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?

What nonsense. You can have an elected HoS who is not a politician! In Ireland, all you have to be to run is over 35 and a citizen who is ordinarily resident in Ireland, and get nominations from a certain number of TDs or local authorities. There's nothing to say you have to have a political background. It's a figurehead role with minimal political power, so no need for any experience in politics. Past candidates have included activists, people who run charities, journalists, business people.

My definition of "politician" is someone who stands for election to a political office. The act of becoming an elected HoS is what makes them a politician.

YMMV

Edited to add: many MPs used to have various other careers before standing as MPs. Do we say that they are not 'politicians' either?
(Although it is rarer these days as so many are in political support roles of some sort before standing.)

It's not a 'political office', though. It's a figurehead role, largely ceremonial (though presumably if the UK abolished the monarchy, there would need to be a fair bit of rejigging, so what exactly the powers of an elected HoS are would be up for discussion). And if you keep the salary comparatively low (in Ireland it's pegged to the top level of the civil service salaries, with obvious use of presidential house, staff, security, cars, plane etc for the duration of your term), you rule out some undesirables.

And, obviously, if someone you don't like the look of runs, you get to not vote for them. If someone disappoints you in office, you can choose not to re-elect them (if your system allows a second term) and choose someone else. Democracy.

She stuck at it and didn't abdicate. I do respect her for that.

But again, this can also be a stubborn way of clinging on to a role, regardless of whether or not the public want you to stay in it. Often, it's the right and noble thing to accept that the people want somebody else instead of you.

Can you imagine if Keir Starmer had point-blank refused to stand down when it was clear that he had lost the trust of his party and the public to do the job? Arguably, he had far more right to stay on until the end of the duration for which the public had voted in his party, knowing that he was the leader.

By stark contrast, nobody ever has or could vote the monarch either in or out; TLQ could hardly say that she owed it to the people of the UK who had actively put their trust in her, because she was firmly promised the role the moment she was born whether anybody who was already alive or would be born during her reign wanted it or not.

I do think that, if she had been an elected politician, apart from anything else, her staunch support of Andrew, paying off his alleged victim, bailing him out, refusing to allow him to be put on trial... this would have so clearly made her position untenable and she would have been expected to stand down (or be stood down) promptly.

Politicians don't get to just make a speech on Christmas Day, acknowledging that they have had 'a very challenging year' (with the undercurrent of 'aren't I marvellous for managing to get through it') when they have been actively involved in seriously murky, potentially criminal business (or indeed not acknowledging it at all and just ignoring it) and keep merrily on regardless.

Having a leader who is untouchable, unsackable and immune to prosecution, no matter what they might do, is certainly not the kind of thing that any truly democratic country would ever countenance.

'We' have been asked. It is a common subject that is covered by lots of reputable independent polling organisations on a frequent basis. This is how we understand the appetite for any change before we start throwing it out to referendum which is ultimately what would be required to abolish the monarchy. There is no other way of gaining a democratic mandate. Similar ideas are being discussed about Scottish Independence for example.

The idea that you just add a non binding question to the general election ballot paper is a crazy idea as it wouldn't be enough to implement change and would therefore be a pointless exercise.

Public opinion is pretty consistent in their support for the Queen and how she fulfilled the role. It is rather paternalistic to suggest that the vast majority of people are incapable of forming their own opinion and that they are like children in their capacity to understand that alternative approaches exist. Most of us have the capability to assess our parents more clearly as we enter adulthood and we understand the nuances and complexities of human nature. I believe most understand that the Queen could tackle the role in a hundred different ways but they are content with the majority of what she did. I think it's a bit silly to suggest that adults aren't capable of being critical of a head of state because it's all they've ever known.

That's not what I wrote at all. You are letting your anger blind you.

I wrote that in my opinion Andrew won't ruin it for the Royals in the long term because public interest will switch to the next generation of Royals. We have seen this happen time and again.

Fundamentally I think the future of the monarchy rests with William and his children. I am not suggesting this means that they are perfect or even better than the older generations.

But maybe a lot just can't be bothered to think about it, even if they intellectually could if they wanted to.

It's not like you can do anything about it, so I reckon a lot of people just figure that rich people will do what rich people do regardless. People are a lot more engaged in politics, because they see that there are different options and that they personally get a say in whom they want... although even then, people who live in ultra safe seats tend to just shrug and accept that their vote for another party will be in vain.

I haven't had any part in any of the polls - either running them or being asked to respond - but it occurs to me that there will be a wide spectrum of opinion in the Yes camp. If you ask "Do you believe that the Queen is doing a good job?", whether people's response is "Yes, I believe that she is perfect and could not possibly serve the country better"; or "I guess so - at whatever it is she does"; or even a sarcastic "Oh yes, she does a very good job at keeping her family in luxury!" or anything in between, they all just show as a Yes in the figures.

I think there's also a big dichotomy amongst many ardent royalists, in that they like to stress how amazing and essential a job they believe the monarch does in leading the country; yet whenever somebody objects and says that they would prefer a proper Western-style full democratic system, where the people are allowed to vote for their leaders, they will then furiously back-pedal and claim that the monarch's role is merely symbolic, and their job is basically just to turn up in a crown and robe, wave and look pretty, whilst doing/saying exactly what the elected government has told them to. Which is it? It can't logically be both.

I often ask myself if the RF was gone in its entirety in the morning, would we miss them much?

State occasions, giving the nod to legislation, and representing us at home and abroad, could be done by a proxy from the House of Lords or something (I haven't thought this through), so would we miss them much?

