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.

Most recent poll puts support at 80%, the highest since they started polling.

She instigated her paying of taxes!!

In any case you do realise that every piece of legislation passed has to receive her assent, so what makes you think she resisited it?

On the fact that all recent polls say that this is so. Although I accept that with the Royal Wedding/Jubilee hype etc., the support is likely to be peaking currently. There has to be appetite for a debate, and currently I don't think there is, although again, I accept this might change.

With regard to charitable donations, from her own charitable funds she donates over a million pounds a year to the Prince's Trust. Of course, run by Charles, but no-one can dispute that it has helped thousands of young people move forward with their lives in a productive way. She has previously donated to a prison campaign against alcohol abuse and Commonwealth youth charities and nursing funds.

I said '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'. Whilst it's great that your DH works on behalf of the disabled, the Monarchy is able to contribute countrywide - and I - together with many charities - would disagree with you that her visits are not positive examples of charity work. If it didn't count, why do so many charities want a Royal patronage?

With regard to the 'poverty grant' application, do you know that the Queen was aware of this enquiry, which was made from the person responsible for balancing her books, on an informal basis?

An 86 year old woman working full time for half the year is a hell of a commitment, and even for those who disagree with the Monarchy, I think not to acknowledge that is churlish in the extreme.

ajandjjmum: what is the basis for your claime that the queen donates a million a year to the Princes' Trust plus other charities? Not disputing what you say but how do you substantiate your claim that vast sums are donated by the Royals? Royal finances are shrouded in mystery (re exemption from Freedom of Information etc), we don't know what she receives or pays out but we know it involves vast sums. Giving to charity is the least a fabulously wealthy woman in a public position should be doing..... many people give to charity and make real sacrifices in doing so. A lot of celebrities do the same (I have personal experience of this) and much of what they do is also unsung.

As previous polls indicate, around a quarter or as much as a third of English people are republican....even if you believe the latest poll is accurate (and I don't), the lowest proportion is a fifth which though a minority is a very substantial minority of republicans. In no other context would this number of people be ignored, as frankly republicans are being ignored in so many different respects.

'I believe Britain is slowly but surely splitting into two camps; one believes in change and greater democracy and more political freedom and accountability, and the other, well they want things to stay the same, the same old unaccountability, the same old class system, the same old people remaining at the top creaming off ever more money whether we like it or not, and the same old crap spouted by the sycophants and toadies of this whole rotten system.'

ComposHat

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!

And how well does that work in the US or in France? How many 'outsiders' have made it to the top? Every single one is an institutional politician. So it's not as though we all stand a chance. It's a political appointment, which means that grasping politicians will be fighting for it.

The Czech Republic voted their leading playright to be their first President.

Vaclav Havel wasn't just a playwright, he was a committed anti-Communist campaigner.

^ 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.^

Frankly, when I look at the choice between Monarch and President - such as Chirac or Bush or Chavez of Putin - I think I'll stick with Queenie. At least for monarchs the concept of Divine Right has been discarded, whereas it doesn't seem to have been for the demagogues which infest presidencies today.

It seems to be LifeHope that you think the views of the 70% are totally wrong (fair enough - your opinion), but moreso, that they are not worthy of consideration, and the views of the minority are what should be counted. Don't get that myself.

That's not quite right LifeHope. The polls for the past 20 years have fluctuated between 15 and 20%. The lowest being now (13%) and the highest being in 2005 (22%). There is around 10% who vote that they don't know, so it isn't a case of 70% for = 30% against.

The lowest support for the monarchy and highest for a republic was in April 2005, which coincided with Charles and Camilla's wedding.

YABU

Gawd bless yer Ma'am

a gilded cage is still a cage, no matter how fancy.

flatpack you seem to have a low opinion of people's ability to make informed choices about who they want to be governed by.

ComposHat

flatpack you seem to have a low opinion of people's ability to make informed choices about who they want to be governed by.

I'm not the one demanding political change that isn't wanted by the vast majority of the country.

My problem isn't with the people, but the quality of politicians.

YANBU
I agree totally with what mixedberrymilkshake, Mon 21-May-12 19:56:47

"A good monarch is no monarch.

We can't call ourselves a democracy when we have an institution like the Royal Family in place. I'm sure Liz is a very nice woman, but so is my nan."

I'm a republican and I don't like monarchy as an institution but I think Brenda does get it far better than either her parents or her kids. It's not really about her. The monarch shouldn't be a celebrity, but the figurehead of the state - I hate that idea, but it IS the idea.

Agree with the above about how bloated it all is, but she has made a few moves - opening Buck House to proles like us the people and getting rid of Britannia and the train. I still hate the whole better-pot-to-piss-in side of it - I recall when Charles visited Oxford we all had to refurbish our loos with wooden seats as apparently he won't plant the royal buttocks on plastic, and he will also only use stalls and not a urinal. He has so much stolen money land in his own right that it all looks a bit decadent. Brenda however is only normally decadent for someone so rich.

ajandjjmum - no that is not what I said. I never claimed that majority views are not worthy of consideration, only that those of a substantial minority should be considered also and not ignored as they are at present. Yes I do disagree with the majority in this case, a majority is not always right.

TheUnMember - I just don't believe that 70% of the population are ardent monarchists and the rest are lukewarm/undecided. More likely there is a spectrum of ardent monarchists at one end, ardent republicans at the other and the more ambivalent and 'undecideds' somewhere in the middle. My experience is that many people oppose or resent the monarchy these days. But the only way to know for sure is a referendum isn't it? Always we come back to that.

'The lowest support for the monarchy and highest for a republic was in April 2005, which coincided with Charles and Camilla's wedding' - so this illustrates just how much less popular the next monarch will be.

flatpackhamster - the fact you dislike the US/France's presidents and systems does not constitute an argument against republicanism itself. Other countries you didn't mention have an apolitical figure as president. The point is that if we dislike the president then we can vote him/her out but we can't discard a monarch. It is only a matter of time until we get a lousy monarch and there will be nothing we can do without it....we know already that King Charles lll will be much less popular than his mother.

I bet you'd believe the polls if they supported your opinion.

TheUnMember, the results of a poll will all depend on what questions you ask.

Beautifully explained by Yes Minister .

I think the problem is LifeHope there are no shades of grey - you (speaking generally!) want the Monarchy or you don't, so whilst 20% might be important in other situations, compared to a 70% majority support, it can't be considered. Unless we make 20% of the country republican, 70% monarchists and 10% for the undecideds. It'd be fun drawing up those boundary lines!

You know why I hate voting - because all politicians are SHITE - I don't want another elected representative that would cost as much if not more.

At least we know what we are getting with our royals - I think the queen is amazing and I think William will make an excellent monarchs well.

Why does it have to be an elected president? it can be one chosen by the parliament, to represent outstanding achievement in Arts, Science or anything else we value as a society. Doesn't have to be a politician and can represent across the broad political spectrum.

The issue I have with monarchy is that they are not role models. None of us can aspire to be a royal, the way we can aspire to be a Nobel prize winning scientist or a footballer or whatever.

My initial thought was YABU. And you are on one hand. But you're also NBU. There's no denying on the "pro" side, she has devoted her life, works crazily hard, did her bit during the war and kept the stiff upper lip firmly in check. But on the other hand, she hasn't much fire in her belly has she? I'm not sure if the constraints of the government has much to do with that. I envisage her ancestors having much more gusto

I like having a monarchy though and hope that when the Queen goes, Charles hands the reigns to William.

That horrifies me even more - jobs for the boys (or girls).