Thursday, December 20, 2007

Happy and Glorious

Cranmer is always delighted to share good news, and today Her Majesty the Queen reaches a new milestone as she overtakes Queen Victoria to become the oldest monarch in British history. Her great-great grandmother, who was born on 24 May 1819, lived for 81 years, seven months and 29 days. The Queen will beat that record today at about 5.00pm when one takes into account the times of their births and Queen Victoria's death.

Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee was a marvellous occasion celebrated by the whole country, and her Diamond Wedding Anniversary (a royal first) was also publicly acknowledged. Today, however, will be a day of business as usual for the Queen. If Roy Castle and Norris & Ross McWhirter were still hosting Record Breakers, there might just have been a greater awareness of Her Majesty's dedication, wo ho, dedica-aa-tion...

As the nation prepares to host the Olympics in 2012, it is little known that The Queen will celebrate her Diamond Jubilee in the same year, once again moving towards breaking the record presently held by Queen Victoria as the longest-reigning British monarch. Her Majesty will surpass that on 9 September 2015. And 2012 is likely to deliver a few gold medals as well as street celebrations, fireworks and concerts. After a year of such 'feel-good', whichever political party is then in power is likely to win the following general election as they ride the wave of fervent patriotism, and people choose to content themselves with the status quo.

Her Majesty remains at the centre of nation's affections, and although the foundations of Church over which she presides as Supreme Governor are suffering a little subsidence, she has steered the Monarchy itself through turbulent and revolutionary times and shown herself to be the epitome of diplomacy and majesty.

God Save The Queen!

27 Comments:

Blogger Newmania said...

OH well said your Grace , that we have living exemplar of institutional and cultural continuity is sadly misunderstood and taken for granted all too often. She has moreover been a quite magnificent custodian of the past and the tribe’s soul.
I only wish that a poet with a little more power than the unforgivably feeble Andrew Motion were in harness to sing praises but let us hope he will out do himself

20 December 2007 at 11:15  
Anonymous mickey said...

A very nice posting, if I may say so your Grace. Her Majesty has always done us proud and is truly an exemplar of the concept of duty.

It is fascinating, also, to look back to the days of Victoria and the history of our great country at that time. So, with this in mind, I should like to quote a few words from Kipling (written some years after the event) as an additional contribution to your post:

"HERE is more gain than Gloriana guessed--
Than Gloriana guessed or Indies bring--
Than golden Indies bring. A Queen confessed--
A queen confessed that crowned her people King.
Her people King, and crowned all Kings above,
Above all Kings have crowned their Queen their love--
Have crowned their love their Queen, their Queen their love!

Denying her, we do ourselves deny,
Disowning her are we ourselves disowned.
Mirror was she of our fidelity,
And handmaid of our destiny enthroned;
The very marrow of Youth's dream, and still
Yoke-mate of wisest Age that worked her will!

Our fathers had declared to us her praise--
Her praise the years had proven past all speech.
And past all speech our loyal hearts always,
Always our hearts lay open, each to each--
Therefore men gave the treasure of their blood
To this one woman--for she understood!"


Whilst the days of Imperial Majesty are long gone and our country is but a shadow of what it once was, it is refreshing to see that many words from the 'bard of the empire' would still seem to so adequately reflect the feelings of the British people towards our Queen. Let us all pray that her reign continues for very many glorious years to come.

20 December 2007 at 11:16  
Anonymous king kong said...

My concerns, Mickey, on this auspicious occasion are the vexing problem of succession and the standard that Her Majesty has established, which might prove a very difficult example for the heir to the throne to follow.

The corollary of that anxiety is the stature of our country on the international stage, unhelped by the woes and failings of our present government.

20 December 2007 at 11:59  
Anonymous Sherlock said...

Im not an expert but doesn't Her Majesty have the power to stick the oar in over constitutional abuse by the government? Her Majesty could be of even more use than the fine figurehead she is.

20 December 2007 at 12:41  
Blogger Manfarang said...

I usually watch the Queen's Christmas broadcast on BBC World.
I used to listen to her radio broadcast on the World Service.The best Christmas radio broadcast,I thought,was the one criticised by Enoch Powell.

