What did the Queen mean to you?

[Boss Hogg]

Having not been a big fan of royalty think I’ll retract a bit. I’ve been watching the queen through the decades which I’ve enjoyed. It’s a social history journey through the decades too. There’s no doubt she’s been a good queen particularly to the Commonwealth. She has provided a constant, cared about people and was very good for our image overseas. It’s also surprised me how much support there still is for the Queen and the Royals. It is also a major historical point in time. Think Charles will be good too but not sure beyond that. Think a slimming down ( which Charles wants) will be good.

[pureclaret]

I dont get the posts about going cap in hand to get more money from the govenment to help with Buckinham Palace , I am not an expert on all the finances of the Roayl family but I do know she paid taxes, she also asked for some of the money from the Crown Estate that she is entitled to a share to be redirected to help with the rebuilding work.Buckingpalace is not owned by the Royal family but they are entitled to use it.It is actaully owned by the Crown Estates
The income from Balamoral and Sandringham and a few others that are part of the Family business generates about £26 million a year for the Monarch

[ClaretPete001]

The mother of our nation and a dear friend albeit I could have lived without the constant phone calls about the Corgis. As I said on numerous occasions ma'am I am not a dog psychologist despite the fact I do post on the Up The Clarets forum

[Cirrus_Minor]

I have never supported the monarchy but will admit that the Queen has conducted her duties for 70+ years with admiral dignity, grace and poise.

I do though think that now would be an ideal time to at least reduce the size of the monarchy since it seems to be still set as if we still have an empire..

[ŽižkovClaret]

Was within 100 yards a couple of times, but honestly, absolutely meaningless to me.

[lakedistrictclaret]

She acceded to the throne a few months before I was born, so for my whole life, until Thursday, she was the Queen of my country, a constant.
I am a believer in the monarchy ( partly because of its advantages over the alternatives ) so yes, she did mean something to me, and I will miss her presence in the background.

[AmbleClaret]

Looked good on a stamp.

[appleton]

Yes I met the Queen when she made an official visit to my place of residence in the early 1970s. Noel Wild was gracious enough to buy me a pint and not present me in The Nelson Leader. Thanks Noel for teaching me about freedom.

[claretonthecoast1882]

To me directly not a huge amount. Both my Dad & Uncle served in the armed forces and 2 of my Cousins currently do so. All 4 very proud to have done so, the respect I guess comes from there.

You see it more and more these days sadly not everyone has decency but those who don't should just keep their thoughts to themselves for the next few days and try their best not to make it all about them. We can but hope.

[4midable]

Nothing at all
Neither do any of the royals tbh
But still respect

[CrosspoolClarets]

If we got rid of the Royals what would our identity be? Genuine question I’m not suggesting we should get rid of the royals.

The French did it and Paris is still one of the most visited cities in the world. As a country I assume it get more tourists than us (admittedly the climate in the south helps). There is a strong French identity based on food, fashion, art etc.

The Republic of Ireland don’t have a queen and also have a strong identity.

If we got rid of the Royal family I expect we would still have a British identity based on our amazing national parks, the industrial revolution, our history, the palaces and castles, the artwork, the music etc etc.

Undoubtedly the Royals add to our identity, but I’ve met just as many Americans who think we are mugs for doffing out caps while the royals inherit luxury

Appreciate this from Inchy is 5 days ago but the question is pertinent to my views on this thread.

I see the monarchy as bringing us so much. Overseas it is soft power. Domestically it is tourism and a feeling of being bigger than what we are. It is also good at bringing us together as the queues will testify. If we only had a regional or national identity with bland politicians the Union would be over in a jiffy.

The Americans Inchy mentioned above - their Head of State is hated by 50% of the population at all times. It is a very divisive, selfish society that I have visited often in all its corners. We would be the same here. Look at the hate for Boris and even the blander Cameron had the same levelled at him (austerity etc).

One thing about the royals (the main ones, I favour slimming it down) they show an interest. Talk to Charles or Anne (as we have done) and they show genuine interest in what we have to say. Whereas, we could wander into our own MPS office and any pretence at listening is fake. Charles is genuinely interested in levelling up, not just as a slogan - that’s why he is a Burnley fan.

So that’s what they mean to me. We would be much lesser and not as content without them.

[Exeterclaret]

The queen meant very little to me. Her death is sad for her family and those in the country that will mourn her.

