-
Sorry, Mr. Obama, the Falklands Will Stay British
March 13, 2013 | 56 comments
-
How British Conservatives Rose from the Dead
November 21, 2012 | 24 comments
-
Oxford Embraces Cross-Dressing
October 2, 2012 | 14 comments
-
The British Are Coming
July 25, 2012 | 2 comments
-
London’s Cool Conservative
April 30, 2012 | 28 comments
Letter From London
Her Majesty’s X Factor
No cynicism, please. She’s Queen Elizabeth.
When the Queen marks 60 years on the throne with her Diamond Jubilee celebrations this week, millions of Britons will pay their respects, and party with her, during a four-day holiday weekend. We’ll forget about our double-dip recession and European economic crisis, and revel in fêtes, fairs, royal toasts, bunting, fly pasts and souvenir supplements, while thousands of us are expected on the banks of the Thames in London, to see the Queen cruise past in a Jubilee Pageant.
Her continued ability to command admiration and respect is the envy of all other public figures, including many in her own family. Everyone else, from the Prime Minister to the Governor of the Bank of England and visiting heads of state — even the Pope for goodness sake — is regularly lambasted by the British media, on the Internet and in casual conversations throughout the country. Fame has made them fair game.
But not the Queen. Aside from a bit of gentle TV satire and a blip after the death of Princess Diana, she is rarely the butt of personal criticism, even by the 20% or so of Britons who are republicans. She is never, to my knowledge, the object of crude email jokes, unflattering rumors or cynicism of any kind. Never would you open a tabloid newspaper to find a center-page spread exposing her faults. Some scoff at what they see as people’s gullible laudation of the monarch, but they are a small minority.
So why, especially in this meritocratic age, is the Queen the one public figure to whom we still find ourselves deferring, who remains above the fray? What is her X factor?
One explanation is that there must be a cynicism stopcock, which protects monarchs — not just in Britain, but in Denmark, Belgium and Spain, where kings and queens have an uncontentious, ceremonial role. Yet surely a public so ready to find fault, snigger and condemn wouldn’t hesitate to mete out the same treatment to the most obvious target of all, as the future King Charles will surely discover.
More likely, and more admirably, it is the Queen’s personal dignity and aura that protects her, and as the decades go by, this becomes all the more powerful. During her recent let’s-be-friends-again State visit to Ireland — a tricky assignment even for someone of her vast experience — she gave a diplomatic master class, exuding a perfect balance between warmth and regret. At the last count, she had hosted 100 or so State visits to Britain and made well over 50 such visits to other countries. The British have a hard-earned reputation for disgracing themselves abroad, yet the Queen never puts a foot out of place. Sketch writers despair.
I first saw her, in person, during her Silver Jubilee in 1977, on a visit to my home town of Birmingham. Most of the city seemed to be there, just to watch her wandering down a street. (To be fair, not much happened in Birmingham in those days). A quarter of a century later, during her Golden Jubilee, I caught a glimpse of her Gold Stage Coach flashing past on its way to St Paul’s Cathedral in London. Both times I remember the star-struck awe on people’s faces. And she continues to weave this magic, even in her 87th year.
Her unique appeal stems from her curious combination of stately celebrity and monumental blandness. She never gives an interview, or even an opinion — something that younger generations of royals find it difficult to emulate. Once in her 60-year reign, in the 1980s, her officials let it be known that, as head of the British Commonwealth, she disapproved of Margaret Thatcher’s policy towards South African apartheid. That aside, we have little idea what she thinks about anything, despite her ten-minute prime-time TV slot every Christmas Day. This annual message never contains anything memorable, consists mainly of platitudes, and she delivers it with stupendous vocal monotony. Yet millions hang off her every word, nodding along approvingly and muttering, “Isn’t she marvelous?”
A recent TV documentary picked up on this blandness. It contended that all the changes that have happened to the monarchy during her long reign have been forced upon her. It denounced her for being a safety-first monarch, of never taking the initiative or trying something new. Without explicitly saying so, it accused her of being boring.
Yet while the Queen’s insularity might disappoint journalists hungry for a royal soundbite, it is that very characteristic that has preserved her aura. It is the reason that she alone is excused, while her opinionated eldest son is often condemned.
It isn’t until you lose something that you really value it. So the Diamond Jubilee is a time to appreciate Queen Elizabeth II while we can. For when she dies, we may mourn not so much the death of the monarch, but the passing of the last public figure to inspire unconditional respect.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (32) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Robert Taylor
More Articles From Letter From London
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/01/her-majestys-x-factor
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 6.1.12 @ 7:00AM
My own opinion is that Her Majesty reminds us of what a mother ought to be like -- what ours were like, if we were lucky, before Mom devoted her life to the office in the daylight and trying to make her children's friends think she's Hot, Hip and With It in the dark. Regardless of what they say, I believe people miss the days when there were people to whom we owed Respect, and we respected them.
