Polly
Courtier
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 664
- City
- Mebourne
- Country
- Australia
There can be no comparison, whatsoever, between Queen Victoria and our present monarch.
Queen Victoria did nothing, absolutely nothing, to deserve her prestigious place in the pantheon, whereas QEII had done absolutely everything!
Queen Victoria's reputation resides in the immensely talented and gifted men who steered her governments (Disraeli; Gladstone, etc) and her brilliant husband, the Prince Consort, Albert. Victoria, to me, has always seemed a little, fat, ignorant dunderhead, who couldn't find her way out of a paper bag. The worst thing that happened to the then British Empire was the death of Victoria's accomplished and clever German prince. He gave more to British society than the Christmas tree and was an immense loss to the Commonwealth of Nations, which duly mourned the loss of his superior intellect and attainments.
Elizabeth II, has, alternatively, worked and worried herself almost to exhaustion ,to uphold the traditions of monarchy and to try to be accessible and relevant in all of her realms. No one, anywhere, even the monarchy's most virulent critics, could deny Her Majesty's sense of commitment and hnoour to duty and her unflagging efforts to maintain the throne's prestige.
I think that hard-line feminist do not have to narrow their gaze too far to see one of the world's most exemplary professional women, who's managed to successful combine her job with being a wife and mother. And to those who might say that she's privileged and can afford it, I disagree. Queen Elizabeth could easily have reneged on her duty as Monarch (as did Victoria) or her obligations as a mother. Despite the tabloids' ill-formed opinion, she did neither.
And here she is, over 80 years of age, a-going on, and on, and on...from her ingrained and admirable sense of duty.
It's not that Australians don't care about this; indeed, nearly everyone admires her tenacity and inherent goodness; it's just that she's not Australian and neither is her son and his wife. This is how I understand the issue, at its most simplistic level, added to which, of course, is the unfathomable resentment, almost everywhere, towards Camilla.
As someone who liked the often silly and usually skittish Diana, I just can't comprehend the strength of animosity of the anti-Camilla forces. She's made her prince happy, so why should we care? What business is it of ours? Sadly, too many Australians, illogical or not, do care. It is disconcerting to realise that if Australia becomes and republic (and New Zealand may well folllow suit) then history will assuredly, 'blame' it on Camilla.
My fervent wish is that whatever the outcome, Ausralia's republic doesn't occur within Her Majesty's lifetime. She just doesn't deserve it.
Queen Victoria did nothing, absolutely nothing, to deserve her prestigious place in the pantheon, whereas QEII had done absolutely everything!
Queen Victoria's reputation resides in the immensely talented and gifted men who steered her governments (Disraeli; Gladstone, etc) and her brilliant husband, the Prince Consort, Albert. Victoria, to me, has always seemed a little, fat, ignorant dunderhead, who couldn't find her way out of a paper bag. The worst thing that happened to the then British Empire was the death of Victoria's accomplished and clever German prince. He gave more to British society than the Christmas tree and was an immense loss to the Commonwealth of Nations, which duly mourned the loss of his superior intellect and attainments.
Elizabeth II, has, alternatively, worked and worried herself almost to exhaustion ,to uphold the traditions of monarchy and to try to be accessible and relevant in all of her realms. No one, anywhere, even the monarchy's most virulent critics, could deny Her Majesty's sense of commitment and hnoour to duty and her unflagging efforts to maintain the throne's prestige.
I think that hard-line feminist do not have to narrow their gaze too far to see one of the world's most exemplary professional women, who's managed to successful combine her job with being a wife and mother. And to those who might say that she's privileged and can afford it, I disagree. Queen Elizabeth could easily have reneged on her duty as Monarch (as did Victoria) or her obligations as a mother. Despite the tabloids' ill-formed opinion, she did neither.
And here she is, over 80 years of age, a-going on, and on, and on...from her ingrained and admirable sense of duty.
It's not that Australians don't care about this; indeed, nearly everyone admires her tenacity and inherent goodness; it's just that she's not Australian and neither is her son and his wife. This is how I understand the issue, at its most simplistic level, added to which, of course, is the unfathomable resentment, almost everywhere, towards Camilla.
As someone who liked the often silly and usually skittish Diana, I just can't comprehend the strength of animosity of the anti-Camilla forces. She's made her prince happy, so why should we care? What business is it of ours? Sadly, too many Australians, illogical or not, do care. It is disconcerting to realise that if Australia becomes and republic (and New Zealand may well folllow suit) then history will assuredly, 'blame' it on Camilla.
My fervent wish is that whatever the outcome, Ausralia's republic doesn't occur within Her Majesty's lifetime. She just doesn't deserve it.