[Hipper]

Was within 100 yards a couple of times, but honestly, absolutely meaningless to me.

Padent here!

You may have been within a hundred yards of me but you don't remember that I suppose? Therefore as you can recall being within a hundred yards of her, the Queen cannot 'absolutely meaningless' to you!

[Hipper]

Padent here!

You may have been within a hundred yards of me but you don't remember that I suppose? Therefore as you can recall being within a hundred yards of her, the Queen cannot 'absolutely meaningless' to you!

Pedant!

[claretinkorea]

I only ever saw the queen from a fair distance once when she made a visit to the University of Birmingham where I was studying.

Personally, I never knew her so don't miss her so much as an individual. Where I did feel a pang though (and it took me a few days to work this out) was in the fact that something (someone) that I had subconciously assumed to be a permanent fixture in our lives (and, whether you like it or not a keystone in how 'Britishness" is defined) was no longer there (if she can die, then truly nothing is permament). That did leave a gap and it did feel to me like some small, difficult to define, part of my identity as a Brit had been lost. I say this not as someone who is for or against the monarchy, so rather not get embroiled in that debate. But having lived many years overseas, as a Brit you tend to reflect on what makes you British (certainly in the eyes of others) and for me (maybe not for everyone) the queen was part of that package. It'll take some getting used to having a king now, since I don't associate having a king as part of what being British is (yet).

I realise that I may have rambled somewhat

[Corky]

At best, a bit of anachronistic nonsense I could laugh at, at worst an evil empress at the head of the nasty right wing establishment.

[forzagranata]

There are lots of things that could be said about the Queen as an individual - most have already been said. A remarkable individual who committed her life to service with great discipline and decency but who could also be very personable, according to the accounts of those fortunate enough to meet her.

As for what the monarchy means? I would merely contrast the current bitterness, hatred, division and instability in a country which, 246 years ago, violently rejected the British constitutional monarchy and opted for a republican system. The last two presidential elections in the United States resulted in violence and bitter accusations that the result was fixed and that the president illegitimate.

In contrast, last week, the UK changed both Prime Minister and head of state in a matter of a few days. There were no riots and no crisis. Our parliament, elected by the people, proclaimed a new monarch.

There are many things wrong with our country, many things to justifiably be concerned about or complain about. But our constitution, including our constitutional monarchy, is a blessing that we should protect.

[1882Clarets1882]

Very recently she had approval ratings of over 90%. Politicians can only dream of that.

The Queen may not have meant anything to some. However, were you to put the names of all the prime ministers during her reign on a ballot paper and included hers and asked "who should be head of state?" I think she'd have won hands down.

[Berne Leigh]

This thread reminds me a little bit of the discussions we are having in our household. My 10 year old is not yet able to see beyond "why do they get to live in big houses and I don't". My 12 year old understands and appreciates the "good works" charity work, promoting causes and raising awareness such as the environment, sustainability, the Commonwealth, young people and even the delicate input into the Northern Ireland healing process. However my eldest at 15 is starting to grasp the role of the monarchy in our constitution and national fabric. How having someone above party politics, above commercial interests and above the need for short term popular electoral support provides a constant benchmark for everything else to work around.

Personally I am a royalist as the system works and the idea of an elected head of state is very scary. However beyond that Queen Elizabeth did this role amazingly well through good times and bad. When I was in the Royal Navy i swore allegiance to her and I was fortunate to meet her on a couple of occasions and like everyone I know who has met her I was extremely impressed.

In football parlance it is often said that the "club" is bigger than any single player etc. Players come and go, managers come and go, Chairs come and go even grounds move but the club is the most important thing. In some ways the monarchy is the embodiment of the British "club", not necessarily the incumbent but the institution. Politicians come and go, celebrities come and go, fashions come and go but the monarchy is a constant.

On a personal note I will miss the queen, I thinks she has done an amazing job for over 70 years.

Rest easy Ma'am your job is done.

[CoolClaret]

Appreciate this from Inchy is 5 days ago but the question is pertinent to my views on this thread.

I see the monarchy as bringing us so much. Overseas it is soft power. Domestically it is tourism and a feeling of being bigger than what we are. It is also good at bringing us together as the queues will testify. If we only had a regional or national identity with bland politicians the Union would be over in a jiffy.

