Why the queen who lost the British Empire is still revered -- Elizabeth II lucky she’s not locked in the Tower of London
Why the Queen who lost the British Empire is still revered -- Elizabeth II lucky she’s not locked in the Tower of London
By: Niall O'Dowd | Published Monday, June 4, 2012, 11:00 AM | Updated Monday, June 4, 2012, 11:00 AM
 |
| Queen Elizabeth II celebrating her Jubilee |
If the Queen of England were an elected position, Elizabeth II would have been forced out long ago,
Her sixty-year reign has coincided with the total loss of the British Empire and a deeply reduced place for Britain in the world.
Just consider 1953, the year she came to the throne.
It was still the aftermath of the Second World War and Britain was first among all countries in Europe.
The detested Germans were defeated and partitioned and their economy and country seemingly in ruins.
Fast forward 60 years and the Germans are running Europe again and Britain is back to being sick man of Europe along with Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Ireland of course.
They hardly have a voice in European affairs which are now basically overseen by France and Germany.
Back in 1953 the new Queen oversaw an empire that governed vast tracts of land in Africa, Asia, Europe and elsewhere on the globe.
During her reign the British were reduced to fighting Argentina over an utterly nondescript island called Malvinas/Falklands and playing second fiddle to American forces just about everywhere.
The decline and fall of the British Empire under Elizabeth in another era would have resulted in a trial and the Tower of London for a goodly spell methinks.
Indeed, like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, there would have been cries of “Off with her head.”
(Many of her predecessors were topped for far less. See Anne Boleyn etc.)
Instead, she is becoming more beloved as she gets older; the sheer longevity of the woman and her ability to carry out her duties at the age of 86 is impressive even to the most avid Republican.
But she must wake up and wonder sometimes where it all went wrong, She came into office as a hugely significant figure on the world stage, with giants like Churchill in her government.
Now it’s the nondescript David Cameron she meets and now the monarchy may even lose Australia and Canada at some point in the near future – not to mention Northern Ireland given the shifting demographics there.
She has become a symbolic figure, which she always was to some extent, but she no longer wields true power.
Unlike the fall of the Roman Empire, it was not the Barbarians at the gate, rather it was the enemy within, as the British simply lost out to Germany in Europe and the US in the world in terms of the scope of their power and influence in the post industrial revolution age.
Rule Britannia, indeed, but nowadays only on a small sliver of the earth, unlike when Elizabeth came to reign in 1953.
Royalty’s new reality was summed up wonderfully by the Guardian editorial writer describing the celebration on The Thames on Sunday as a flotilla of ships and boats honored the Queen;
“Sunday was a day for dressing up. But it was hard to watch the royal men in their sometimes preposterously over decorated uniforms — lord high admirals of ever-declining fleets, commanders of air forces whose future effectiveness hangs in the balance, fighters of wars about which middle Britain has deeply mixed feelings — and take any of it too seriously.”
Indeed.
102 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.Bythebay | Jun 27, 2012, 12:32 PM EDT
seanomelb, the bottom line is Australia did NOT vote for independence, you're still an Australian Brit, part of the British Commonwealth.
Bythebay | Jun 27, 2012, 12:31 PM EDT
Another reason the Queen is revered is because today she showed her bravery and class by shaking hands with Martin McGuinness.
Bythebay | Jun 27, 2012, 12:26 PM EDT
NYCsheridan, it doesn't affect you in the Bronx. Go back to your drink.
Realist | Jun 17, 2012, 07:49 AM EDT
NYCsheridan: So, you believe the Scots are going to vote themselves out of the U.K.? Based on what precisely? All the opinion polls so far or some school-boy hatred for the British you've been nursing? "another piece of Empire gone"? What "empire"? Sorry to intrude on your little wet dream but your post is almost as ridiculous and transparent as this poor excuse for an 'article' lol.
NYCsheridan | Jun 16, 2012, 04:02 PM EDT
Bythebay, unlike those Scots, eh? Another piece of the Empire gone, how will the Queen live without her beloved Northern Castles? Pity, that.
NYCsheridan | Jun 16, 2012, 04:00 PM EDT
There is a thing called Parliament, and it runs Britain, last I checked. To blame the Queen for the failure of England in the last 50 years seems rather odd.
Cranleigh | Jun 16, 2012, 01:38 PM EDT
Niall, will you keep some of that good stuff you're on for me? Britain never fully recovered from WWI, let alone WWII. First among all countries in Europe? Maybe in rationing cards. The truth is Britain has led the world in decline since 1940 and it has done it rather well, without massive civil disorder, sovereign default or hyperinflation. One can only hope the US can manage the same over the next fifty years. BTW, Liz is a figurehead and had nothing to do with running the country.
seanomelb | Jun 13, 2012, 07:27 PM EDT
Preaching to the ignorant is difficult
Aughavey | Jun 13, 2012, 08:23 AM EDT
dev - you seem to be confusing an absolute monarchy with a constitutional monarchy and then comparing the monarch to an elected head of state like the US President. The US President is in fact more like the UK, Canadian, Australian eleted Prime Minister all of whom wield the power not the queen in a constitutional monarchy.
seanomelb | Jun 12, 2012, 07:13 PM EDT
To dev4 the Irish never had the guts to pursue a 32 county republic. Nor does Ireland have a bicameral system elected by the people(the senate for instance).
dev4 | Jun 12, 2012, 11:22 AM EDT
canada and Australia never had the guts to elect their own leaders.raised to kiss a
peterson | Jun 11, 2012, 08:52 PM EDT
Get over it Niall !! She is a real Lady !!
