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.