The Americans Inchy mentioned above - their Head of State is hated by 50% of the population at all times. It is a very divisive, selfish society that I have visited often in all its corners. We would be the same here. Look at the hate for Boris and even the blander Cameron had the same levelled at him (austerity etc).

One thing about the royals (the main ones, I favour slimming it down) they show an interest. Talk to Charles or Anne (as we have done) and they show genuine interest in what we have to say. Whereas, we could wander into our own MPS office and any pretence at listening is fake. Charles is genuinely interested in levelling up, not just as a slogan - that’s why he is a Burnley fan.

So that’s what they mean to me. We would be much lesser and not as content without them.

I see a lot of mental gymnastics done off folk to justify a having an anointed by birth Monarch in a 21st Century society.

The opposite of a monarchy doesn’t = two party republic - there are many alternatives.

A two round French system is a fantastic and clever alternative, for example

[martin_p]

I see a lot of mental gymnastics done off folk to justify a having an anointed by birth Monarch in a 21st Century society.

The opposite of a monarchy doesn’t = two party republic - there are many alternatives.

A two round French system is a fantastic and clever alternative, for example

I think the advantage of the system we have is we get an apolitical head of state. Any other system would, by its nature, require prospective heads of state to sell themselves and that inevitably involves their politics. It’s also a well worn phrase about those wanting ‘power’ being the least suited to it.

[Inchy]

To some people the Queen means leaving Marmalade sandwiches outside Buckingham palace, no doubt photoed and posted on various social media sites so they can get likes.


Everything i hate about society

[CoolClaret]

I think the advantage of the system we have is we get an apolitical head of state. Any other system would, by its nature, require prospective heads of state to sell themselves and that inevitably involves their politics. It’s also a well worn phrase about those wanting ‘power’ being the least suited to it.

Then if you’re ok with Lizzie sitting on the Throne you’re ok with someone like Andrew potentially sat there?… ‘cause that’s how it works!

No House of Lords, term limits, two round + parliamentary system, regular elections.

If the head doesn’t represent the will of the people, they’d soon be gone

[Stalbansclaret]

Very recently she had approval ratings of over 90%. Politicians can only dream of that.

The Queen may not have meant anything to some. However, were you to put the names of all the prime ministers during her reign on a ballot paper and included hers and asked "who should be head of state?" I think she'd have won hands down.

Yes but surely this a bit like the syndrome exhibited on this message board whereby the players most highly-rated by our fans are those who are on the treatment table or not playing for other reasons. I mean it's pretty easy not to be unpopular when your job doesn't require you to annoy people by making tough decisions and choosing sides !
She did a good job insofar as it goes and every respect is due to her for her dedication to it and continuing to work until she was 96 but my goodness the level of media coverage and hyperbole is beyond belief really. I guess people like to have something seemingly stable and continuous to hold onto in a difficult, complicated world.

[Billy Balfour]

To some people the Queen means leaving Marmalade sandwiches outside Buckingham palace, no doubt photoed and posted on various social media sites so they can get likes.

In the Royal Parks as well. Since when did leaving food outside become such a good idea? Still, at least the morons got their social media 'likes'.

By the way, a few weeks ago the council put signs up in Towneley Park asking people not to leave food out. People have been chucking their leftover grub on the wall and into the bushes near the hall car park, and now there's an explosion in the rat population. I've seen them scurrying in the bushes - it's always a sign of a population increase when you see them in daylight hours (midday) and there are people and barking dogs around. Some people are thick as mince.

[RMutt]

Imagine if we’d never had a monarchy.
Someone then suggested we should have one.
They proposed that we pick a family at random. It could be at random because they would never interfere with politics or the workings of the state and so their views, education etc. would be irrelevant. The family would never change and each subsequent generation would inherit the previous generation’s position.
The family would be given large tracts of land around the country, several very large country houses with estates as well as an enormous house in London. They would receive many millions of pounds each year from the tax payer to enable them to lead a privileged luxury lifestyle.
In return they would be asked to
turn up and open things, do the odd charity event, mainly banquets and dinners and they would be expected to put on the occasional big splash event with horses and soldiers marching about.
The logic of the scheme would be the same as is often put forward now, it would work wonders for tourism, it would give us stability at moments of crisis and we wouldn’t need a head of state we couldn’t really trust like a president.
Would you go for it?

[Rileybobs]

Then if you’re ok with Lizzie sitting on the Throne you’re ok with someone like Andrew potentially sat there?… ‘cause that’s how it works!