Sparklet | Jun 10, 2012, 03:03 PM EDT
Oldboreen - what did Portia say? I can't find a post. She's usually worth a laugh or two ;) Isn't she the one who thinks the Queen of England is in cahoots with the Pope?
seanomelb | Jun 09, 2012, 06:55 PM EDT
Parliament forced William to accept or otherwise be beheaded.
Kilsally | Jun 09, 2012, 01:59 PM EDT
What a silly article with serious ignorance of UK constitutional issues - the UK is a constitutional monarchy. Power was transferred from the Monarchy to Parliament centuries ago - the 1688 Bill of Rights introduced by William of Orange being one such mile stone. The Monarchy is not some unelected President as you seem to imply. The `loss of Empire` was well beyond the Monarchy and the responsibility of Parliament. Think you will find she is Queen of the United Kingdom & many Commonwealth nations, not England. Times change, armed forces needs have changed hugely
oldboreen | Jun 09, 2012, 10:52 AM EDT
Portia777-whatever you're on, please send me some!
seanomelb | Jun 07, 2012, 08:37 PM EDT
bythebay Australians have had one referendum on the monarchy versus republicanism.The monarchist received 40% of the vote 30% of republicans disenfranchised themselves by spoiling their vote disgusted at the wording of the amendment. The question was framed by Howard(prime minister) in a deliberate attempt to split the republican vote and he was successful.He has received many honours from Lizzie for his traitorous behaviour.Next time get your facts straight moron.
FallsRNat | Jun 07, 2012, 04:51 PM EDT
The importance of the Commonwealth isn't in whether the countries in that are either Republics or not, Jamaica are going to decide next year whether they want to pursue that option & their people will decide, 1 thing is certain that have already stated that they wish to stay in the vlub, Ireland has to decide whether they want to extend their influence throughout the world through an institution like this or stay in the outdated socialist EU who as a trading bloc has seen it's share of world trade drop from 38 to 25% over 10 years. The UK will get their EU in or out vote in the next 2 years & i guess we know that the English voters would like to leave, the SI have to decide whether they want to operate within the EU or alongside Norway, England & Switzerland in EFTA, the freedom allows SI to trade freely with both the US & the Far East
Bythebay | Jun 07, 2012, 11:46 AM EDT
The Queen has said she would have no objection to Commonwealth Countries which wish to become independent to do so. It is highly unlikely any of them will do so at present. In Australia for example they have voted several times for independence and it has been defeated each time. Loyal Brits those Aussies!!
sirpeter | Jun 07, 2012, 12:02 AM EDT
densonone.Britain is a democracy you say?Look!! I'm going to be nice to you this once.Because your new and you might be sensitive.I'm considerate that way.No country has a democracy.Get that out of your head.A vote is all they give you just to make you feel you have a say.They don't care about your vote.The only thing the man is worried about is weather you and others are going to take to the streets and tear him a new as*hole.That's all they are watching.
sirpeter | Jun 06, 2012, 11:25 PM EDT
allan07. What gave you the impression I'm Catholic? My religion is called anti-allan07 at the moment.You're post below looked like you have been hitting the bottle.When you sober up I'm still going to be your worst hangover.@sirpeter twice in the one comment.hahaha.West Brits can't hold their drink.lol
seanomelb | Jun 06, 2012, 07:24 PM EDT
Poor old alan07 using old hackneyed data to condone his bigotry.I don't know why you bother making yourself an item of mirth? Britannia no longer rules the waves they are now bottom dwellers struggling to gain some oxygen on the world stage.Why do you turn every post into a religious argument, you sure have some personal issues with religion.
casualMBA | Jun 06, 2012, 06:34 PM EDT
Spain's investor inquisition has already taken place. I do not believe it will be ignored.
Curitiba | Jun 06, 2012, 05:48 PM EDT
So you detest Roman Catholics, allan07? Make sure you don't go past the end of your street, mate, most of the world's Christians are Catholics. Even a large number of English people are. There are even some Catholic Unionists out there as well.
allan07 | Jun 06, 2012, 03:29 PM EDT
@sirpeter what about the spanish inquistion that lasted from 1492 to 1834. Thats 342 years when the spanish empire forced everyone to covert from Jews, Muslim or a protestant faith to become Roman Catholic. Of course they had torture and death if you didnt agree. They made the nazi party seem like good fellas. Can you dispute that? Look it up. Your Roman Catholic halo just might slip a little. I think I detest about Roman Catholics is that believe they are saints. Only this week another 733 cases of sex abuse cases have been highlighted. @sirpeter the Roman Catholic Church is evil and corrupt just like al-quaeda. Rotten to the core. Even your bishops are now getting married. What a farce. I thought they couldn't marry and now they are. What happened to the vow to remain single and pledge their lives to God? What a load of paedos you have got.
ancavker | Jun 06, 2012, 03:26 PM EDT
bythebore: So what is your point? Some landlords went bankrupt and what?
ancavker | Jun 06, 2012, 03:24 PM EDT
Bythebore: She is only a figurehead and has no power in any of the Commonwealth countries. And those people are most certainly independent. How dense are you?
