God bless and keep the Queen right where she is, and may her life and good health continue long enough for her successors to mature to the point that they follow in her worthy footsteps.
You know, after the House of Windsor stopped collecting tax money from the United States, they became far more popular with us. If the anti-monarchist sentiment in Britain ever comes to a head, they might consider the same approach to shoring up their popularity there.
An aside: wasn’t the US’s native-born clause mostly to prevent a debacle like the partition of Poland, where the reigning monarch was thought to be a genuine foreign agent?
My little city of 5,000 souls is twinning with our Sister City, North Nibley, Glouchestershire, England. To that end, we’re planning our own beacon to celebrate the Queen’s milestone!
Celebrate good times
come on ! – Let’s celebrate
There’s a party going on right here
a celebration to last troughout the years.
So bring your good times and your laughter
we’re gonna celebrate and party with you !
Once upon a time, long ago, a young princess climbed into a tree to spend the night. The next morning she climbed down, and had become … a Queen. That tree-hotel, BTW, is still there in Kenya, and still receiving visitors.
As a Canadian (dual) I remain a happy and loyal subject of Elizabeth, in part because one of the best things about monarchy is that you vest in the sovereign certain rarely used powers you would never wish to have in the hands of politicians — sacking the government of Australia in 1975, for example.
It remains my fervent hope that Elizabeth shall outlive her complete dolt of a son, Charles, and that the crown pass directly to William V.
Then again I may be biased in favour of the crown. My great-grandfather and Edward VIII grew up as playmates, and remained friends their entire lives, for my GG grandfather was Victoria’s chief groundskeeper at Windsor. Windsor, which name the family took in 1915 because for some reason Saxe-Coburg had become a bit of a liability.
At least should I ever meet HRH face to face I’ll have something to say … about how her great grandfather and mine were playmates.
LONG may she reign.
Yes, hereditary/uxorial privilege is definitely on the rise in America. Not just the House of Bush and the House of Clinton, but god knows how many other 2nd and 3rd generation spawn of lifetime politicians are now cluttering every level of US political office from coast to coast, from the Landrieus of Lousiana to the Browns of California.
We also see this in our top business schools, which today are overwhelmingly populated with the spawn of the wealthy.
IMHO, we could use a lot LESS respect and reverence for monarchy and other forms of hereditary privilege and a lot more of the old-fashioned, genuine social mobility that used to characterize our Great Republic.
Agreed, and even though my Irish grandmother will roll in her grave yet again, I say congrats to QEII on an excellent reign so far.
Bart Hall — “My great-grandfather and Edward VIII grew up as playmates, and remained friends their entire lives…
At least should I ever meet HRH face to face I’ll have something to say … about how her great grandfather and mine were playmates.”
Do you instead mean Edward VII (7th)? The 8th was her uncle, & I understand her memory of him is not entirely without rancor.
Indeed, Edward VII. That was a mis-type. As it turned out, my paternal grandfather represented the American branch of the family at both the Coronation and the Funeral of King Edward, though it was only because he was visiting cousins that he happened to be in England at the time of the King’s death.
[email protected]: “one of the best things about monarchy is that you vest in the sovereign certain rarely used powers you would never wish to have in the hands of politicians”
She and her family are really no more than any other family on welfare. I take that back. I still want to believe that most people on welfare would rather work for a living.
Yes, well, as Frank Drebin put it, “No matter how silly the idea of having a queen might be to us, as Americans, we must be gracious and considerate” about it all.
What a silly article by Walter Russell Mead. ‘She isn’t, thank goodness, our queen’, he says. Indeed, Americans do not deserve such a queen. They do not get it, how a democratic country of extraordinary diversity enjoys peace and harmony in large thanks to a constitutional monarchy. Better a head of state who represents history, tradition, the law of the land, and sentiment of togetherness, than some elected fool of a president.
Queen of a barbaric nation which plundered and oppressed defenseless people across Africa and India, and desperately supported the confederacy against the Union after having been ignominiously kicked out of America.
Her ingrate subjects hate us and claim we Americans had little to do with saving them in two world wars.
Brits are in pathetic denial of their complete irrelevance, despised by her neighbors and by emerging powers in Asia, with her economy in tatters and her military power having evaporated into oblivion.
WR Mead may as well celebrate the long reign of some petty despot in central africa, now just as meaningful as these inhuman, racist, ungrateful Brits.
