Queen Elizabeth 2 Sapphire Jubilee

[Tribble]

Queen Elizabeth II’s Sapphire Jubilee Takes On Low-Key Tone

LONDON — To celebrate Queen Elizabeth II’s sapphire jubilee on Monday, marking 65 years on the British throne, there were new coins, a new stamp, gun salutes, and a reissued portrait taken by a famed photographer.
The only thing missing? The queen, who, in keeping with past practice on the anniversary itself, planned to observe the day privately, with a quiet reflective commemoration at her estate in Sandringham, in eastern England.
Grander celebrations are in the works for the platinum jubilee in 2022.
What is the jubilee?
Royal jubilees commemorate the life and reign of monarchs. Elizabeth, 90, the world’s longest-reigning monarch, is the first British sovereign to hold a sapphire jubilee.
The events were relatively muted compared to the silver (25 years), gold (50 years) and diamond (60 years) jubilees, which were celebrated with large-scale festivities across Britain. There was a ruby jubilee to mark Elizabeth’s 40 years as queen, but that anniversary was also low-key.
Few British monarchs have reached the 50-year milestone. King George III and Queen Victoria marked their golden jubilees with huge celebrations.
How is the queen celebrating the day?
Elizabeth was expected to spend the anniversary at Sandringham, and there will be no broader celebrations in coming days, as there had been for previous jubilees. She was apparently in “good spirits” at a church service on Sunday, local news outlets reported.
There have been concerns about the queen’s health ever since she missed church services on Christmas Day and on New Year’s Day because of what Buckingham Palace described as a “heavy cold.” Those absences were the first time in about 30 years that she had missed a holiday service.

The queen made her first public appearance this year on Jan. 8, after a month’s absence. She celebrated her diamond jubilee, in 2012, with a series of events, including a floating pageant on the River Thames and a tour across Britain.
Photo

How are Britons celebrating?
A traditional 41-gun royal salute was held at Green Park in London. That was followed by a 62-gun salute at the Tower of London.
A 2014 portrait of the queen, taken by the British photographer David Bailey, wearing sapphire jewelry given to her by her father, King George VI, as a wedding gift in 1947, was published as part of the commemoration. The Royal Mail issued a stamp worth 5 pounds, or about $6.25, to mark her accession to the throne, and ranges of special jubilee coins have been cast by the Royal Mint to mark the occasion, with one worth about £50,000.
Prime Minister Theresa May congratulated the queen on behalf of the nation, calling her an “inspiration.”
“It is a testament to her selfless devotion to the nation that she is not marking becoming the first monarch to reign for 65 years with any special celebration, but instead getting on with the job to which she has dedicated her life,” Mrs. May said in a statement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/worl ... bilee.html

As I am a Canadian that supports the idea of a Canadian Constitutional Monarchy (mainly for its "emergency constitutional safety-valve" characteristics) let the flame war now commence!

[The Romulan Republic]

I am also a Canadian (and American, but that's neither here nor their) who emphatically opposes any hereditary monarchy because it perpetuates the idea that some human beings are more important/valuable than others based on blood.

That said, I have considerable respect for Queen Elizabeth as an individual. Sort of the reverse of "If you don't respect the person, respect the office."

[mr friendly guy]

Well no need for a flame war. I don't support a monarchy but its their country, their rules.

[Tribble]

Well no need for a flame war. I don't support a monarchy but its their country, their rules.

Technically your rules too, you're Australian right? lol

[Tribble]

My main concern is what to replace it with. The Monarchy acts as a safety valve in the sense that large reserve powers are available in case of a major crisis... but because of tradition, customs, political realities etc those powers won't be used unless theire is a major crisis, since every use seriously threatens the position of the user. If the Monarch wants to stay in power they'd better not use their powers unless it's absolutely vital or else the public will very quickly turn on them and cast them out. And due to the hereditary nature, it's in the Monarch's interests to be very careful lest their entire family gets taken down with them.

I'm not sure we could replace that kind of thing without it inevitably becoming politicized and heavily abused... the USA more or less tried it by having a President, and well, let's just say I'm not particularly enthused with the prospect of one day having a US-style presidency.

One could argue whether or not reserve powers are necessary of course.

[mr friendly guy]

Well no need for a flame war. I don't support a monarchy but its their country, their rules.

Technically your rules too, you're Australian right? lol

Yeah, but the celebrations in your article are talking about are in the UK. I certainly think we should be a republic and have our own head of state, but in the UK, its their rules.

[K. A. Pital]

Monarchy as a safeguard in a major crisis? Funny ideas you have. If they are powerless now (see "constitutional monarchy"), they sure as hell won't become more powerful in a crisis situation.