Bythebay | Jun 06, 2012, 02:58 PM EDT
Those who live in Commonwealth Countries such as Australia are Her Majesty's subjects, they are not independent.
Bythebay | Jun 06, 2012, 02:53 PM EDT
Landlordism in Ireland was dealt a blow with the Encumbered Estates Act of 1847 when so many landlords went bankrupt as a result of the Famine. The Ashbourne Act of 1885 transferred freehold land from landlord to tenant. 13.5 million acres was transferred by 1920.
densonone | Jun 06, 2012, 01:42 PM EDT
It would be nice, Mr. O'Dowd, if you took time to do a little research before you put your hands to the keyboard. (I have noticed you often don't do your homework.) Queen Elizabeth may be the official head of state, and she may receive regular reports from the prime minister, but the shrinking of the British Empire came as a result of decisions made by individuals elected by the British people. Case in point, it was Margaret Thatcher who was the main decision maker for the British involvement the in Malvinas/Falklands. While England has a king or queen, it for all practical purposes operates as a democracy.
casualMBA | Jun 06, 2012, 10:12 AM EDT
A bit harsh, dannyd, on the morning of D-Day and its aftermath, with - along with a free Europe (courtesy of, in no small part, Irish American fathers, uncles, and grandfathers et al.,) a rising standard of living worldwide (how many have a tv?)...America's generational bloodletting in Vietnam did not cause Asia's "troubles"...witness "The Killing Fields" movie for ample counterpoint...Ireland has its own "killing fields," courtesy of Elizabethan adventurers...America "bailed out" Europe on this terrible morning and there was small beauty to it...If it is now bankrupt while it celebrates its Greek games and its British Queen's reign, Irish Americans should at least be cognizant of southwest Ireland's RESIDUAL (both Christian Churches' inspired) EMPIRE, and its' SUSTAINMENT.
dannyd | Jun 06, 2012, 07:22 AM EDT
France and Germany are welcome to run bankrupt europe into the ground.At least the UK didn't murder 1 million civilians in Vietnam, and unlike Ireland hasn't exported half it's people across the globe for the past 90 years.26 failed counties, Germany's rent boy.No shortage of Paddies scrambling to find work in London.Empires cost more than they generate.
seanomelb | Jun 05, 2012, 08:23 PM EDT
The commonwealth is a talk fest with no power where countries gather every four years to do athletic battle in a contest which rarely produces world titles and makes the lesser members of the club look important.The commonwealth is a far cry from the empire bythebay and leaves you clutching at the straws of former glories or is it oppression!!!! alan07 take note as you are in the same sinking boat of empire past.
sirpeter | Jun 05, 2012, 07:09 PM EDT
Curitiba.That's an interesting thought.But the Romans wouldn't have allan07's ancestors anywhere near the place.They would cause a street riot.
DanOLoingsigh | Jun 05, 2012, 06:35 PM EDT
It’s another popular misconception that it took independence to remove most landlordism from Ireland...The Land Commission (UK version) transferred 13.5 million acres to Irish farmers by 1920, (over 75% of the agricultural acreage) while The Land Commission (post independence version) only managed to transfer 800,000 acres up until it was scrapped in the 1990’s. Also land was compulsorily purchased and ‘striped’ from 1923 onwards…which saw the ‘pork barrel’ approach to rewarding party supporters and cronies take hold…the consequences of which we are seeing even today.
Curitiba | Jun 05, 2012, 06:10 PM EDT
Just to add to your point sirpeter, Roman Catholicism did not exist until the Great Schism of 1054, which divided Christianity into the Western (which later became the RC Church) and the Eastern (Orthodox) Churches. So unless allan07's direct ancestors were Russian or Greek or Bulgarian, etc, he must be descended from 100% Roman Catholic stock! Just think, sirpeter, mine, yours and allan07's ancestors could have been in that amphitheatre, fighting off those lions, armed only with a trident and net!
Curitiba | Jun 05, 2012, 06:01 PM EDT
From Britain's point of view, it is of the utmost importance that the monarchy is preserved, because if the UK becomes a republic, it won't be the United Kingdom any more, since it wouldn't have a king or queen. Whatever the successor state would be called, it would not matter because it would simply break up because of the hatred the Scots and Welsh have for the English. What would happen to NI in that case? Since the whole thing is based around being loyal to the Queen, they wouldn't have anyone to be loyal to.
Bythebay | Jun 05, 2012, 05:39 PM EDT
People with blanket statements about the British Empire apparently have learned nothing about the French, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese, Russian and other Empires. There were dozens of empires. As far as the British Empire, it had positives and negatives like anywhere else. The fact the Commonwealth of former members of the Empire is so strong and so devoted to the Queen is a hugely positive one.
citizen69 | Jun 05, 2012, 05:31 PM EDT
One more thing Niall, there hasn't been a Queen of England since 1707. Do try to keep up old bean. I'll give you this, the ignorance of the I.C. staff is consistent!
