Sycophantic tributes have been flooding in. David Cameron has described her as having "experience, dignity and quiet authority", while Ed Miliband commented "Today we should thank her for six decades of service."
I am a republican, as I do not believe that jobs should be inherited.
However, I'm willing to listen to arguments that the Queen is a force for good.
What I want to know is why Cameron believes she is dignified and has quiet authority.
I do sometimes wonder whether the Establishment and those of a royalist view would make these comments whoever was on the throne.
As far as I can tell, these are the requirements for being a good Queen:
1. Turn up to all the scheduled events.
2. Don't interfere in politics.
Simon Jenkins has given some reasons why he admires the Queen:
On any showing, the Queen's jubilee can be celebrated for longevity and dedication to duty, in the face of often insufferable tedium. In her mid-80s, she glides over the stream of events, a tribute to the octogenarian work ethic...
Otherwise, the Queen has rarely striven to win hearts and minds, which comes with the consequent risk of losing them.
She has simply and studiously done her job.
In over half a century, no historian or commentator has caught her out in the requirement for non-partisanship, even when she must have been sorely tried. She has been consulted, she has advised and warned, but few have detected the consequence...
More delicate has been the Queen's orchestration of the image of monarchy. Her personal discretion has been phenomenal.
There has been never so much as an interview, and the only ruthlessness has been that shown to those who breached her secrecy.
The royal household must be the tightest ship of state on earth...
In fairness, the Queen does work hard.
But so do nurses, police officers, doctors and firefighters - and they don't have people slobbering over them in the media.
0 comments:
Post a Comment