I don't think so. That's not to say that they don't represent us well in public BTW.

Well she didn’t make it to me because I wasn’t there. But she worked until she died so, yes she fulfilled it.

I have affection for her as a good monarch, but I am not grateful to someone ruling my country. Such privilige is for them to be grateful to their people for, not vice versa.

I think it was a foolish and unnecessary promise which she probably regretted for much of her life.

Most of us wouldn't because they are just someone out there we read about. How often did the Queen visit those Commonwealth countries in her 70 years? All the stuff that occurs like Trooping the Colour can carry on. No one sees the RF unless they show themselves.

Isn't it kind of standard, though - that they usually get the job once their parent (or other relative) dies and then stay in the role until they die?

She wasn't especially making any kind of radical promise - radical would have been to promise NOT to dedicate your life to serving the country and to just live high on the hog whilst doing as little as possible!

Again, this is weirdly parternalistic. Suggesting that people either don't understand the question consistently or are merely resigned to their fate because you can't really comprehend the prospect that the majority of the population are actually supportive of a Royal family that you believe is fundamentally wrong.

These is some logical inconsistency in your post too as you are very keen to identify flaws in opinion polls which often mirror democratic votes. In a democracy you will always have uninformed or even misinformed people voting. Some won't use their critical thinking skills and will vote with the herd or will vote for a party that they always vote for. That's how democracy works and you can't on the one hand suggest that the democratic features that underpin opinion polls make them invalid but then claim a full democratic system wouldn't be subject to the exact same issues.

So if you support democracy then you have to accept that currently the Royal Family seems to have popular support and there are no indications that their is majority support for becoming a Democratic Republic. This might change in the future but it's pretty indisputably where we find ourselves now.

We view it as standard, but remember it had been less than 20 years since the abdication and the year of the 3 kings, so maybe she felt it needed saying.

Fair point, but two of those three kings had indeed reigned until they died, just as they were expected to. The third was a highly unusual aberration.

I accept that there are a lot of issues currently with democratically-elected representatives. You're right that people will often make what may seem to be uninformed and illogical choices; and the fact that tactical voting is even a thing is proof that the system is deeply flawed.

But the fact remains that the people DO have a choice and CAN directly influence thise leaders and representatives. Even in the case of safe seats and tactical voting, they're still based on a majority of the people getting to decide, even if you personally sit firmly outside of the majority opinion and feel powerless to change anything.

It's still materially different asking people for their active choice about something, that can make a difference, as opposed to a general "whatever you say will make no difference, but do you reckon that.....?"

If we are going to ask for people's opinions on the monarchy, a binary Yes or No is utterly inadequate. You might as well ask people if they like lamp-posts or if they think that carrots do their job well. Even companies that send you a survey after you've spoken to their call centre assistant ask you to rate that isolated experience out of 5 or 10, and usually allow space for individual comments too.

Do you genuinely believe that, if there were a clear survey that resulted in people saying unequivocally that they didn’t believe the monarch was doing a good job, that monarch would accept it and resign, so that another (who would presumably be their own son or daughter anyway) could take their place instead?

IF there were a totally equivocal, respected, unfalsifiable poll (as they'd never give us an official referendum on it) that showed a significant majority of the UK population wanted to abolish the monarchy, do you believe that the RF - whom we are always told only rule with the consent of the people - would willingly pack up, move out and become ordinary people like the rest of us?

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of royal families? Heads of state? Symbolism, history, shared identity? What's causing the confusion here?

There are opinion polls on all sorts though, not just if the Queen has done a good job. There are polls that test the popularity of the monarchy, support for abolishing them and even individual members' public support. The results are virtually always that the majority of people want the monarchy to remain in place.

Personally I feel like consistent polling that showed a clear majority was in favour of a Republic would encourage some political party to attempt to abolish them through the democratic system. I don't think the Royal Family would need to abdicate en masses or even assent to being removed.

In terms of individuals doing a bad or good job, I do actually think the monarchy itself would manage out damaging individuals as an act of self preservation. So if William became a huge liability then I think the Royal machine would move against him and potentially force some kind of abdication. Edward VIII was effectively forced to abdicate.

What made her a good monarch?

Steady.
Scandal free.
Did good speeches.
Did good meet and greets.
A wealth of experience which she shared with PMs (that it appears was generally appreciated)
Soft power with other heads of state.
Almost entirely 'above' politics.
Never retired.

Thanks for the patronising response.

What “service to the country” did Elizabeth actually do, apart from her family representing history and symbolism and shared identity? So basically her just existing as a part of her family was the “service”?

I'm not a fan of the concept of a monarchy, but yes, I do feel Elizabeth II kept her promise.

She worked steadily as a monarch throughout her life, insofar as the Royals define 'work' and she kept going even when her health was in decline, showing her face at the Platinum Jubilee; the day before she took to her deathbed, swearing in Liz Truss as PM.

I do believe she had a strong sense of duty and set herself standards which she did her best to uphold, whether or not we might agree with all the choices she made in her life.

Hard not to patronise someone being wilfully ignorant.
Diplomacy. Receiving heads of state. Constitutional functions of the monarch. Weekly meetings with the PM. More than 200 visits to Commonwealth countries. Supporting and visiting hundreds of charities and public events. Honours and investitures. Served during the war in the Auxiliary Territorial Service. And as head of the Church of England, she was also a faithful Christian.
She represented Britain beautifully.
Maybe just be a little respectful of the constitution and traditions of the country you've moved to?!