Sparklet | Jun 05, 2012, 04:14 PM EDT
BrianinKent, the Britain of the time allowed millions of Irishmen to starve. That's not so easily forgotten, or forgiven. Not the fault of anyone living today, and Irish and English now share a decent enough relationship because we're basically pretty similar, but you can't expect any positive thoughts about the British Empire.
sirpeter | Jun 05, 2012, 02:33 PM EDT
Not a chance!!lol.
BrianinKent | Jun 05, 2012, 02:25 PM EDT
What everyone forgets is that every European country excluding Luxemburg had an empire . Even Belgium! And a lot of them were more repressive than the British .They have all gone. But it is only the British one that is scorned. And that's down to the Irish.They have poured poison on it wherever they settled.The ironic thing is that Dublin was the second city of the empire and along with the Scots and Welsh were on the whole, enthusiastic supporters of the ideal.It is not the loss of empire that has hastened Britain's decline but the millstone of Union around its neck.The sooner the four countries go heir own way the better for them all,
eiriamach | Jun 05, 2012, 01:58 PM EDT
You have a point, sirpeter! IC is often accused of Catholic bashing. Niall provides more than a little balancing-out here. Will the complainers notice?
sirpeter | Jun 05, 2012, 01:37 PM EDT
eiriamach.Of course it's 'tongue in cheek'But with smatterings of truth too.Large smatterings.If the head of the Catholic Church on IC can get a hammering I don't see any reason why the head of the Church of England can't get a hammering too.Besides it's good to see some of her sychophantic peasants on IC doing somersaults.I suggest they practice averting their eyes like the good little subjects they are.They know their betters so Sir Peter will be around later to borrow their daughters.lol
eiriamach | Jun 05, 2012, 12:39 PM EDT
I wonder how Niall would reply to Alan Watson's assessment (in yesterday's NY Times): "There has been no ambiguity whatsoever in [Elizabeth II's] contribution to the transformation of a somewhat racist British Empire into a robustly multiracial Commonwealth." And his candid comparison of the Queen with Margaret Thatcher on the transformation of South Africa: "Though the queen could not dictate what Mrs. Thatcher could do in office, her clear support for the anti-apartheid movement helped bracket, if not undermine, the prime minister’s position in the eyes of the world."
citizen69 | Jun 05, 2012, 12:15 PM EDT
Yes Niall the Empire is gone and rightly so (it seems it's only you who pines for its return) but there is a commonwealth of 54 nations upon which the sun never sets, all are proud to have the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth. Last night as a mark of respect & appreciation to the Queen over 4000 beacons were lit around the world, from New Zealand and Tonga to Northern Ireland and Donegal.
jamthecat | Jun 05, 2012, 11:13 AM EDT
And we care because...?
eiriamach | Jun 05, 2012, 10:32 AM EDT
This opinion piece must be 'tongue in cheek'! If it's serious, it places O'Dowd alongside Newt Gingrich as a fan of western imperialism, LOL. It wasn't the Germans who took back Rhodesia and renamed it the Republic of Zimbabwe, as just one example of the inevitable exodus of indigenous peoples from colonial rule. As the world continues to struggle with the problems of post-colonialism, we should be drawing some wisdom from a history of empire more shameful than glorious. It's to her credit that Elizabeth knows how to make a graceful exit.
sirpeter | Jun 05, 2012, 08:20 AM EDT
allan07.If they didn't do charity work what would they do? If you receive £40,000,000 a year from the taxpayer it has to be shown that you do something that is visible.Of course when Niall equates the Roman Empire to the British Empire.You're warped little orange order brain turned it into anti-protestant crap.But since you mention it.The Roman Empire practiced Roman Paganism not Catholicism from 27 BC until 380 AD when it became Christian and it was the Romans who were been beaten back in the last 100 years as the Empire fell apart by 476 AD.A Roman general would have found it pretty hard to be anti-protestant considering protestants didn't exist for over another thousand years.To allan07 the pagan Romans were out to get ye too.lol
IrelandNorth | Jun 05, 2012, 07:31 AM EDT
A stipulation of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, 1920 was that the Anglo-Irish landed gentry got to keep their large estates, a cause of the Civil War? Jubliee street parties in Cork? Maybe the K Club! After EIIR'e visit to the greater part of Ireland, the Queen's Christmas speech referred to the importance of families. (Metaphorical or literal?) While 26 of Ireland's 32 counties may have gotten independence, the remaining 6 stayed codependent. Ireland as a whole only got autonomy. The current British monarch is only the second Elizabeth not the eleventh. As such She is well placed to ameliorate the excesses of Her nominal predecessor. Since a monarch, British or otherwise, is unelected, who decides who or what S/He is monarch over? (Ex-Ugandan dictator General Idi Amin Dada declared himself Last King of Scotland. What would Robert Bruce have though of that?) The British Exchequer loaned Ireland STG£10b. Loans are repayed with interest. (STG£10b is a fraction of the wealth siphoned out of Ireland over 700 years of colonisation.) The 26 country republiquette is constitutionally restricted to being an 81% success. 14% unemployment/emigration isn't mass, errors unworthy of Accountants with Firsts in Economics. Ireland doesn't have a national debt since it isn't a nation yet. Buckingham Palace was illuminated in tricolour red, white and blue (the reverse of the Republique Francaise flag). Is this an omen of the UK going republican? Over the next decade, EIIR may be presiding over the democratisation of the UK with Scottish and Welsh independence. In which case a Reunited Ireland would be imperative.
