What do you mean 'led on'? I mean the royals bring in revenue through tourism, or through royal stamp of approval on goods.She benefitted greatly from excellent PR. I struggle to think of anything that she led on that changed anything at all for her subjects.
It’s the same with all arts, to be fair.Generally not seen as an importance but can be unifying to great effect as demonstrated yesterday.......
Considering the amount of influence on the publics life she appeared to have she did nothing of note to change anything for her subjects. Folk attending her funeral is not an example of her leadership, it’s part of the ‘we do pomp well’ nonsense.She was a constitutional monarch though, you’d expect most things to be through acts of government that make the real big difference to peoples lives, at least in terms of direct impact.
How much impact she had on the diplomatic stage is hard to quantify, you get an idea of the strength of the relationships she forged just through the volume of world leaders that attended yesterday though. Not sure either any other world leader nor anything else we’d do as a country could attract such a level of international focus.
Are you suggesting she’s like the Oracle from the Matrix?Various strands of evidence point to that: how she was regarded by giants on the global stage, such as Obama; how she was regarded by those who came into contact with her who weren’t Royalists; the loyalty she inspired in those who directly served her; what she did (and didn’t do) with the power she had; her sense of duty from which she never wavered; the impact she had upon ordinary people she came into contact with; the way she dealt with the Good Friday Agreement and put her personal losses to one side to secure peace. These are all examples that point to her character.
I get why people don’t want a monarchy, in fact I think it’s time for a debate around this subject and at the very least it should be hugely scaled down, but just because you can’t choose your monarch doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of being a great leader, which is what she undoubtedly was. The narrative of those she came into contact with is too congruous with that for it not to be the case.
Then you haven’t been observing the look on the faces of ordinary people when they met her. Moments they will never forget and will always remember with great fondness.She benefitted greatly from excellent PR. I struggle to think of anything that she led on that changed anything at all for her subjects.
Folk are calling her a great leader. I’m asking what did she actually change for her subjects through her great leadership.What do you mean 'led on'? I mean the royals bring in revenue through tourism, or through royal stamp of approval on goods.
Do you mean stuff like the Princes Trust for charity?
What if you hoover up the family hamster by accident?She was so dearly loved and respected for a reason. That doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
Bubblegum.Then you haven’t been observing the look on the faces of ordinary people when they met her. Moments they will never forget and will always remember with great fondness.
To suggest something like that changes nothing in someone’s life fails to appreciate the human condition.
We know she never intended or expected to be Queen.
Considering the amount of influence on the publics life she appeared to have she did nothing of note to change anything for her subjects. Folk attending her funeral is not an example of her leadership, it’s part of the ‘we do pomp well’ nonsense.
She became the heir to the throne at 11 years old, how anyone can pretend she didn't intend or expect to be Queen is beyond me, it's simply not based in reality.
Respectful comments that were no doubt politically motivated and went through the PR machine that he prefers to use. Imo she could have used her position to actually make changes to an archaic system. She could have used her wealth to make a difference. She could have modernised the monarchy and done away with some of the pomp.It’s an example of both, just look at Macrons comments as an example.
I'd suggest the comment is more based around the fact that she probably didnt expect to be on the throne so early.
My old man and his generation called it jankers, can’t remember anyone calling it that when I was in but each to there own.That’s jankers not jail
Do you think William expects to be king in his lifetime?I'd suggest the comment is more based around the fact that she probably didnt expect to be on the throne so early.
Jankers is Restiction of Privileges (ROP’s). Jail is jail.My old man and his generation called it jankers, can’t remember anyone calling it that when I was in but each to there own.
That’s everyone then.Anyone born after me, g, is a lad or a lass!
Respectful comments that were no doubt politically motivated and went through the PR machine that he prefers to use. Imo she could have used her position to actually make changes to an archaic system. She could have used her wealth to make a difference. She could have modernised the monarchy and done away with some of the pomp.
We know she lived the majority of her life in the public eye.
We know she never intended or expected to be Queen.
We know she could have turned it down, but chose to step up at the age of 25 with two kids in tow and a husband in the military.
We know she lost her father at a young age, we know she has seen pretty much everyone she has loved die before her.
We know she was the most photographed person in human history, whether she requested it or not.
We know she and her family refused to leave London during the War.
We know she has lived through some of the worst national and global tragedies, sharing and meeting with families and countries, offering solace as the representative for our country.
We know she lost the mother of the future King after she was hounded to her death.
We know she lost her other grandson when he decided he didn't want that life anymore, being far apart from her great grandkids.
We know she saw the divorce of her three children.
We know one of her son's was accused of sex with under age girls and all that came with it.
We know she has dealt with Thatcher and others of questionable skillset.
We know she had to be there for William and Harry from a young age.
We know she had to entertain pricks like Putin and Trump, whether she liked it or not.
We know she led by example, sat alone, even when her husband of 70 years was in his coffin just a few feet away and unable to grieve privately.
We know she met members of the armed services who had lost limbs, family who had lost their loved ones in war.
We know she was working and meeting her expected commitments as the age of 96, two days before her death.
We know she looked in the eye of people who murdered Lord Mountbatten and yet apologised for the pain and suffering of people on both sides of the divide.
We know she put others before herself.
We know she gave her last breath believing she had carried out her service for the institution and the people of this country.
Rather than ask what did we know about her, the real question is what didn't we know?
We know she inherently believed a life of service above her own, one without a day when somebody didn't know her business.
All the palaces, all the jewels, all the money in Christendom, nothing would make me trade places.
We know she loved her people and, yesterday, thankfully, regardless of whatever standpoint people might have, they showed they loved her back.
We will never see her like again, in terms of monarch or otherwise.
Thank you is all I can personally say.
I’d argue she has, the commonwealth is an entirely different place to what she inherited and the Crown act was a pretty major change.