No House of Lords, term limits, two round + parliamentary system, regular elections.

If the head doesn’t represent the will of the people, they’d soon be gone

I was about to suggest the same scenario. Obviously we've been blessed to have had such a respectable head of state for the entirety of most of our lives. What would the mood be if Andrew had been the heir and was proclaimed as the king this week?

[forzagranata]

I was about to suggest the same scenario. Obviously we've been blessed to have had such a respectable head of state for the entirety of most of our lives. What would the mood be if Andrew had been the heir and was proclaimed as the king this week?

It is of course, entirely possible, he wouldn't have been proclaimed as King.

[Rileybobs]

It is of course, entirely possible, he wouldn't have been proclaimed as King.

Of course, but it's entirely possible that he would - and we wouldn't have had a choice.

[martin_p]

I was about to suggest the same scenario. Obviously we've been blessed to have had such a respectable head of state for the entirety of most of our lives. What would the mood be if Andrew had been the heir and was proclaimed as the king this week?

But Andrew would have had a different life if he’d been heir, it would have been managed so as to ensure he didn’t have the opportunity to do what he allegedly did. You can see the same with William and Harry, although I’m not suggesting Harry will go the same way as Andrew, but he’s hardly ‘on message’ is he?

[quoonbeatz]

But Andrew would have had a different life if he’d been heir, it would have been managed so as to ensure he didn’t have the opportunity to do what he allegedly did. You can see the same with William and Harry, although I’m not suggesting Harry will go the same way as Andrew, but he’s hardly ‘on message’ is he?

Depends on what you want the message to be. I'd take Harry as King over William any day.

[Rileybobs]

But Andrew would have had a different life if he’d been heir, it would have been managed so as to ensure he didn’t have the opportunity to do what he allegedly did. You can see the same with William and Harry, although I’m not suggesting Harry will go the same way as Andrew, but he’s hardly ‘on message’ is he?

You can't say with any certainty that Andrew wouldn't have had the opportunity to allegedly do what he allegedly did. The point is perfectly valid, we have no say in who becomes our head of state. And whilst it's true that there are benefits to our head of state being apolitical, there are equally disadvantages to them being unelected.

[CoolClaret]

But Andrew would have had a different life if he’d been heir, it would have been managed so as to ensure he didn’t have the opportunity to do what he allegedly did. You can see the same with William and Harry, although I’m not suggesting Harry will go the same way as Andrew, but he’s hardly ‘on message’ is he?

& if Charles/William would have suffered ill-health?

Some copout/mental gymnastics this

People are looking at it through rose-tinted glasses because Lizzie was ‘alright’

[Rileybobs]

Depends on what you want the message to be. I'd take Harry as King over William any day.

Meg would make a superb queen consort too.

[martin_p]

You can't say with any certainty that Andrew wouldn't have had the opportunity to allegedly do what he allegedly did. The point is perfectly valid, we have no say in who becomes our head of state. And whilst it's true that there are benefits to our head of state being apolitical, there are equally disadvantages to them being unelected.

Such as?

[martin_p]

& if Charles/William would have suffered ill-health?

Some copout/mental gymnastics this

People are looking at it through rose-tinted glasses because Lizzie was ‘alright’

Andrew has been no closer than fourth in line for nearly 40 years now so it isn’t really mental gymnastics to suppose that his life hasn’t been closely managed for him in all that time. Up until then he hadn’t really put a foot wrong as far as I can see.

[Rileybobs]

Such as?

Such as having someone not fit to be our head of state as our head of state and having no say in the matter.

[ClaretAndJew]

Do people who aren't in line to the throne not manage to cover up sex crimes then?

[CoolClaret]

Andrew has been no closer than fourth in line for nearly 40 years now so it isn’t really mental gymnastics to suppose that his life hasn’t been closely managed for him in all that time. Up until then he hadn’t really put a foot wrong as far as I can see.

Christ.

He’s a wrong un - doesn’t just happen over night and as pictures from what the 80s allude to has been for quite a while.

So so far the best ‘argument’ for a Monarch is to be ‘apolitical’ (find a monarchy being apolitical a bit of an oxymoron tbh - the entire institution certainly isn’t) and to throw a few quotes in on tele a few times a year then we’re really scraping the barrel.