20 December 2007 at 12:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Her Majesty" sanctions all the evil and sinful laws which the government vote through Parliament.
"Her Majesty" did nothing to stop her wicked son marrying Lady Diana knowing fine well he spent the night before his wedding with that "Jezebel soon to be Queen" Camilla
"Her Majesty's" grandchildren Wills and Harry spend more money in 1 hours drinking than some people earn in one year yet she sits idley by and does nothing to stop them.
SO I wouldn't waste my time listening to her little lecture on Christmas Day - she needs to repent and stop tolerating evil in her own family and in the United Kingdom. And if that's too difficult for her, then bring back Cromwell.

20 December 2007 at 13:46  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Anon 13:46
Something tells me you won't pass muster for the New Model Army.Are you a teetotal,non-smoking,non-gambling,non-fornicating religious Independent?

20 December 2007 at 14:42  
Blogger Dark_Heretic said...

Aha I see someone has decided to be mean spirited and can't be bothered to put a name to it.

The Queen has managed to a difficult job well. She has had a few difficult periods and who may I ask hasn't? Who would have managed to remain as dignified the way she has all of these years? Who hasn't got unruly members of the family? Why is it her fault exactly and why should she be getting involved? Would you stand for a grandmother interferring in your family? Unfortunately the Queen cannot get involved in affairs of Government even though on paper she does have the power to do so.

She deserves a huge well done and a big pat on the back. It'd have to be an imaginative pat on the back as a real one would probably put me in the Tower. :)

And remember these quotes before you go blaming the Queen for all of the evils this country is suffering:

All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone - Jesus

Well done Cranmer and God save the Queen

20 December 2007 at 14:54  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

May I also say

God save the Queen.

Its a shame however, she does not do enough to save us.

What should really concern everyone is the truly terrifying things her personal bankers do with her truly vast assets.

20 December 2007 at 15:43  
Anonymous Nathan Hale said...

Hooray for the Queen!

Let us consider all of the ways that this blessed Lady has protected, preserved, and advanced Britain:

--She has raised a fine crop of heroic children, all of whom are distinguished by their courage and probity. Hooray!

--She has preserved the piety and righteousness of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Chapels and Cathedrals are stuffed! Old men have visions and young men dream dreams!

--She has protected the vital mores of British society. Young men and young women universally abstain from sex until they are married. Instead, they spend their time reading devotional poetry, writing religious allegories, and taking pilgrimages to venerate the Saints. Hallelujah!

--The British people are at last free from high and meddlesome taxes! Thank you your Highness! The State only interferes in the most minimal way with the mighty engine of commerce. Families are free to arrange their finances and consumption decisions according to their circumstances. Britain's prosperity is the envy of all the world.

--Perhaps most importantly, Her Royal Highness has defended the realm with great energy and valor. The barbarians and brigands now cower in fear somewhere very far from the blessed shores of Albion. Not only may every Englishman walk in peace and safety on his own soil, but when he travels abroad, the natives bow in awe and reverence.

So let us raise a glass to Her Majesty! And let us be every so grateful that Providence hath sent this family of Germans to rule over the weak, silly, and backward peoples of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who most certainly would be living in fear and squalor without them!

Long live this unsurpassable Queen!

20 December 2007 at 15:45  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

nathan hale

Here Here!!! to all of that.

Lets face it where would we all be by now if it was not for our gracious lady.

Complimented of course by her wonderfully competent honest ministers of state and that sublimely creative representative of Britons institutions and the BIG collectivist corporate money that finances/bribes them, the BBC?

Ok, we may be more free, less poor, far better educated and not part of the Fascist states of Europe.

But then whats that all worth anyway without the Queens BBC speech on Christmas day concentrated wholly on our Queens own personal vast Commonwealth?

20 December 2007 at 19:11  
Anonymous Nathan Hale said...

Thanks for the corroboration atlas shrugged. Look, as an American, it's none of my business; if y'all want a monarch, fine. Nevertheless, you simply cannot argue that hereditary privilege has a salutary effect on the minds and hearts of the British peoples. Rather, it degrades, stunts, and divides them. Best to quietly and peacefully do away with all the remnants of Feudalism. Let's hope that Elizabeth is Britain's last monarch.

20 December 2007 at 19:36  
Anonymous Eileen said...

...as your column/blog requests from us readers, but just a personal thought on Her Most Gracious Majesty.

I am delighted that Queen Elizabeth has survived to this record breaking day. As a lifelong Anglophile, I have observed her "career," as it were, and have nothing but the greatest respect for all the hard work and loving devotion she has given to her nation.