The XX century has already shown that in times of crisis, people (and parties) would rather turn to charismatic leaders than to hereditary monarchs. So monarchy can't save anyone from anything.

[Zaune]

I am also a Canadian (and American, but that's neither here nor their) who emphatically opposes any hereditary monarchy because it perpetuates the idea that some human beings are more important/valuable than others based on blood.

I'd be more sympathetic to this idea if she didn't come off as significantly smarter than most of the people we elect to high office around here.

Besides, I'm actually pretty sure most English people are totally onboard with the idea that some human beings are more important/valuable than others based on blood; we've mostly done away with actual forelock-tugging but there's a distinct crab-bucket mentality to our culture at times.

The XX century has already shown that in times of crisis, people (and parties) would rather turn to charismatic leaders than to hereditary monarchs. So monarchy can't save anyone from anything.

What if you have a charismatic hereditary monarch, though?

[K. A. Pital]

What if you have a charismatic hereditary monarch, though?

The ones we have look like wrecks. It also helped them, the long life expectancy, so nowadays to have a charismatic monarch... well, probably still happens, but only in less power-constrained monarchies from the Third World.

[Tribble]

Monarchy as a safeguard in a major crisis? Funny ideas you have. If they are powerless now (see "constitutional monarchy"), they sure as hell won't become more powerful in a crisis situation.

The XX century has already shown that in times of crisis, people (and parties) would rather turn to charismatic leaders than to hereditary monarchs. So monarchy can't save anyone from anything.

Yes, there are times where having an apolitical party with the powers to make decisions during crises (particularly constitutional crises) can be necessary... and it does happen occasionally.

Just so that you have an idea of the reserve powers available:

To refuse to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister.
To appoint a Prime Minister of her [his] own choosing.
To dismiss a Prime Minister and his or her Government on the Monarch's own authority.
To summon and prorogue parliament
To command the Armed Forces
To dismiss and appoint Ministers
To commission officers in the Armed Forces
To appoint Queen's Counsel
To issue and withdraw passports
To create corporations via Charter
To appoint Bishops and Archbishops of the Church of England
To grant honours
To grant Prerogative of Mercy
To refuse the royal assent.
To declare War and Peace
To deploy the Armed Forces overseas
To ratify and make treaties

If Parliament was incapacitated or unable to function for some reason, the Monarch (via Governor General in the case of Canada) is capable of dealing with things until whatever the crisis is can be sorted out. I'm not at all confident that this kind of emergency override should be vested in a regular politician as that's just begging for abuse.

The ones we have look like wrecks. It also helped them, the long life expectancy, so nowadays to have a charismatic monarch... well, probably still happens, but only in less power-constrained monarchies from the Third World.

Although Prince Charles isn't exactly the ideal heir to Queen Elizabeth charisma-wise, Prince William seems to be perfectly capable.

[K. A. Pital]

If Parliament was incapacitated or unable to function for some reason, the Monarch (via Governor General in the case of Canada) is capable of dealing with things until whatever the crisis is can be sorted out.

So can the Executive branch, which usually acts as a "dictator" (in Roman terms) during periods of crisis. This is how democratic republics get converted to dictatorships, quite often.

So I'm not sure what is the point of the monarchy. Allow for another person with dictatorial powers to step in in times of war, or when Parliament is incapacitated? There's plenty of those willing to do so anyway, and most states nowadays have such a wide-reaching set of total control powers of the executive branch over their subjects and robust fallback systems, that there's always even provisions for various crisis events. Not to mention direct military control of areas in times of war etc.

You mention that this power is dangerous vested in a "regular" politician. How it is less dangerous vested in a person who lived his whole life as a ceremonial piece, a non-functioning politician with no direct experience in running things?

That's actually why monarchies sucked in the first place, but now, since the monarchs have little to no administrative experience, they'd suck even more if given back their full powers.

[Tribble]

If Parliament was incapacitated or unable to function for some reason, the Monarch (via Governor General in the case of Canada) is capable of dealing with things until whatever the crisis is can be sorted out.

So can the Executive branch, which usually acts as a "dictator" (in Roman terms) during periods of crisis. This is how democratic republics get converted to dictatorships, quite often.

So I'm not sure what is the point of the monarchy. Allow for another person with dictatorial powers to step in in times of war, or when Parliament is incapacitated? There's plenty of those willing to do so anyway, and most states nowadays have such a wide-reaching set of total control powers of the executive branch over their subjects and robust fallback systems, that there's always even provisions for various crisis events. Not to mention direct military control of areas in times of war etc.

Except that IMO many of those systems don't have the traditional, historical, political and cultural customs to act as an effective restraining mechanism. As I mentioned earlier, the British Monarch is in the unique position of having those powers, yet not daring to use those powers unless absolutely forced to as using those powers can undermine his/her position with the public significantly.