Her Majesty reminds us that there's still magic in the world -- somewhere -- and for some of us, surprises us that we still remember how to curtsey. (As I have a Southern Mama, the words, "Yes ma'am" trip easily from my tongue, too.) God save the Queen. Amen.
Jack London| 6.1.12 @ 7:14AM
'Her Majesty' reminds us that we are a republic and free people, not subjects, and we threw out the Brits to make it possible.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.1.12 @ 8:48AM
The above statement is why we know you oppose the mandate in Obamacare.
Jack London| 6.1.12 @ 9:41AM
We are also free to make our own rules.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.1.12 @ 12:24PM
...and vote ourselves shares of others' property?
Jack London| 6.1.12 @ 12:48PM
No tax and no government means anarchy - not what you want, I expect.
Skippy| 6.1.12 @ 1:55PM
It beats slavery.
Skippy| 6.1.12 @ 1:57PM
"LESS tax and LESS government means LIBERTY - what you want, I expect."
There; I fixed it for you.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.1.12 @ 11:09PM
Thank you, Skippy, for completing the questions in this case.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.1.12 @ 11:07AM
Well, we didn't really throw them out. They just got tired of fighting our little backwoods republic.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.1.12 @ 8:14AM
Elisabeth refused to leave London during the blitz.
No Brit will ever forget that quiet display of courage and solidarity with them.
mike 3/505| 6.1.12 @ 9:07AM
I do believe, she drove a field ambulance (in London) during the Blitz.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.1.12 @ 11:05AM
Yes, in a sense, Queen Elizabeth is a living legend, and her future obituary will undoubtedly dwell on her courage during WW2, as England stood up to the Nazi menace while other countries folded, or tried to stay neutral.
Skippy| 6.1.12 @ 1:59PM
"But Elizabeth and her younger sister Margaret became symbols of the royals’ refusal to play it safe from some distant imperial exile, for they remained in Britain through the Blitz. “They will not leave without me,” said their mother, “and I will not leave without the king, and he will never leave.” Buckingham Palace took a bomb in the courtyard, and the girls’ lodging at Windsor Castle was actually right on the line of Luftwaffe bombing from London to Bristol."
From the current Newsweek; article by Simon Shama.
Gary B| 6.1.12 @ 8:24AM
A long, long time ago, my high school history teacher admonished our class to never, never insult the queen. Even to an empty-headed American teenager, that just sounded right. Her x-factor transcends time and space.
Occam's Tool| 6.1.12 @ 10:32AM
When she leaves, the next generation of Windsors may be the last, unless Will can save them.
Cobalt| 6.1.12 @ 11:57AM
I have thought very highly of Queen Elizabeth II since 1991, when I first read about Her Majesty having to get three stitches in her hand to close a wound, after trying to breakup a dogfight between her Welsh Corgis.
Petronius| 6.1.12 @ 12:17PM
The Respect goes hand in hand with the Cachet. Parliament may nominate, but Her Majesty and the Privy Council dispense Knighthoods and Peerages. And regardless of one's fortune or class, any person with the least strain of common sense would rather receive the Accolade than draw their next breath. Few have refused. The lefties who display scorn for the Crown when their names are announced are heard of no more unless they sit in Westminster, and if so, only the Guardian notices. Sir Winston Churchill accepted the Garter yet twice refused the Duchy of Marlborough held by his late uncle. The chamber of the Commons was his home. Paul Scofield refused to rise above Mister. After a life of pretending to be Noble and Royal, a Patent was too much. When not on stage he would retreat to his cottage on Mull with his family; not quite the male Garbo.
I said in other posts that the only weapon on earth more powerful than a nuke is social acceptance. All respect due the Crown. I rest my case.
Jack London| 6.1.12 @ 12:47PM
You sound like you approve of a hereditary monarchy and royal patronage. Would you swap our republic for it?
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.1.12 @ 1:39PM
I often have audiences with God, and he also talks to me. That's why I can't really associate with anyone below the level of prince, and even with princes and above, I ask for a full background, so I can check their resumes.
It's because I want to see if they've had any commonness in their background, or lack of lordliness, which would disqualify them from associating with quality folk.
I believe lordliness is a quality that we should always protect and should never squander on the ragtag.
Skippy| 6.1.12 @ 2:11PM
Approving of a constitutional monarchy for the British is perfectly acceptable.
