She is venerated around the world. She has outlasted 12 US
presidents. She stands for stability and order. But her kingdom is in
turmoil, and her subjects are in denial that her reign will ever end.
That’s why the palace has a plan.
Read the rest here.
I think this is a generally good article that mostly (for a left
leaning paper) deals with a sensitive topic reasonably well. But I do
disagree with one point. The author characterizes The Queen's reign as a
period of decline for Britain. I think that is inaccurate unless one is
focused solely on the loss of the Empire. I don't view that as a
negative. The Empire was hugely expensive and a great burden to the
people of Britain. The modern day British Commonwealth is a vast
improvement. Also the author completely ignores the dramatic improvement in
the standard of living for most Brits over the last 65 years. When she
took the throne the UK was still recovering from World War II and there
were staggering gaps in income and standards of living. Rationing was
still in effect for some items into the middle 50's. Housing for the
lower classes was dreadful. And the country was effectively bankrupt.
All of that has changed and the UK is the 2nd largest economy in Europe
with one of the highest standards of living in the developed world. The
Empire may be gone but Britain enjoys good relations with most of her
former colonies and at least 15 still recognize The Queen as their head
of state. So, I think the author got that part wrong. But otherwise it's
a good read.
Asad Rustom on the Patriarch Sylvester
3 hours ago
3 comments:
I think she is holding on in order to be able to pass the throne to the current Duke of Cambridge rather than the current Prince of Wales.
Niall Ferguson makes the point that the Empire was of benefit overall to Britain, and that London sacrificed the Empire in the two World Wars.
Yes, sacrifice the many to benefit the few. Y'know there's a reason why Indians don't miss the Empire. inb4 "Empire was good for India too"
Post a Comment