I was fortunate enough to be able to say a quick "Hello" and "God bless you" to Her Majesty back in 1986 (or was it 1984?), at a Women's Institute event in Olympia. For a small woman she radiates an enormous aura of vitality, intelligence, and regality, as you doubtless know.

As for the scurrilous remarks by "republicans" against HRH Prince Charles, I can only say they are beneath contempt. Not only has the Prince of Wales done similarly indefatigable duty on behalf of the citizens of your lovely county, but he is a person of great brilliance and perception. He is well-known to have been ahead of his time on such important issues as the environment and many social causes. I recall when I was living in the UK in the 1970s and people made fun of him for his advanced notions. Well, they have all been proven wrong and he right. What a pity he is not better appreciated! He will certainly be a fine King, and shame on anyone who says otherwise.

Thank you for your essays on the Queen and other matters.

For the record, I am not a conservative nor "right of centre" person at all. I am a political and social progressive who nevertheless believes that monarchy - certainly this particular monarchy - has an invaluable place in the world today and in the future. May it ever be so.

And yes, God save the Queen, indeed!

Yours Sincerely,

Eileen Fay (Miss)
Saugerties, NY

21 December 2007 at 00:17  
Anonymous Nathan Hale said...

Miss Fay,

Sorry, but you're up in the night. Charles has as severe a case of arrested development as any human being has ever displayed, made all the worse by his mother's money and domination. He'll be a wretched leader.

Already he has manifested a most grotesque Stockholm syndrome that'll drive him to throw everything good and holy about Britain on the bonfire of preemptive placation.

I cannot believe that an American would defend the vestiges of Feudalism. It is most vexing. Have you ever read the Constitution? Do you know that such a system is forbidden here by the highest law in the land?

Do you know how many men, women, and children have been slaughtered by monarchs (in all of their various manifestations)?

Please, Madam, take you head out of the 15th century. Rejoice that we Americans aren't lorded over by a family of Germans.

Yours very truly,
Nathan Hale

21 December 2007 at 04:27  
Anonymous the last toryboy said...

I think an unelected figurehead is a good thing, Nathan Hale, because politicians are always lying vermin. Even if the monarch did nothing at all (effectively that is what the monarch does) then the fact that the prime minister does not and cannot occupy the top chair is good for the humility of whatever egomaniac is currently PM. Aside from the symbolic value I think the monarch should be seen and not heard.

And consider the alternatives if we had a president. Who would the president of the UK actually be in practice? Either some charismatic lump of slime like Tony Blair, or a party placeman like Peter Mandelson. Dear god, no thanks.

As for hereditary rule in general, well, its not my ideal choice, but an upper chamber including hereditary peers it's certainly better than an elected upper chamber, which would simply duplicate the lower, and most importantly in my mind, be more subject to party political control. At some point in the political process I feel you have to break out of party political control or at least be informed by something other than the party whips - something which the US system government dismally fails to do, IMHO.

Appointed Lords may be little worse as far as I'm concerned in that the political parties would control who becomes one, but so long as they are appointed for life at least they are no longer beholden to their party when they are actually in the chamber. Some life peers at least have demonstrated a refreshing independence of thought from the thought-and-reason deadening party line of late, this can only be a good thing.

I think my ideal would be an upper chamber drawn by lot, which was actually mooted apparently, but its not like that'll ever happen because its the one completely contrary to the wishes of the parties, ie, the accumulation of power.

21 December 2007 at 05:07  
Anonymous billy said...

eileen said...
...
As for the scurrilous remarks by "republicans" against HRH Prince Charles, .......... he is a person of great brilliance and perception.

Hmm, two 'O' levels wasn't it, and the desire to be a tampon? Yes indeed, brilliant. I can hardly wait for him to take over and defend the Faiths.

21 December 2007 at 08:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course all you posters are of absolutely impeccabl;e character, none of you have ever made mistakes and none of you 'gentlemen' have ever fornicated.

You hypocrites!

On the one hand you demand a monarchy that is 'just like ordinary people' then you criticise if it is.

The prince of Wales might be only too hymna but at least he cares =-take the pruincces Trust you won't find anyone there having a go at him -and the troops in Afghanistan that camilla visited, wroteb to, contactyed the families of the injured and corresponded with them

how many politicians did that?

The QWueen is an old lady who has always put her country first

if only Blair had done the same instead of selling it to the Yanks.