Trying to translate that respect into a trick question is typical for liberal scum...like yourself.
Thanks for playing!
Derek Leaberry| 6.1.12 @ 5:02PM
The monarchy works for Britain. Had not Parliament usurped the liberties of the colonies in the 1760s and 1770s, what is called the US of A might have developed along the lines of Canada but with possibly dozens of dominions, all self-governed but recognizing the British monarch as Head of State. Think of it, Massachusetts would only be an irritant to themselves and not the rest of the American land mass.
Petronius| 6.1.12 @ 1:49PM
Call me an Anglophile, but I eat drink and sleep history. Since this is about the reason for admiration and deference to the Queen, I offer this explanation. And I doubt that the late Sir Ronald Reagan GCB, and General, Sir Norman Schwartzkopf KCB would argue with me. It certainly is nothing like who is allowed into the beltway clique which is grounded only in partisanship. The header of this thread mentioned cynicism: the kind Henry the VIII speaks of in A Man For All Seasons. "Some, like Cromwell, follow Me because I wear the Crown. Then, there's that grey amorphous mass that follows me because they follow anything that moves." Her Majesty Elizabeth II embodies the better nature so many of us aspire to by how She conducts Her Office even though her Heirs disappoint. Would that She were more resolute in defending the Faith and bring reproach upon the C. of E. as She is charged to do. The Republic many of the people of this country want to destroy in pursuit of plunder is not a bad method. Their tribalism is more in tune with the absolute. But we are discussing institutional value. The black block mob has none and never will. Without Values we are thrust into their jungle. Besides our hearts and minds, Value must reside someplace. Take your pick: The Great Lady in Buckingham Palace, or the killing fields of Pol Pot.
Seek| 6.1.12 @ 2:47PM
Elizabeth II vs. Pol Pot is not how I would frame the choice. America, last I checked, isn't close to either.
Petronius| 6.1.12 @ 3:27PM
Granted. But the most virulent enemies of Our Republic want the latter. When they get to Tampa you can expect them to continue their behavior where they left off in Minneapolis: besieging bus loads of cub scouts and attacking the delegates with intent to kill.
Ruckweiler| 6.1.12 @ 10:45PM
The Queen has respect for her position and what that means to England and her subject realize that, as well. To me, that's the X-factor. In an age where too many world leaders/figures debase themselves in public or private she is remarkable. Whether we want a monarch or not here in America, her quiet dignity is an inspiration in and itself.
Appleby| 6.2.12 @ 7:10AM
That is what I meant when I said that she reminds us of what we used to think when we said "Mother." Her Majesty has never given an interview and does not express opinions on the events of the day. She has seen them come and she has seen them go, and she knows the truth of the French proverb "Tout casse, tout lasse, tout passe." Even in Canada, a loose confederation of balkanized states whose people hate each other, everyone comes together when Her Majesty is in the house.
By the way, do you know that when the entire assembly sings "God Save The Queen" there's one person who never joins in? I had never thought about that until someone mentioned it at the last Royal Wedding. It must be a secret thrill when even one's husband is singing and one sits silently thinking "They mean ME!"
Alej| 6.3.12 @ 8:51AM
Actually, and I think this is the point of it all, "They mean" all that was and still may remain of, "Great Britain."
The lady adequately represents all that has been connoted by the proud title, "Englishmen."
Mike Rogers | 6.2.12 @ 9:29AM
Two worthy notes:
There is a reason the picture shows "W", not Obambi, because "W" did diplomacy right.
Prince Charles, like his father, Prince Philip, always has to have a public opinion on pop culture, on architecture, on environmentalism, etc., and those opinions are frankly buffoonish. Maybe it's trying to escape the shadow of the almost permanent queen, but they have increased her aura of infallibility even as they look like well-dressed clowns.
Butch| 6.2.12 @ 1:37PM
Who do you think looks more like Alfred E. Neuman--Prince Charles or Ted Kopple?
Those two young men give me some hope, however. Unfortunately, the one I like best--the redheaded one (can't remember his name)--will be riding the royal bench all his life.
Cobalt| 6.2.12 @ 2:37PM
Obambi has a vulgar habit of insulting Great Britain.
He even removed a bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office, and sent it back to the British Embassy.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n.....2-edition/
Mike Rogers | 6.2.12 @ 9:43AM
The powers of the monarchy may be heavily limited these last few hundred years, but the queen can still dissolve parliament and call elections. She can still refuse royal assent to a bad bill, without which it does not become law.
The former power is usually exercised upon request of the prime minister, but I believe she can also do so unilaterally if needed.
The latter has not been exercised in hundreds of years, but still exists.