There is no reason to blame the stupidity of American voters on the British monarchy, which is a symbol and not a governing force. BTW, the American dynastic nonsense began with the Kennedys, and even though they have consistently discredited themselves since JFK, they still, incredibly, have followers to this day. The Bushes are poison thanks to W (not HW). The Big Dog seems to be coming around lately, but his wife’s association with Obama is pretty much a killer. Hopefully, we’ve seen the last of all three families, but if not, it has nothing to do with QE2.
Bravo Sir, well said — indeed, God save the Queen!
Love your blog Via Media but you miss something. The Constitution requires a “NATURAL BORN Citizen” NOT a “NATIVE BORN citizen as you say.
Let’s go to the Constitution
“ No person except a NATURAL BORN Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ”
and the Supreme Court has ruled on the subject in Minor Vs. Happersett in 1874 88 U.S. 162; 21 Wall. 162
Here is the relevant paragraph in their decision
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first”
So what it basically says if you want to be President you have to have two US Citizen parents. As you can see Barrack Obama clearly does not and Romney might make that mistake picking Marco Rubio. (Even though he is a great conservative he is not constitutionally eligible)
Please kindly correct this.
Imagine that. Sixty years in one of Earth’s hardest jobs, Representative of the British People in time of Peace, their last defense in time of War. Not a day off for illness or vacation. Always on the job, always on stage.
Could YOU do that? I couldn’t. God Bless Elizabeth of Windsor!
@Steve851 – it’s a broader cultural trend in the US that worries me. Over the last 30 years, we’ve seen a growing infatuation with royals and our own, Hollywood version of pseudo-royals increasing hand in hand with a decline in equality of opportunity in this country.
We’re simply not seeing the kind of turnover among elites, with people coming up from the lower quintiles of the income stack, that democratic capitalism needs in order to remain open and prosperous. A big problem for our democratic republic.
A republican’s harsh, but not untrue and not unfair, verdict from 2002 on the Queen’s mum, and by implication her philistine and reactionary family:
[email protected]: I just wanted to highlight the following passage from Christopher Hitchens’ 2002 article you linked to: “We are left alone with our day, and the time is short for the elderly Queen and for her arrogant consort and self-pitying son.” The temptation for snark is almost overwhelming.
Funny that people who love to castigate those who batten on the public purse would have such a tender spot for the mother, as it were, of all public moochers.
Hitchens’ words live on, with far more force for good than anything these self-absorbed sponges have ever done.
Wonder if the Via Meadia readership has bothered to ponder these facts, retold by Hitchens, about the Windsors’ behavior leading up to the war – Hitchens:
“The tabloid-and-tapestry view of the matter depends, as usual, on pretending that important moments in British history never actually occurred. In other words, we will be treated to innumerable photographs of her waving from the balcony of the palace, on VE day, on the Queen’s last jubilee and on her own centennial.
But nobody will care to reproduce the picture of her first appearance outside those famous windows, which was the occasion of the welcome given to Neville Chamberlain on his return from Munich. The prime minister’s capitulation to Hitler received the royal warrant, in public, in front of cheering crowds, before he had to submit himself to the inconvenience of explaining himself to parliament.
“The court historian John Grigg (formerly Lord Altrincham) did not exaggerate when he described this as ‘the most unconstitutional act by a British sovereign in the present century’.
“Nor was the Queen a mere hand-waving accessory to her husband in this conciliation of the Nazis. Philip Ziegler, official biographer of Edward VIII and a man with his own “access” to the Queen Mother, records that she was an enthusiastic seconder of the King’s long campaign first to retain Chamberlain or, in default of that, to make the even more reactionary Lord Halifax prime minister, and at any cost to keep Churchill out of office.
“In other words, if the sweet old lady had had her way, there would have been no “finest hour” for her to illumine; no opportunity of touring bombed-out East Enders and pearly queens; no victory parades or regimental colours for her to patronise.
“In claiming credit for the spirit of the blitz, the now-anglicised house of Windsor was flaunting the medals of a defeat. But then this is all part of the supposed “magic” of monarchy, whereby the basest of metals can supposedly be transmuted into gold.
“From the coronation of appeasement to the everyday task of putting a smiling face on imperial decline is not that short a step. But if we allow Walter Bagehot’s most familiar phrase on the subject of monarchy – in the devout hope that this very phrase will soon die a natural death – there has been a good deal of daylight let in on the magic, or better say the alchemy.
“It is no longer possible for the crown to secure feudal loyalty from the press and parliament, as was the case during the abdication crisis which made her our Queen and which kept all the funny business within the family.