If you want a President then go to the USA or France or perhaps
ugabe m,ight suit you!

21 December 2007 at 10:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

am having eyesight problems as you can see -but if you can understand it I meant every word!

21 December 2007 at 10:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I cannot believe that an American would defend the vestiges of Feudalism. It is most vexing. Have you ever read the Constitution? Do you know that such a system is forbidden here by the highest law in the land? "

Really? remind me again what job was held by the father of the current president (or indeed by the husband of the likely next one). Or is it your contention he would still have been a credible candidate if his father had been a dustman? At least we're honest about our hereditary system.

"Do you know how many men, women, and children have been slaughtered by monarchs (in all of their various manifestations)?"

I don't know the precise number, but at a wild guess I'd say it's something like 1-10% of the numbers killed by republics (in all their various manifestations) in a far shorter period of time.

Richard

21 December 2007 at 10:58  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Children Children!!!

If think the conclusion that anyone with even a 'history made simple' book in their hand, would tell you.

A ruling elite is a ruling elite and they all have very very bad habits indeed. In fact having such is the only qualification for the job.

Its best to be very nice to them and pray to your god for salvation. Because there is damned all else that can save you.

21 December 2007 at 11:06  
Anonymous Nathan Hale said...

I seem to have touched a wildfire.

Good. I am impressed by how vigorously you have defended your traditions. Now if only you would defend the good traditions.

Yes, we've had some rotten leaders (eg FDR, Nixon, Clinton), but at least we (still) get to boot them out if we like.

You may counter that the Queen has no real power and thus cannot be a source of political corruption but I would point out that the mere presence of a monarch distorts the self-image of his or her subjects. It demeans them. It makes them think of themselves as eternal children. It teaches them that some people are legally superior because of their birth.

The golden balance here is to create a presidency that is accountable to the public and constrained by the Constitution.

I pray for the day when the Constitution is reinvigorated and our leaders are subject to it.

No, you will not find me praising our current state of affairs, which has been backsliding into Feudalism since the 30s. Instead I defend the Republic of Adams and Washington, the Republic that Franklin warned us would be so difficult to keep.

I confess that my defense has been feeble. For a far more eloquent argument, read 1 Samuel, Chapter 8.

21 December 2007 at 17:09  
Anonymous Reformed Roundhead said...

Comparisons like this may tempt people to imagine the death of the monarch and are tantamount to treason.

LONG LIVE THE QUEEN

21 December 2007 at 23:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did not the Queen give her assent to the Abortion Act 1967? And does this not affect her standing as a true Christian prince?

22 December 2007 at 04:52  
Anonymous the last toryboy said...

Democracy is just a means to an end, not the be all and end all. The bottom line of representative democracy is -> politicians running the show. Politicians are all pretty reprehensible characters. And its not even the politicians that bother me, its the power of political parties.

Power concentrated in the hands of political parties, well, you may as well be talking about Italian corporatism if it gets out of hand, when everything is subordinate to some corporation of individuals deemed worth (ie, the parties) and the minority gets trampled.

I don't feel demeaned by the presence of the monarch at all, I feel proud. But having read American blogs on this subject I know for a fact that its just an area where we are highly unlikely to agree.

Maybe if you realised that the word 'republican' in the UK is practically interchangeable for the word 'communist' or even 'terrorist' in some parts, you'd understand. :p

22 December 2007 at 07:08  
Anonymous Nathan Hale said...

Yes, the Irish secessionists gave the cause a very bad name indeed. For shame. I would love to see a British Republic; I think marvelous things would happen. I honestly think people would be happier, freer, and more content. And who deserves that more than the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish?

22 December 2007 at 15:16  
Anonymous the last toryboy said...

Its not just the Irish, republicans tend to be on the left, the pretty far left in fact, people like Tony Benn or Dennis Skinner.

The monarchy is also really popular, the Queens approval ratings have tended to be higher than that of the prime minister. When the monarchy is unpopular, thats when they'll get the metaphorical chop.

Might happen soon as Prince Charles is a bit of a donkey to put it mildly!

23 December 2007 at 01:53  
Anonymous irenelancaster said...

Despite the leaked e-mail from Prince Charles' office stating what the royals and their entourage really think of Israel, plus all the British boycotts, nevertheless prime time Israeli TV news devoted a large amount of time to this story and were extremely happy about it.

23 December 2007 at 18:08  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older