Do Britons feel Queen Elizabeth II kept her 1947 promise?

[TwentytoTwelve]

Do Britons believe that Queen Elizabeth II upheld the promise she made to them in 1947 to serve them for her whole life?

If so, are they grateful to her?

Yes, I do. Duty was always important to the Queen. I think she was a great ambassador for the country.

She stuck to her own definition of "service" for the whole of her life, fulfilling the role of monarch to the very best of her ability and making personal sacrifices to do so. It was a very classist and patronising vision of the concept of service that relies on an acceptance that royalty is fundamentally a better kind of person than ordinary citizens, because it might have been rather more impactful service to the country to have had rather less pomp and ceremony and opulence and got on with the job of work without needing to spend quite so much on tailoring and yacht refurbishment. I'm more grateful for the service to the nation of a midwife or nurse or police officer or firefighter who puts in the work every day from leaving school to retirement just getting down to the job at hand. I don't think we need a symbolic figurehead whose handshake is so much valued above other handshakes that people crowd the streets in hopes of a fleeting moment of proximity. I used to think she had a valuable role in protecting us against unscrupulous and machinating politicians by holding the reigns of power without having to fight for that power at the ballot box, but she failed us repeatedly - most heinously during the illegal prorogation of parliament in 2019 when it was clear that the actual "Will of the People" was to halt the clifftop dive of Brexit and think again, and parliament was on the cusp of doing so. She had the power to intervene, a power that certainly should only be used absolutely in extremis and never lightly, but she failed at that critical point so I no longer hold that view.

Yes ~ very much so

I think she did from what her view of service is/was.

No I am not grateful and would actually find it odd if anyone was. Unless they knew her personally and she had done something specific for them. I think she had a hugely privileged life and I don't feel that is something we should be grateful for.

Yes. She did.

Yes, with a remarkable lack of ego - she fully understood the symbolic nature of her role and never embarrassed her country.

She was criticised in the popular press in her middle years for being frumpy but the Queen knew it was never about her as an individual or as a woman.She was there to do a job and often to shine the light on others.

Yes

What was the “job” exactly? I’m an immigrant to this country and feel confused when I hear people talking about the royals’ service to the country - am I missing something?! What is this “service”?

What do you think op?

I don't think it's us who should be grateful. The Royal Family are supposed to be grateful to us, surely? That's why they "serve" us, as payment.

Basically being Head of State, working in the mornings on the ‘Red boxes’ of official documents from Parliament etc, reading and understanding loads of stuff, signing and assenting to legislation etc. Seeing the PM weekly and keeping informed about political issues at home and abroad.

Fulfilling ceremonial duties in the UK and abroad, meeting and entertaininghome and foreign HoS and dignitaries with all the genning up that involves. Making highly diplomatic speeches…look at KC’s recent one to Congress.

And more.

I think she did.
No I don’t feel grateful.
I think the RF is completely unnecessary.

And what do Britons think of how the Australians think about her?

She clearly upheld her promise to the end. I don't suppose she wanted to meet Liz Truss in her dying days.

I believe she probably did her best but she obviously made some very significant errors of judgement along the way.

And no, I'm not grateful to her. She was born into tremendous privilege and did what she had to do to retain that privilege. I don't agree with the monarchy, but if we are going to have them, then I think the very least that we should expect is that they keep their end of the bargain.

Progrogation was in the power of the PM and the privy council at the time. The queen had no right to intervene. Instead, the issue was brought before the Supreme Court, which found that the prorogation was unlawful, and parliament resumed.

"when it was clear that the actual "Will of the People" was to halt the clifftop dive of Brexit " is your opinion, but was not that of the majority according to the ballot box. Blaming the queen is illogical.

I'm not a royalist but I had respect for the Queen. She was principled and dignified in a way we see less and less now. I don't feel grateful though.

Totally illogical.

Cameron was an idiot. He should have either made the referendum consultative only, or said there would only be a change if over 75% voted for Brexit. But then the Remain campaign was pathetic - they clearly never imagined they’d lose - which showed how appallingly out of touch Westminster is/was with the electorate.

I’m a remainer, just to be clear.

I’m not sure what her ‘service’ was nor why she was worthy of gratitude.

All I’m sure about is that she led a life of extraordinary unearned privilege.

You may find it valuable to watch "The Crown" although that's a very sycophantic and pro-monarchy depiction of the job.

