Queens speech

[Imfinallyhappy1]

Am I the only one who actually couldn’t give a shiny shit what she has to say at this time.

People are dying , everyone is affected so the last thing we need is a rich old woman sitting in her ivory castle asking us to stay calm.

It’s really wound me up, it’s constantly being mentioned on the news!

I watched a documentary about the old Queen Mother last night

I had to switch it off. It made her out to be a saint rather than the greedy racist old bigot she actually was. Her racism was appalling, and she never tried to hide it.

It's almost sacriligeous saying this because the Queen has been dutiful, having had the job unexpectedly landed on her as a young woman. And it can't having lived her life under such scrutiny.

However, the same qualities that have helped her keep going, such as intransigence, caution, stoicism, conservatism , I think anyway, are the root cause of some pretty large problems for the monarchy.

As a pp (Freddiefox) said, she seems to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to act, rather than take the initiative (maybe that's the nature of the beast?) but that hasn't stopped European monarchy donating millions to their respective Covid-19 funds. She always acts too late: Aberfan, tax, opening up palaces to visitors, Diana etc. And I'm afraid by not abdicating and allowing the Monarchy to slim down and modernise, as it has elsewhere in Europe, she has unwittingly contributed to its demise. Once the Pope decided it was ok to abdicate, the Queen should have followed suit.

Can't have been easy

In fact many Americans are baffled by the fact we have an unelected head. They think it’s bizarre.

Just tell them to try studying a bit of history, then. It's not as if we're unique in having a monarchy.

@LaurieMarlow , I'm not a royalist but I accept she's head of state and we have a monarchy.

Agree OP. Whoever thought this was a good idea is in for a shock.

Unfortunately the Royal Family can't visit anywhere at the moment. We all must just do our best.

There’s loads they could be doing. Namely donating money, resources and time to help the frontline workers.

The ‘virtual openings’ and posed phone calls are bullshit. But they could be taking actual action.

The fact that they’re sitting on their arses in Norfolk and so on speaks volumes.

Tbe US model is to have what we had but to elect the king. The judiciary/legislative/executive balance there is being sorely tested by this dickhead. People are dying as a consequence of his inability to do the job.
He actually spent a recent press conference talking about how he was No. 1 on Facebook now. Is that seriously better than what we have?

I'm not a royalist but I accept she's head of state and we have a monarchy.

By what authority do you believe she’s head of state?

Im genuinely interested in this btw.

The queen's address will be another way to reach an audience with the key messages. It also represents a scaling up of the establishment response to the crisis.

Is that seriously better than what we have?

It’s not about the individuals, but the system.

The thing about Trump is that the American system elected him. They made that choice. They at least have that comfort. And even more comforting, they’ll elect someone else eventually.

What if a Trump like character came through in a monarchy? (Not necessarily far off it with Andrew). In that case, we wouldn’t have chosen it and we’d have to put up with it as long as he lived. That’s much worse.

Laurie, She's head of state because it is part of our unwritten constitution. Acts of Parliament do not become Acts of Parliament unless she signs them.

She's head of state because it is part of our unwritten constitution

But what’s the rationale for it being her, not Jane Doe down the road?

@LaurieMarlow Trump does not represent the US system. If it was Obama or even George Bush Jr they would be making a better job of it. But the system itself is vulnerable to knobheads. And if Andrew was King he would have as little executive power as the current Queen.

@LaurieMarlow , that is a longer term constitutional question. It is her right now . Not me. Not Jane Doe.

But what’s the rationale for it being her, not Jane Doe down the road?

Because she’s the heir to thirty generations of kings, and Jane Doe isn’t. It’s not complicated

By "right now" I mean, "at tbe moment "

Arguing the toss over whether we need a new system of government is a fun way to pass the time . Just don't watch if it's so unpleasant for you.

