20 years. In 1993 when it dropped to 69% and in 2005 when it dropped to 65%.