allan07 | Jun 05, 2012, 05:51 AM EDT
No mention of her charity work, no mention of her support to good causes, no mention of Prince Charles work for his charitable trust which helps young people find work, solve their problems with drink/drugs, provide training, etc, no mention that Prince Charles has taken on Poundsbury Dorset and Dunluce House in Scotland and turned them into good communities, (Even borrowing vast sums of money to do so at the high of the recession 3 years ago), no mention of anything good in the article. What about last nights concert? It was great. Stevie Wonder and Madness on the roof of Buckingham Palace singing our house with images projected onto Buckingham Palace. @Sparklet every empire had its bad parts. The spanish had their trials of people whom were not Roman Catholic and hung them afterwards. That went on for 350 years. I dont hear anyone here discuss this. Jews were hung for being Jewish, Protestants the same. The Roman Empire murdered more than anyone else for generations because they were not Roman Catholic. Do we discuss the Roman Empire here? No. Why not? Very bogoted writer whom is anti-protestant. He should have been a Roman Empire general.
Sparklet | Jun 05, 2012, 03:38 AM EDT
Because the British people of today don't actually care about the Empire. Her popularity is based upon the behaviour of the Royals and owes a lot to Diana and Kate Middleton. The Empire is in the past and Britain's history in that department is seen as shameful by a lot of UK citizens.
DanOLoingsigh | Jun 05, 2012, 03:25 AM EDT
Seano's partial history lesson, quoting the exceptions rather than the more common peaceful transitions, as well as misusing ie for eg!!! How typical...
DanOLoingsigh | Jun 05, 2012, 03:21 AM EDT
So when can we expect an article calling for similar punishment for the McAleeses' for their presiding over the recent homegrown economic debacle?
seanomelb | Jun 05, 2012, 01:03 AM EDT
kscorletta misses the point of O'Dowd"s article his comparison to previous monarchs is valid and after all she is the monarch who witnessed the sun set on the British empire. as for handing power back to other countries they were either a "fait accompli" or won through the barrel of a gun ie. Kenya,Aden and other nations.
casualMBA | Jun 05, 2012, 12:57 AM EDT
One might assert the British Empire is alive and well in southwestern Ireland in that the unpardoned Fitzgeralds remain the victims of confiscated lands (574,645 acres,) for their irreverent attitude toward the royals and their policies. A SUSTAINED confiscation, I might add.
maryemoore | Jun 04, 2012, 10:54 PM EDT
It gets harder and harder to read the stuff on this site. O'Dowd prattles on about how little is left of the Empire. Would you prefer that the Republic of Ireland still be part of the Empire? No, I'm sure but your seem to infer that the Kingdom should have held on to other countries. You don't make any sense.
kscorletta | Jun 04, 2012, 10:38 PM EDT
So very sad that an Irish American such as Mr. O'Dowd has to be told by readers that the monarchy in England has not been responsible for anything other than keeping up the spirits of the "empire" for more than 100 yrs. Moreover, England, thanks to Parliament managed to write the first laws against slavery, recognized that dominion over the Empire was better off handed over to the different countries *Canada, India) when they had proved themselves able to rule (and when the civil discourse and approval disintegrated) After all, the U.S. of A gave them pointers during the Revolutionary War, as did the French during their revolution. They even had enough sense to get the point of Communism and work to make a country that moved toward social progress and more opportunity for more people. Thanks to a government that was elected and had to answer to the people (if the population and the members of parliament give a vote of no confidence to their political officials, they have to have a new election and the Royals have not one word that they can say about it. Too bad we are too busy in this country claiming that Socialist ideas are the ultimate idea. I am of almost completely Irish heritage with one parent born in England of the Irish Diaspora----why were they in England? They needed a job. Caitann P.S. There is no way that Queen Elizabeth had anything to do with losing the Empire, Canada was already a dominion on it's own in the 1800's, India knew before WW11 that independence would come after the War, and the Queen has proved herself worthy of her crown (which is only symbolic) since the day she was crowned.
timbobdennehy | Jun 04, 2012, 10:36 PM EDT
the queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland you mean alan07,she is not my queen,and i am Irish,the only thing i can respect about her is her age.two tuts to you.
Rebelforce | Jun 04, 2012, 09:08 PM EDT
I kind of like Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip Battenberg, but then I've always been partial to Germans.
clevelander | Jun 04, 2012, 08:35 PM EDT
Ireland does not care about the jubilee. @bytheway
seanomelb | Jun 04, 2012, 07:15 PM EDT
Dear old alan07 is fuming, his maudlin royalist mindset is upset. The monarchists in OZ are also fuming as they believe poor old Liz is not getting enough coverage on telly or in the press. Lovely article Niall keep them coming.
sirpeter | Jun 04, 2012, 05:19 PM EDT
allan07.Rattled to the core lol.By the way the UK is the 7th biggest economy.Brazil has just passed the UK.Of course if Scotland and Wales decided to go it alone it would be much smaller again.As for NI~Well we'll forget about NI.That's an African economy.Kept going by a London charity.lol
FallsRNat | Jun 04, 2012, 05:14 PM EDT
O'dowd's bitterness shows through, he & his provie buddies lost, nuff said, god save the Queen & Ireland.