Tbe US model is to have what we had but to elect the king. The judiciary/legislative/executive balance there is being sorely tested by this dickhead. People are dying as a consequence of his inability to do the job.
We have a Parliamentary rather than a presidential democracy. The US model would mean completely overhauling our entire system.The Irish system on the other hand would mean an elected ceremonial head of state and business as usual. And the Tories are thinking of politically appointing the judiciary US style anyway and the Queen cant do a thing about it.
Aside from that, she has absolutely no point but to bring a bit of comfort and morale to the people as their Head of State so she should be doing an address to the nation because otherwise the monarchy is utterly pointless. She has had, as others have said had to be dragged kicking and screaming in to do it. As PP have said, other European monarchs addressed the nation well before this and have donated money and resources. Ours are trying to do anything they possibly can to avoid doing anything significant like giving money. If they did it publicly other rich aristos might be compelled to do it too.

Because she’s the heir to thirty generations of kings, and Jane Doe isn’t. It’s not complicated

We are all related to Kings and Queens if you go back long enough.

Think about how many people can trace a Great ^ 20 Grandparent back to Richard III or even further back to William

It's not complicated

We are all related to Kings and Queens if you go back long enough.

Go ahead and prove your place in the line succession, and we may yet see Queen Chomalungma the Mumsnetter ascend the throne in outlr lifetimes

Because she’s the heir to thirty generations of kings, and Jane Doe isn’t. It’s not complicated

That’s very simplistic.

Where does her family’s right to rule come from?

I had to switch it off. It made her out to be a saint rather than the greedy racist old bigot she actually was. Her racism was appalling, and she never tried to hide it. I didn't say I liked her. In fact the opposite.
However she was very astute in this matter. I don't know what racism has got to do with it.
Here's a comment BTL from this Guardian article
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/sep/15/tanya-gold-queen-mother
I must support Glynd, above in his criticism of Tanya's article, particularly on the research issue.
I'm sure there is a pile of anecdotal evidence showing the Queen Mother was capable of being a snotty bitch, making dubious non-PC remarks and bearing grudges.
She was a rich, top of the tree woman of her times. What else should we expect? And, as other posters have pointed out, quite a few of us had our own non-titled grans and great-grans capable of making us cringe.
In that respect she is the posh version of Catherine Tate's 'Nan'.
But there is an even bigger pile of non-anecdotal evidence that she detested Nazism and propped up the wobbly royal family, particularly her mentally vulnerable husband, at a time in history when the nation needed it.
Her brother-in-law the Duke of Windsor, having scurried off the throne to be with Mrs Simpson, was Hitler's much preferred choice of token sovereign.
She became a rallying point for defiance and, with Churchill, able to plant in the public mind that resistance street by street might be needed if we were invaded.
She engineered the right photo ops (bomb sites, throwing darts in working men's clubs etc).
She also used her spin skills across the Atlantic, seeking fullscale US support for the war. No wonder Hitler detested her.
The steely Queen Mother was eventually able to settle down into the life of a spoilt old woman, full of entertainment and luxuries. As I lived in the Windsor area during her later years I can confirm that she never lost the spin magic, chatting to all and sundry and ensuring gifts, often expensive decorated Royal plates, turned up in her name as raffle prizes at dozens of local fetes and fundraisers.
We are all a mix of characteristics as a result of genetics and circumstance. Taking the sum of the whole, the Queen Mother played a significant role in 20th century history. She may have dined out on that for much of the rest of her long life but she was there, the right person, in the right place at the right time when someone with her backbone and bloody-minded determination was desperately needed.
Finally, can I take to task the snide posters who refer to 'jug-eared Charlie' or lament the lack of comment on the state of the Queen Mother's teeth. You have the cheek to knock people for snobbery while using physical attributes as an excuse to sneer. Sorry, but when it comes to real class, you're showing a total lack of it.

But the system itself is vulnerable to knobheads

All systems are.

If it’s a monarchy, you’re stuck with them.

If it’s a democracy, you have the power to vote them in and out.

But what’s the rationale for it being her, not Jane Doe down the road?

Because we have an hereditary monarchy.