I'm not convinced that an elected politician would perform any better, nor do I believe that he/she would have the same level of restraint, and what was once an "emergency measure" would quickly become the new standard.

You mention that this power is dangerous vested in a "regular" politician. How it is less dangerous vested in a person who lived his whole life as a ceremonial piece, a non-functioning politician with no direct experience in running things?

That's actually why monarchies sucked in the first place, but now, since the monarchs have little to no administrative experience, they'd suck even more if given back their full powers.

A Constitutional Monarchy in a democratic system of government has a built in restraint system - they will not exercise powers unless there is absolutely no choice because they do not wish to lose the public support that keeps them in power. I'd much rather have a King /Queen of Canada than US-style president.

If Canada were to become a Republic, the closest thing I think to a replacement would be something along the lines of the German Presidency... though again I would still be concerned about the potential for abuse.

[Tribble]

Again, it should be noted that it's my personal opinion, and I certainly understand the viewpoint of those who would prefer it if there was no Constitutional Monarchy.

[K. A. Pital]

I do not care about a figurehead monarch one way or the other (it is a silly but harmless tradition for most CM states), I just find your reasoning a bit flawed, that is all.

[Elheru Aran]

Well, IIRC the Queen has actually exercised her powers a time or two (more or less). Example: Australia's government dead-locked some time back in, what, the 70s? and the Governor-General, acting for her, dismissed their legislature. Or something like that; there was a fishy election maybe involved. It's been a while since I read the Wikipedia article

But that said, it's better to have a safety valve than none. I've often thought that Congress could benefit from being 'dismissed' a time or two... or twenty...

[Tribble]

I do not care about a figurehead monarch one way or the other (it is a silly but harmless tradition for most CM states), I just find your reasoning a bit flawed, that is all.

You have to keep in mind the political structure in Commonwealth countries. As it stands, the Prime Minister is effectively both head of the legislature and the executive branch. The latter though is indirect since the Governor General / Queen is the executive, they just almost always follow the PM's advice. It's a formality most of the time for sure, but it is an actual oversight over the PM which has been used on occasion.

My biggest concern is that if the Monarchy were abolished without a major structural change, those powers will be more or less transferred to the PM directly with no ability (even if just a formality) for oversight.

Canada is particularly vulnerable to this scenario; what most would likely end up happening is that the governments would agree to abolish the monarchy, but would leave everything else the same. And while theoretically independent the Canadian Senate is little more than a rubber stamp organization. Picture if you will Trump not only being the President, but also being the official leader of the House of Representatives, and de-facto leader of a Senate which will never vote against him, and being given special powers that he could use indiscriminately even though they were only meant to be used in major crises, and effectively having no oversight whatsoever... it's not a pretty picture IMO.

It's not as simple as "get rid of Monarchy, everything solved!" And that's precisely the kind of attitude I fear our politicians would bring to the table if they were to get serious about abolishing the Monarchy. I hope that you can see the possible ramifications of that.

Australia is less vulnerable to this as their Senate is elected and functions as it should, so if they were to ditch the Monarchy it would be less of an issue for them (but still a problem unless they were willing to completely reform their political structure by officially splitting the legislative / executive branches).

[The Romulan Republic]

I am also a Canadian (and American, but that's neither here nor their) who emphatically opposes any hereditary monarchy because it perpetuates the idea that some human beings are more important/valuable than others based on blood.

I'd be more sympathetic to this idea if she didn't come off as significantly smarter than most of the people we elect to high office around here.

As I said, I respect Elizabeth, but overall, hereditary monarchy is something of a crapshoot. At least in an election, the people are theoretically making a choice based on whatever criteria they think qualifies someone for office. Whereas with the Monarchy, you're somewhat at the mercy of genetics and chance.

I mean, its within living memory (if barely) that Britain had a Nazi-sympathizing king who ended up abdicating.

Besides, I'm actually pretty sure most English people are totally onboard with the idea that some human beings are more important/valuable than others based on blood; we've mostly done away with actual forelock-tugging but there's a distinct crab-bucket mentality to our culture at times.

Every country has its less than ideal cultural quirks.

[Iroscato]

Tbh the thought of someone like Theresa May inheriting some (or all) of the powers of the Monarchy is one of the main reasons I begrudgingly accept its existence.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, their is that.

On the other hand, no system gives you a guarantee of not eventually getting some complete piece of shit in the big chair. So considering that that's always a possibility, I prefer to favour one that doesn't enshrine the notion of hereditary superiority.

If they could set up some kind of non-hereditary ceremonial monarchy, I'd probably be cool with that though. I do recognize that their are political advantages to the monarchy.