Could be a counsel appointed by elders from all walks of life to give advice but be ‘apolitical’ - heck I think Messrs Fry, Attenborough et al could do a yearly message at Xmas

[forzagranata]

You can't say with any certainty that Andrew wouldn't have had the opportunity to allegedly do what he allegedly did. The point is perfectly valid, we have no say in who becomes our head of state. And whilst it's true that there are benefits to our head of state being apolitical, there are equally disadvantages to them being unelected.

It isn't quite like that though is it?

In the extremely unlikely event that Andrew would have been heir to the throne last week, it is entirely conceivable, indeed I would say highly likely, that he would not have become King.

Conversations would have been held and he very likely would have been persuaded to inform the governments of the Commonwealth Realms that he would not be becoming King. The case of Edward VIII is instructive.

[NottsClaret]

Meg would make a superb queen consort too.

Harry and his missus seem pretty sound. Not to the point I'd see myself as their subject or give them some divine right to rule (and avoid inheritance tax) but yeah, I quite like them.

Here ends my monarchy analysis.

[martin_p]

Such as having someone not fit to be our head of state as our head of state and having no say in the matter.

That’s hardly been the case with our PMs or MPs has it? We’ve had plenty of MPs, having been voted in by their constituents, in disgrace because of their behaviour. I don’t believe for one moment that, has Andrew been immediate heir, steps would have been taken to make sure he didn’t become King (assuming his life had taken the same course which I’m not convinced of anyway).

[martin_p]

It isn't quite like that though is it?

In the extremely unlikely event that Andrew would have been heir to the throne last week, it is entirely conceivable, indeed I would say highly likely, that he would not have become King.

Conversations would have been held and he very likely would have been persuaded to inform the governments of the Commonwealth Realms that he would not be becoming King. The case of Edward VIII is instructive.

And all he did was want to marry a divorcee!

[Hipper]

The current incumbent is hardly squeaky clean in the marriage stakes is he.

It may well be that the queen was a superb person but if she wasn't we'd never know anyway. No-one would tell us.

[tiger76]

Then if you’re ok with Lizzie sitting on the Throne you’re ok with someone like Andrew potentially sat there?… ‘cause that’s how it works!

No House of Lords, term limits, two round + parliamentary system, regular elections.

If the head doesn’t represent the will of the people, they’d soon be gone

Agree with you on the House of Lords, that either needs major reform or completely scrapping, it's crazy that in the 20th century we still have such an archaic system in our democracy.

I equally take your point that any king or queen could prove useless, and there have been a fair few rum ones through the centuries.

However what you are proposing as alternatives sound scarily similar to the American system, and that's hardly a great example of a functioning democracy that I can discern.

[Exeterclaret]

Agree with you on the House of Lords, that either needs major reform or completely scrapping, it's crazy that in the 20th century we still have such an archaic system in our democracy.

I equally take your point that any king or queen could prove useless, and there have been a fair few rum ones through the centuries.

However what you are proposing as alternatives sound scarily similar to the American system, and that's hardly a great example of a functioning democracy that I can discern.

An elected ceremonial head of state ala Germany is what I'd prefer.

Extremly limited political power without the symbolic entrenchment of class privilege that a monarchy provides.

[CoolClaret]

Agree with you on the House of Lords, that either needs major reform or completely scrapping, it's crazy that in the 20th century we still have such an archaic system in our democracy.

I equally take your point that any king or queen could prove useless, and there have been a fair few rum ones through the centuries.

However what you are proposing as alternatives sound scarily similar to the American system, and that's hardly a great example of a functioning democracy that I can discern.

Except I literally said the alternative doesn’t have to be the American System in its absolutes..

Advocated for a two round system of voting similar to the French perhaps - definitely need to avoid a two party system at all costs.

Think a lot of the Nordic countries have interesting systems - seem to have lots of coalition Government that represent the majority of the populace

[martin_p]

Except I literally said the alternative doesn’t have to be the American System in its absolutes..

Advocated for a two round system of voting similar to the French perhaps - definitely need to avoid a two party system at all costs.

Think a lot of the Nordic countries have interesting systems - seem to have lots of coalition Government that represent the majority of the populace

And of course most of the Nordic countries have hereditary monarchs.

[pureclaret]

corkey with no respect shown by you nione given . Idiot!

[helmclaret]

Did you ever meet the Queen?

No and she meant absolutely nothing to me.