Part of the monarch's role, which is shared with other senior royals as there's too much to be done for one person, is to be wheeled out at celebratory events up and down the country to give a short speech of praise and congratulations when a new hospital building, factory or other major thing is inaugurated, to give the occasion an impact and make ordinary people feel that their work is noticed and appreciated. Within the same broad category also comes holding regular ceremonies to award honors and distinctions to people who are deemed to deserve it in terms of knighthoods and OBEs etc, and being the figurehead of various charities to help those causes to communicate the importance of the issues they are targeting.
A separate part is work as the most senior ambassador, hosting visiting heads of state from abroad and visiting the heads of other countries - these visits are heavily used internationally to signify hpw important any country's relationships are - if your head of state is only received by our prince & duchess that's a message. If your head of state holds a ball and banquet and major celebrations in honour of our visiting queen (or king) then that's a message too, as is the entirely different message if your head of state only makes half an hour of diary time for a photo opportunity and not much else. These visits are carefully negotiated and what happens has a big influence on the international relationships but the monarch as an individual isn't the main person doing the work - though they can make a big difference sometimes.
A third part which is quite important is that all our armed services and emergency services swear loyalty to the monarch, not to the state or the flag or the government. In theory this is a protection against the rise of facism and a guard against war crimes - if your oath is to the queen (or king) then when you recieve a clearly illegal order to open fire on civilians ot imprison innocent people for their beliefs or the accident of their birth then your duty to the Queen/King, to do what is Right rather than what is expedient and safe, takes precidence. The most senior positions of elected power are subservient to the monarch, so a populist facist leader might one day become PM but would still be a servant of the crown - which leads to the fourth part of the role - in the machine of government. The monarch gives the annual spoech, equivalent to the "State of the Nation" speeches used in other countries, whereby the government sets out its legislative plan for the year ahead. The monarch has little or no choice about what to say in this speech, it is written by the government in power, but when something is in the speech it signals the level of commitment the government has to making a change happen. The monarch has a weekly meeting with the prime minister which is absolutely private but wherein the PM might in theory be either guided with gentle feedback and praise for things done well, and could from time to time get sharper comments when things are less good. I don't think the late queen had the intelligence or depth of understanding to do this part of the job well. Also within this part of the job, parliament is in session or not, and is disolved for the purpose of a General Election,on the say-so of the monarch. Whenever a new piece of legislation has been through both houses of Parliament and received their positive votes, it does not become law until the monarch signs it - BUT in the event of a bad action by parliament, the monarch has the ultimate veto to refuse to do so (which they would do by disolving parliament and calling a general election - to give the population a chance to signal what they think of the government's actions) The late queen never used this power and could have reasonably done so on a number of occasions which as I said in my previous post, I regard as a failure.

I feel embarrassed how she turned a blind eye to Andrew’s various escapades and I disliked the lobbying to hide the RF finances.

For me it shows her main desire was to serve herself and family as opposed to us.

Is this one of those 'what do Britons think the Australians think' threads?

She did it but it I'm not grateful for it

I can't speak for all Britons, but I certainly agree that she fulfilled her promise and served her people. And I feel very grateful to her.

@boredsmored
Yes self serving sums up the Windsors

The proroguing of Parliament proved that any attempt to say the Windsors form any sort of bulwark against extremism is utterly void .
She did nothing . Some say she no choice but to do nothing. Both viewpoints prove that the role is pointless

What she wasn’t useless at however was enriching the Windsors and excluding them
from laws they don’t want to follow .
All their secret deals focus on one thing - their own interests .
As for the red boxes - that is larping . It is utter bullshit and should be stopped . It’s PR for the Windsors . As if they have the interest or expertise- it’s another sideshow to build the ‘they are so integral to our system they cannot be removed’ line.

What tangible good did Elizabeth leave behind ? Ordinary citizens have done more.
She covered up for Andrew and ignored repeated warnings for years .

As for swearing allegiance in Parliament and the forces . That is wrong . Other countries swear to the people . What wrong with that? Elected MPs are told they’ll be silenced if they do not swear allegiance to Charles . That’s an outrage against democracy.
( btw the army have opened fire on civilians )

Oh and I see Andrew is suing the police . Who is funding that ?

I agree. Whether or not this applies personally to TLQ or not, you get plenty of other celebrities who are reported to be truly nasty, arrogant people in their private lives, and seem to despise 'their' public... but they know which side their bread is buttered, and they're all sunshine and lollipops when the cameras are on them.

The same with Philip and his many 'gaffs' - were they rare moments when an otherwise lovely man genuinely 'mis-spoke'; or was that just who he was, but he forgot to rein it in on occasion when in front of the public?

'Service' can just be a flowery way of simply saying 'toeing the line to keep your job'. There's nothing automatically and inherently noble in the concept.