On the one hand, you have David Beckham, once the world’s greatest soccer player, waiting in a 10-hour queue (British for line) to say goodbye to the late Queen Elizabeth II.
On this side of the pond, we have former Courier-Post and Daily News writer Chuck Darrow, and former Daily News and Philadelphia magazine editor Larry Platt, both making the same dyspeptic point: Didn’t we fight a war to get rid of these people, meaning the Royal Family?
Talk about holding a grudge!
Yes, we cast off the Royals, about 250 years ago, but in the last two centuries, every time the U.S. has needed a friend, Great Britain has been at our side.
And for almost half of that time, Queen Elizabeth has been there, never speaking an ill word against her former colony. More than an ally, she has been a true friend.
Darrow and Platt seem to share a weird fetish, as if to prove their Americanism, they have to hate British royalty. Platt makes the stunningly obvious point that the monarchy is based on “inequality.” And America isn’t? — income, gender, race, religion, height, weight, personal attractiveness.
It is the Brit’s monarchy, not ours. As card-carrying liberals, Darrow and Platt you’d think would subscribe to honoring other people’s traditions, at least when they are harmless. The local boys are out of step with the majority of the world and must be seething about the all-out media coverage.
Yes, Great Britain was guilty of the same sin as every other great power — throwing its weight around taking over territory through colonialism. Yes, it was an early slave trader, but may have been the first nation to ban the slave trade.
Other colonial powers? France, Belgium, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Spain, and the U.S.A., plus some lessers. And what was left of the United Kingdom’s colonial power was mostly ended, peacefully, during Elizabeth’s reign.
Back to Beckham. I believe he could have made a phone call to access a side door to Westminster Hall. I believe he opted for the queue out of respect for the late sovereign. “We are lucky as a nation to have had someone who has led us the way her majesty has led us, for the amount of time, with kindness, and caring, and always reassurance,” he told a reporter.
He said she was special “and will be missed, not just by everyone in our country, but everyone around the world.”
Well, not by Darrow and Platt and others like them who feel the need to scratch the itch by virtue-signaling against the monarchy.
Unlike them, I saw the queen crowned in 1952. I was 11 and watched it on a black and white TV which was as grainy as the black and white pictures I saw from the moon 17 years later.
At the time, the queen bore a passing resemblance to my mother — about the same build, complexion, hair color and sensible shoes. But that didn’t create the respect I gained for her during an unbelievable 70-year reign.
The respect grew slowly over the years as she maneuvered through various crises, mostly arising within her own family, called The Firm.
Longevity contributed to the inevitably that she is seen as the symbol of Great Britain not just by the Brits, but by the world as well. And that explains why some 70 heads of state will attend her Monday-morning funeral. It also explains the five-mile long queue for mourners who wanted to pay their respect, some waiting as long as 24 hours to do so.
Can you imagine the devotion to do something like that? The respect? The love?
If you’ve ever been to Britain, chances are you saw the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace. The costumes, the drill, the horses, are impactful. And now, with the funeral, out comes the pageantry of a reign that stretches back more than 1,000 years. The sense of history is overwhelming, along with the medal-bedecked military costumes, the music, the architecture, the perfect execution of movements.
Maybe because she was a triple threat — head of state for Great Britain and 14 realms (former colonies), head of the church of England, and commander-in-chief of the military.
That’s quite a load, although the monarch has no real power, just the “soft power” of leading by example.
On a scale of 1-10, I think her subjects and the world is giving her a 9. Not a 10, because that would be perfection and you can’t have that when a few are sitting in the bleachers, dropping peanuts shells, spilling beer and booing people far more accomplished than themselves.
Rest in peace, Queen Elizabeth, our steadfast friend.
14 thoughts on “Yes, the Queen has her haters”
“The Queen is dead! Long Live the Queen!” (or King as they case may be). I never did quite understand that bit of British wit, but that seems to be exactly what you are saying, and that’s OK.
Great piece Stu.
This short column in the New York Post goes after The New York Times’ jihad on Brit Royalty.
Could not read the link. This platform sucks.
Works fine for me
Stu, I wholeheartedly agree with what you said. Queen Elizabeth II was a true friend to us. You very rarely find people like her. I, for one, will miss her. May she Rest In Peace.
HAPPY SUNDAY !!!
Nice piece, as always. Hope that your therapy is going well and that you can almost catch the short one in a sprint.
“The Queen is dead. Long live the King” is the proper cheer. Charles !! will do well, although, he should not try to fill the Queen’s shoes.
Beckham: ONE of the greatest ‘mid-fielders’ in BRITISH history. He was so good that a movie appeared. ‘Bend like Beckham’ was played by mostly an all Indian cast.
One of the truly greatest players of all time was ‘PELE”, a forward.
Darrow and Platt and others like them have to sell ink or computers oe whatever today’s term is. As you stated, England ( and France ) are our friends. Funny word, friend. To me, that you means that I accept you, worts and all. That is the USA and England. We are loosing that friendship with France.
Pomp and Pageantry: The Brits love it and we copy it. We hold our elected officials up high – too high. We tend to think of our Presidents as the ‘anointed one’. Too bad for us. They don’t deserve the accolades and we deserve much better.
