the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Sean gets my full respect every time

The British Crown represents the nation, not the state, and by implication the wished-for unity of its people. The importance of symbolic gestures like the Queen Mother's visit to London's East End during the Blitz can't be overestimated as a way of strengthening morale during difficult times. An individual who can at times appear to embody the collective sentiments of the crowd seems to address some non-rational and atavistic human need. It was ever thus.

In a bipartisan federal system like the US, no single leader can really stand for the interests of "The People", nor does an elected Prime Minister, although they all claim to do so. Some do better than others, though they all rise and fall with the fortunes of their political parties.

The Queen is a private individual who is doing a job she was born into and has to do, not one she chose. She works very hard at it, and has on the whole been a great success. Her wealth was inherited, not borrowed from the state, to whom as an individual she is no more or less answerable than anyone else, and from whom she receives a subsidy to do some of its work, though she is having to finance more and more of it out of her own pocket.

The British Monarchy has uniquely survived the ravages of democracy because of its special constitutional role and the adaptive capacity of its incumbents. It looks like it's about to enter another chapter in its long and interesting history with the forthcoming marriage of a popular and likeable young man who will almost certainly one day become King, perhaps a very good one.

lazyboxer wrote: The importance of symbolic gestures like the Queen Mother's visit to London's East End during the Blitz can't be overestimated as a way of strengthening morale during difficult times.

Not according to my grandparents....

the queen represents the establishment and aspirants..she does not represent our nation ...

The English monarchy is important, imo, because it is the critical center of all English history. It defines all its historical periods, and has defined the history of the English speaking world. That is, until the late 19th century; and by the 20th century, history has centered around British Prime Ministers. The monarchy is what makes England, England. I don't think many USAmericans go to England to see the Queen. They go to see Buckingham, Windsor, the Tower of London, etc. or some other remnant of English history that is part of our cultural memory.

Japan's monarchy is much older than England's, but we often aren't told that we should show respect for the Emperor ... or for the kings of Denmark, Norway, Spain, Belgium, the Sultan of Brunei, et al.

Obsession with beer and tea, soggy fish and chips and having a good moan are far more of a representation of British culture- and taking the piss is our national hobby!

Yusuf:

Officially, she does represent our nation.

And when it comes down to it, what has the Queen done that makes her so reprehensible? OK, she's rich. (Cue the usual envy, whining and moaning that stems from the current British sense of social entitlement)

Beyond that? I'd say she has done a good job doing, er, queenly things, in a difficult period for the monarchy. (ie the period of the tabloid press, and the ongoing tabloidization of most other UK media.)

If you had to choose between being represented by Elizabeth Windsor or the average Doris Smith of 2010, who would you choose? If the Queen is not representative of our national character today - eg she is well mannered, educated, knowledgeable, diplomatic, does her duty but is, admittedely, formulaic and a bit dull in public - that is probably a compliment.

lazyboxer wrote:The British Crown represents the nation, not the state, and by implication the wished-for unity of its people.

yusuf wrote:the queen represents the establishment and aspirants..she does not represent our nation ...

Andy_S wrote:Officially, she does represent our nation

That was my point. One can agree or disagree about whether she's doing the job well or not, but her constitutional role is clearly stated in British law and custom.

My favourite Queen.

What do ya'll mean by "represent" exactly? For example, the Crown Jewels "represent" something by symbolizing it.
Without any reprehension at all, I would say that the Queen has little in common with most UK people. I'd also say that I don't know of anyone in the non-UK world who thinks that the British are like the Queen. But, maybe it's clearer to say that, if Charles becomes King, he character won't suddenly become representative of British character --any more than Richard 1, Richard 3, Henrys 4 or 8, Elizabeth 1, James 2 or Victoria were representative.

Otoh, the "people" look up to their monarchs because they represent the "nation" and its continuity; and, therefore, the continuity of the "people." In the former colonies, and former monarchies, the people don't use monarchs as representatives or as historical (and mythological) benchmarks.

Steve James wrote:Otoh, the "people" look up to their monarchs because they represent the "nation" and its continuity; and, therefore, the continuity of the "people." In the former colonies, and former monarchies, the people don't use monarchs as representatives or as historical (and mythological) benchmarks.

I live in Canada, a former colony. We absolutely are represented as a people by an agent of our Queen, IE: ERII.
Our principle head of state is the Queen. She is represented by our governor general and our politics is run the same as it is in Britain.
We have a gov gen representing the queen and a prime minister, house of commons and senate.

I think when it comes to the USA, you may not incorporate monarchy into your government, but you wouldn't have that system without the groundwork being laid by Britain and it's constitutional monarchy.

I would also say that Barbados, Bahamas, Jamaica and especially Turks and Caicos absolutely are part of the Constitutional monarchy system as handed down by Britain.

In fact, in Turks and Caicos, the Prime Minister was removed and replaced with a representative from the House of Lords due to corruption and until the Turks and Caicos locals can improve their outlook and end their corruptions. Can you imagine how better off Haiti would be if they could just oust their government and throw in a representative until they had a functioning democracy again?

We absolutely are represented as a people by an agent of our Queen, IE: ERII.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I know who's on your money If you mean that you have a titular head who is represented by governor's general, I agree. If you're saying that the Queen speaks for you, ok. Someone mentioned WW2, and I gotta say that Churchill represents the UK at that time to me more than the Royals.

I think when it comes to the USA, you may not incorporate monarchy into your government, but you wouldn't have that system without the groundwork being laid by Britain and it's constitutional monarchy.

So? But, how could it be denied, we were a British colony. We remembered Cromwell. Anyway, I'm not sure how we could pat ourselves on the back, specifically because of the British monarchy. The British monarch we declared our independence from was insane. There's nothing noble about monarchs or having a monarchical government. Besides, I'm American. I believe in human equality, so the Queen is just a nice elderly lady whom I respect.

Can you imagine how better off Haiti would be if they could just oust their government and throw in a representative until they had a functioning democracy again?

Ya mean, could a benevolent dictator come in and fix things up? Sure, just like Mussolini? or Duvalier?

Steve James wrote:...I would say that the Queen has little in common with most UK people. I'd also say that I don't know of anyone in the non-UK world who thinks that the British are like the Queen.

She has tea with toast and marmalade for breakfast and is a non-intellectual with little or no interest in literature, music or the arts.

She is in almost every respect a typical traditional British woman of her generation: stoical and patient, earthily humorous, not given to emotional outbursts or self-pity, with a deeply ingrained sense of duty, right and wrong. She is, on the whole, comfortable in her own skin and tolerant of the foibles of others. Anyone who knows her, or has at least met her for more than 30 seconds, will attest to her utterly ordinary and down-to-earth character.

But, as they say up North, you can't educate pork. I rest my case.

She has tea with toast and marmalade for breakfast and is a non-intellectual with little or no interest in literature, music or the arts.....

Oops, I stand corrected. She's a typical Brit.

Anyone who knows her, or has at least met her for more than 30 seconds, will attest to her utterly ordinary and down-to-earth character.

Wow, just wow.

yer just jealous cause you weren't born royal Steve. Admit it. lol

Anyway, yeah, asides from being queen, shes' a pretty normal woman who actually lives in fairly normal apartments attached to the tourist attractions that are otherwise her homes.

You know which one's weird, that little ginger grandson of hers. He's a piece of work that one.