Pazuzu | Jun 04, 2012, 05:07 PM EDT
This really seems to have struck a raw nerve with some of our English friends that have come out of the woodwork to comment on this. LOL!!
faberm1 | Jun 04, 2012, 05:00 PM EDT
Maybe the British people are glad to have a Queen who had the wisdom to see the folly of empire and watched over the somewhat orderly dismantling of the same. Níall Ó Dowd writes the article under the premise that she should be shamed because of this dismantling. It makes me respect her and feel like she's done the British People a pretty good job. Good for her!
citizen69 | Jun 04, 2012, 04:48 PM EDT
Thanks to the Queen most people in Northern Ireland are enjoying two days off work to celebrate the golden jubilee! Cheers Ma'am!
bbj3212 | Jun 04, 2012, 04:43 PM EDT
What a narrow minded little man - grow up!
Bythebay | Jun 04, 2012, 03:25 PM EDT
allan07, O'Dowd does not live in Ireland, he left Ireland decades ago and is US based, his New York/Long Island. He's not a spokesperson in any way for Ireland or the people of Ireland.
Scottmcgowan | Jun 04, 2012, 03:09 PM EDT
It is as clear as can be: Queen Elizabeth is the direct descendent of King Brian Boru and, as such, made sure that Great Britain received payback for its "caring and concern" for the Irish people during its 800 years of invasion and occupation of Ireland. She is a throw-back to Brian!! Scott
oldboreen | Jun 04, 2012, 02:54 PM EDT
Seems I've been labouring under a misapprehension! I had assumed until now, that our editor was a trained journalist.Clearly I am seriously mistaken-witness the silly article above!
allan07 | Jun 04, 2012, 02:40 PM EDT
This editor is a first class idiot. Queen Elizabeth 11 is not the Queen of England she is the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Head of the Commonwealth and Head of the Church of England. Get your republican misleading rubbish correct. This article is designed to cause offence and shows the editor is full of bigotary and nationalist propaganda. Secondly the Queen has no political powers and does not engage in such matters. She cannot vote and is simply the Head of the State without political powers. Thirdly you cannot hold her responsible for the failures that are called politicians. Fourly Great Britain is the sixth largest economy in the world despite having a total population of 62 million. Great Britain is punching above its weight. Germany, USA, China, Brazil and Japan have larger populations. Despite it all Britain has loaned the IMF recently £10 billion and also loaned the Republic of Ireland £10 billion otherwise they would have run out of money this month. So how ungrateful can you be Mr O'Dowd. The Republic of Ireland is a total failure with 50% house price reductions, mass unemployment, mass emigration, EU bailouts, a much higher national debt than any country in the EU except Greece, etc, Those who live in glass houses fire the biggest stones Mr O'Dowd. Your a fool.
Portia777 | Jun 04, 2012, 02:32 PM EDT
The Queen is a good girl and obeys the Pope.So she plays to the crowd and lives a nice life while her so called people live in poverty. Not how old Queens were as we in Eire know.
Portia777 | Jun 04, 2012, 02:28 PM EDT
So England is now fully in the hands of the Germans- all planned no doubt.
hughaed | Jun 04, 2012, 02:24 PM EDT
Elizabeth is, as O'Dowd well knows, merely a symbol, albeit a wealthy symbol, of Britain. Sacred symbols represented by kings, queens & other potentates, historically have the important role of representing the health & wealth of a nation. As Victoria, over a hundred years ago, saw the height of Empire, Elizabeth is seeing the nadir of that same empire. The cause, as many historians would agree, was the destruction of a generation of young men in WWI, including 50,000 Irish, shot to pieces by the newly developed machine gun in the trenches of Europe. Read the poet, Robert Graves' book "Goodbye to all That" where he wrote about the utter incomprehension of the civilian population in England to be able to grasp the horror & destructiveness of that senseless war. It was, in fact, a war between nations that were deeply related by blood & culture (Germans & Anglo-Saxons). Graves happened to be fighting his own cousins in Germany as many others were, though some cousins would only have been distantly related. WWII was merely the aftermath & completed the disenchantment with the British Empire by a new generation of youth, especially the most creative youth. The cynicism of recent generations to pomp & circumstance of empire (such as this 60th anniversary celebration) may not necessarily be found in popular news stories or TV production, but will far more likely be found among writers, poets & seminal thinkers. The bizarre costumes & riverboat bands coasting along the Thames with their bedraggled singers were wailing their last chants to an already forgotten empire.
Nicomax | Jun 04, 2012, 02:23 PM EDT
She, as most British monarchs over the past several decades have little power to affect the course of England's role in world affairs, or the lack thereof. She is a romantic figurehead, and has done a fine job in that role. It's an expense the British public seems content to continue, even in their current woeful economy.
MegK311 | Jun 04, 2012, 02:18 PM EDT
Nial, what a petty piece of writing. It makes you look like a small unintelligent littl man. The British government may have lost much of the empire though from what I remember countries were released peacefully. The Queen did not make these decisions so you need to get your facts straight. Queen Elizabeth is a remarkable woman loved by most of her people. Long Live the Queen.