Naturally, I spent time in England. Oldest brother marries an English girl. I visited her family. The fun part of that was this. The twin brother went on holiday for two weeks. I bought a three piece wool suit for about $30. ( The shoes were more expensive than the suit.) We went into the North countries, France and Germany as we would travel here to Jersey and New York. I wasn’t yet twenty one but it was a great way to see the world. This the during Nam. America was not liked much in Europe back then. Me, travelling with a Brit made that trip reasonably safe.
“We hold our elected officials up high – too high. We tend to think of our Presidents as the ‘anointed one’. Too bad for us.”
Some of us do, Tony, and some of us don’t.
I hope all is going well and you keep your PT up! Take it from me, it may thee suckiest thing ever, but it pays off in the end.
As far as the Queen
I love the pageantry, the ceremony (Went to Catholic school for 8 years, so kind of addicted to pageantry) and of course all of that History! However, there will always be haters of anything. We will always have them. I nod and go on my merry way.
As far Elizabeth herself, wow she was a mechanic in WW2! And being human, she’s had her missteps and she’s also tried to improve things. I hope Charles continues on what she has started.
And Great Britain has been a friend.
Feel better soon!
My recovery is slow and steady and your take on the Queen is spot on. Thanks
In my opinion, the British ‘royals’ are an ever-expanding collection of parasites, feeding off the decaying corpse of a once-great nation. But let me separate the ‘royals’ as a designation from the ‘royals’ as human beings. Yes, Elizabeth was a fine, caring woman; and her progeny, for the most part, are also fine, loving people. But I am sure England is full of fine, loving people who could only wish THEY could feed at the ROYAL TIT. In truth, the monarchy is a tourist attraction and nothing deeper than that. And in America, where it is possible for anyone to become a millionaire (or a politician — but I repeat myself), in England you are stuck where you are born: you cannot become a royal. And if you marry into the royal family, you remain an outsider. But, as Crocodile Dundee famously said as he witnessed the shooting of kangaroos and was urged to do something, “It’s none of my business.” Ditto with the ‘royals’ and all the silly traditions surrounding the monarchy. Finally, I know some people for whom I would stand in line for DAYS to be sure they were dead.
Having all four grandparents born in Ireland it is hard to feel sad for the Queen’s passing. When your family members are the receivers of harsh British Rule the animosity is passed down for generations. However, my uncles & father joined the army & navy after Pearl Harbor. Their collective efforts in the military contributed to England’s survival and freedom. Let’s not forget the revolutionary war and the war of 1812. The confederacy was supported by England. Our world has a history of a dominant culture taking advantage of a weaker culture. I understand these courses of action. It appears the Queen was a beautiful person who led a life of service and is admired worldwide. Don’t count me as one of her admirers. By espousing these views I am ignoring the Presentism worldview.
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
I don’t hate the Royals. I don’t care about them enough to hate them. Why would I waste good emotion on such irrelevant, boring people? And I absolutely and unequivocally don’t hate England or the English people. I am actually quite fond of it and them, particularly the myriad British musicians who have provided me incalculable amounts of joy over the past 58 years, and whose artistry was, in large part, the catalyst for my career, which next month enters its 49th year.
What I hate is AMERICANS fawning over those people as if they are anything other than the grand prize winners of the Lucky Sperm contest. The royals’ lives have absolutely no relation to, or bearing on, that of 330 million Americans. So why do we get our panties moist whenever they’re in the news (which is every single minute of every single freaking day)? It makes no sense whatsoever. Why not obsess over a family in Portugal, or Nairobi or Vietnam?
And Platt is correct. We once fought a war so we didn’t have to kowtow to a family whose history of oppression and exploitation–especially of people of color, not to mention the Jews–is 50 varieties of horrible.
Furthermore, since the Queen Or King (or Jack, or Joker) of England has as much legal authority over the governance of England and the U.K. as you and I have, to credit the monarchy for the centuries of friendship, cooperation and strategic interdependence that exists between the U.K and America is both silly and prima facie incorrect.
And while we’re at it, “card-carrying liberal?” I am surprised to be so inaccurately described as such, as I have made no secrets of my disdain for such liberal pieties as political correctness, defunding the cops and sanctuary cities, and my support of the death penalty (in cases in which DNA evidence is irrefutable). That’s another falsehood in the post (although I am indeed quite liberal on issues like legal weed, abortion and same-sex marriage; I don’t think it’s fair we straight guys are the only miserable people!). And my contempt for the weak and self-destructive Democratic party is only tempered by its status as the only thing standing in the way of this nation becoming a Christian caliphate. But hey, kudos to you for at least, correctly identifying the two papers for which I wrote from 1983 to 2008 (although it would have been nice if you had mentioned the Philly Journal!).
In conclusion, are you that devoid of ideas that this was the best you could do (asking for a friend)? C’mon. Stu! You’re so much better than that!!!
Feel better now, getting rid of all that misplaced, really odd venom?
Did the Queen ever beat you at poker?
You mistake “fawning” for r-e-s-p-e-c-t. It’s OK. You don’t and won’t get it.
Comments are closed.