[Captain Seafort]

So considering that that's always a possibility, I prefer to favour one that doesn't enshrine the notion of hereditary superiority.

Why? Given the old adage about the ones who seek power usually being those who should be kept as far from it as possible, hereditary transfer is by far the best mechanism available.

[The Romulan Republic]

I could go into a long digression about the many merits of the democratic system, but I'll just say that if you're going to go with a non-democratic approach, I'd be down with just drawing the monarch's name out of a lottery or something. Either way, you're picking a person in a manner largely dependent on chance and for qualities other than individual merit, and at least this way you're not putting people on a pedestal on the basis of heredity.

Of course, that creates the problem of the new monarch not having had the lifetime of training and growing up in royal circles to prepare them.

Hmm... allow the monarch to name their successor, rather than being straightforward heredity? Though I'm sure that has pitfalls too.

Surprise surprise, their's no perfect system.

[Captain Seafort]

Hmm... allow the monarch to name their successor, rather than being straightforward heredity? Though I'm sure that has pitfalls too.

Certainly a possibility, and one that Thanas could probably give us chapter and verse on, given that AFAIK that was the system the Romans preferred.

The major downside I can think of off the top of my head is that it allows for squabbling in the event of a monarch failing to declare a successor. Simple primogeniture leaves no such question - the eldest child inherits, in the event of no children follow the line the deceased monarch's next younger sibling, and so on and so forth.

[Shroom Man 777]

IMO... Monarchs - at least the adorable old lady ones and not the sleazeball douchebag party boys or useless old mangs - can be nice "human museums" encapsulating an old (and totally checkered and utilitarianly... shitty) aspect of that particular society and can have nostalgic ceremonial, ritualistic roles... human museum pieces, human tourism/cultural/heritage pieces. As long as expenses aren't too extravagant. And as long as they are acknowledged to be anachronisms in egalitarian societies and such... more meaningful even if they themselves state this (and if they conduct themselves in dignified manners). So in that way they still have function...

And come on, the Queen's oatmeal is stored in Tupperware. Isn't that adorable? She looks like some kind of shih tzu! Awwww.

It can be like a religious ritual, or like religious figures, in that they can be this paradoxical contradictory figure maintained in order to emphasize the importance of democracy... through their contradictory nature as residual traces of undemocratic times and ways. The last remaining vestiges of old monarchies and aristocracies lending their strength to help in peaceful democratic transitions and in remembering what once was to orient those navigating the treacherous present and unknowable future...

[Sea Skimmer]

Absolute monarchy is a terrible idea, but in Europe and as far as I can tell most if not all the rest of the world, that was an idea which was never prolific either in history. Its reign in Europe was a couple centuries, and it was basically self defeating because the kind of armies absolute monarchies required actually ended up being the birth of labor unions in no small way. More organized then general society and common not paid for as long as say, Spain managed eight years arrears in the Flanders, they had some rather strong reason to assert the rights of the commoner. So mutiny it was...not just mass desert, which became a bigger and bigger problem until in say France and Germany, in the end combinations of mutiny puts an end to monarchy, and the UK story isn't much different. Birth of America could be argued into the same form too.

More traditional limited but reallyfuckass high monarchical power is useful in a time of weak total society development, because its pretty stable if say 800 nobles elect a new King each time he has no direct heir, and don't allow outsiders to marry into this without group approval, and murder the bad Kings. But that's also predisposed on the idea that all communication is slow and shitty, and that just mustering an army for a campaign might taken until the next season or next year or even two to four years if it was to go a long way, providing ample time for due consideration. It's just a hyper limited democracy at that point. Its still possible for a specific monarch to be a useful bastion of stability and reason sure, but also likely that they will quickly cause new problems if they say much at all. After all the whole damn problem with democracy in the first place is people electing king types.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hmm... allow the monarch to name their successor, rather than being straightforward heredity? Though I'm sure that has pitfalls too.

Certainly a possibility, and one that Thanas could probably give us chapter and verse on, given that AFAIK that was the system the Romans preferred.

The major downside I can think of off the top of my head is that it allows for squabbling in the event of a monarch failing to declare a successor. Simple primogeniture leaves no such question - the eldest child inherits, in the event of no children follow the line the deceased monarch's next younger sibling, and so on and so forth.

What about allowing the monarch to appoint their successor, but if they fail to do so according to the established procedure, it defaults to inheritance?

The worst downside I can think of to that (other than those innate to monarchy) is the tension it might cause within the family, and the possibility of nepotism. But at least it leaves the option for negating inheritance by an unsuitable heir.

At least the Brits got rid of inheritance rules that favoured male heirs over females IIRC.