AmericanReader | Jun 04, 2012, 02:11 PM EDT
Nonsense!!! She's done much for the evolving of the British Empire into the 20th and 21st Centuries and independence and change. Your article is idiotic.
slainte9 | Jun 04, 2012, 01:48 PM EDT
Why should the British regret losing the Empire. It wasn't theirs to begin with, and represented many serious moral compromises. Having at long last evolved into a true democracy, Britain and its people, who very decent at heart, were no longer willing to live with moral compromise. And Elizabeth is certainly a symbol of that and what is good about the British.
Bythebay | Jun 04, 2012, 01:36 PM EDT
Warrenpoint, your so-called evil empire is now a Commonwealth which rapturously welcomes their Queen whenever she visits. She'll be visiting her subjects in Northern Ireland including Warrenpoint where she will equally get a huge welcome. Great Jubilee celebrations have been taking place in Northern Ireland UK this weekend for their Queen.
FastEddy | Jun 04, 2012, 01:36 PM EDT
It was not the Queen or the Royal Family that "lost" the British Empire ... It was simple, greedy, stupid Labour government and excessive and unjustly high taxation that caused the various colonies to revolt and secede ... All of Them, period, end of that story.
pilib04 | Jun 04, 2012, 01:35 PM EDT
Why is Niall writing a puff piece about Elizabeth Saxe=Coburg and Gotha? Whatever. As for Bythebay's boring, repetitious comment, I can only you don't have anything to do with Ireland either. Finally to SAirish and polls. As an old wag once pontificated, the only poll that counts (in Scotland) is the one held in 2014. Alex Salmond is a shrewd politician who will lead a spirited campaign for Independence. Scots will rally around an Independence movement that can be shown to govern and shown to have the capacity to win. Unquestionably there are many Scottish Unionists who will vote Independence in 2014. They actually have their own organization.
SAirish | Jun 04, 2012, 01:10 PM EDT
Warrenpoint, the SNP have been in power in Scotland for over a year and the latest opinion polls show only 33% support for independence. It is very unlikely that Scotland will go its own way. For the last 40 years a third of the population of Scotland have supported independence and that has still not changed. That is why Alex Samond is putting off the referendum for as long as he can. There is nothing stopping the SNP holding a referendum this year, the UK Government fully supports that.
warrenpoint00 | Jun 04, 2012, 12:53 PM EDT
Tell us all something we do not know Niall.Of course the evil empire is finished.In to days modern world how could a british empire that stole ,murdered, raped and pillaged to reign supreme ever survive.Two new nations Scotland and Ireland are arising from the throes of this evil pillaging empire,Canada and Australia will shed the shackles as well of course .Yes indeed Niall say cheerio to the the british empire and the U.K.Like all the other failed empires of the world it is doomed to the history books.Good riddance.
jacersagain | Jun 04, 2012, 12:51 PM EDT
On TV I watched the pageantry of the Flotilla on the River Thames yesterday and couldn’t help but think exactly what Niall writes of above – that since she became monarch, Britain Inc has lost its Empire in between Elizabeth becoming Queen in 1952 and now. Not that she personally had anything to do with its loss but it was a reminder that I was watching a pageant marking a rare moment of history – the Queen is only the second in history to have ‘reigned’ over Britain for 60 years. If she survives a few more months, her reign will have outlasted Queen Victoria’s who holds the longest reign record. Incidentally, Queen Vicky’s family name was Guelph (Germanic) as is Queen Lizzy’s (She’s really Mrs Windsor-Mountbatten-Saxe-Gotha-Coberg) but, as Niall mentions above re the ‘detested Germans’, the British Royal family got rid of all Germanic royal house ties after WWI and adopted the name Windsor, after the royal family’s castle of the same name. Irish-Americans love to retain their Irish family roots’ names but not so the British monarch’s family and that was very evident by its absence in yesterday’s flotilla! Pity that… I enjoy pageantry from whatever country and I would have liked to see the German flag somewhere amongst that flotilla of boats.
Bythebay | Jun 04, 2012, 12:50 PM EDT
Realist, DON'T blame Ireland for this misguided column. O'Dowd lives in the US in New York/Long Island. Nothing to do with Ireland.
dermotfastnet | Jun 04, 2012, 12:36 PM EDT
Mr.O'Dowd, this post is utter tripe you must do better.
Realist | Jun 04, 2012, 12:23 PM EDT
"Britain is back to being sick man of Europe along with Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Ireland of course"? Lol....you really have it bad for the U.K., don’t you? Mr O'Dowd, I think you’ve got a little carried away with another one of your anti-British wet dreams. Indeed, this 'article' tells us much more about the giant Union Jack coloured chip you carry about on your shoulder than it does about HM Queen Elizabeth II. If this is what passes for Irish journalism then the country is in intellectual as well as financial meltdown. IC, striving for new lows, and reaching them.
SAirish | Jun 04, 2012, 12:16 PM EDT
The title of this article suggests that the UK should have hung onto their empire. It is to the UK's credit that independence was granted to the third world section of the Brit Empire in the early 1960's. This process was done peacefully with the exception of Kenya. I am sorry to say that countries like Malaysia and Singapore, have done much better than the Irish Republic, despite only gaining independence 40 years after Ireland did.
DCVietVet | Jun 04, 2012, 12:11 PM EDT
Methinks it's the British Parliament, not the Monachry, who are responsible for the demise of the British Empire. I am by no means an Anglophile however, you must give Elizabeth her due. (I still believe that the House of Stuart is the rightful claim to the throne!!!)
citizen69 | Jun 04, 2012, 12:07 PM EDT
So the loss of Empire and the political changes in Europe over the last 60 years is all the fault of Queen Elizabeth right? Niall you are an idiot. You should know full well that Great Britain & Northern Ireland have a constitutional monarchy. Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of State, she has no powers and makes no rules. The petty anti-British gloating of yourself and portions of the I.C. staff is embarrassing and borders on racism. I'm sure you'd be the first to be offended if you perceived the British press to be making snide comments on the Irish or it's head of state. It's almost as if you can't stand the Brits getting some positive media attention around the world. I guess this is the derogatory attitude unionists would have to look forward to in the Republican movement's 'Ireland of equals'.
Murph46 | Jun 04, 2012, 11:38 AM EDT
Who cares?
BulldogMania | Jun 04, 2012, 11:36 AM EDT
Her Majesty has more influence over world affairs than she is ever credited with having. Angela Merkel is nobody compared to Queen Elizabeth II. The English still carry a high position of respect in world affairs because of the British monarchy. Without the royal family England would be nothing...with them they command the respect of the world.
GraydonWilson | Jun 04, 2012, 11:10 AM EDT
I am by no means an Anglophile, but I have to give Elizabeth Windsor her due. She gave exemplary service during the Second War and, since being promoted to her present job, has done it remarkably well, recognizing that her job is to not say or do anything of any consequence.
hermitTalker | Jun 04, 2012, 10:51 AM EDT
CitizenWhy: Your" bachelor crank in Rome" is so un-called for. The Queen does not say what she thinks, only what the current Governments scripts for her, see THE QUEEN and how Tony Blair saved the prestige of the monarchy and the harm the next king did to the institution. The pope tells it as it is- she had a bit over a million lining the Thames yesterday, the celibate Pope had one million at the Mass in Milan for World Family Day where he spent three days to show support- I doubt that the handsome Prince and his Catherine would draw one million worldwide as this old pope and his predecessor did for World Youth Day, that is how many were in Madrid in June. JESUS is King, people are drawn to the message, not the messenger. This pope chats with those who bring up the Gifts at his Masses, she shakes hands and chats only to some. Family is not "Protestant"- it is CHRISTIAN, and her children and ancestors have the Tower of London as a reminder of that. She is a most gracious and well-behaved Lady but do not make false and un-historic comparisons.
CitizenWhy | Jun 04, 2012, 10:24 AM EDT
The Queen is popular because she exemplifies how a strong person can make even a dysfunctional family pull together and work well enough. In this endeavor good manners and graciousness help. In this way she symbolizes both the Protestant and secular ideal of family, the basis of the nation. She stands in contrast to the dried up bachelor crank in Rome.
SeamusMor | Jun 04, 2012, 10:00 AM EDT
"The Sun never sets on the British accent."
jamieLM | Jun 04, 2012, 09:47 AM EDT
Mr. O'Dowd, I take issue with your title. The Queen was NOT the one who "lost the British Empire." Btw; Germany is not a utopia, either. They have plenty of problems, too.
GeorgeDillon | Jun 04, 2012, 09:43 AM EDT
I heard that in Cork they had street parties to celebrate this Jubilee. And they've changed the name of Cork from "The Rebel County" to "Queens County".
casualMBA | Jun 04, 2012, 09:42 AM EDT
The British Empire is alive and well in southwestern Ireland! The confiscation of the unpardoned (more than one has seen the Tower,) FitzGeralds' lands (all 574,645 acres of them) have been SUSTAINED in a free Ireland.
jamieLM | Jun 04, 2012, 09:31 AM EDT
I'd be surprised if the Queen sits around lamenting the fact that many of the countries that were a drain on the UK economy and were agitating for their independence are now on their own. I doubt she cares about "wielding the power" (a headache-filled, thankless job) in the UK, either. She has plenty to do with reading state papers every day, consulting with PMs, promoting all her many charities, and entertaining heads of govt. from countries around the world, not to mention the traveling she's done over the years. If the British want to support a monarchy, that's their choice. The British are very good at pageantry which encourages national pride and patriotism. As an American, I get absolutely no satisfaction from criticizing them on their celebration of their Queen's Jubilee. It's none of my business how they choose to celebrate her reign. It looks like many of the people in London are enjoying themselves, so good for them.
SAirish | Jun 04, 2012, 07:44 AM EDT
As is well known, the Queen is a figurehead only and has no political power. The demise or otherwise of the UK is due to the UK Government and not the head of state. The British Empire was a drain on the UK economy in the 20th century and not even the most ardent right winger would want the empire to return. A country's success should be judged according to the living standards of its people and since 1952 living standards have risen in the UK tremendously. I was reading an article recently which stated that peopled in the UK are now taller than the USA. This was never the case until the last 20 years or so as the height of UK people was always much less than the USA due to lower living standards. Improved living, education and health standards are the hallmarks of a country.