A movie based around the death of Princess Diana and focussing on how Queen Elizabeth II dealt with the whole sorry business is not something that yours truly would expect to see, to be honest. However, having read so many rave reviews about Helen Mirren’s performance as the British monarch, I gave in and went to see it tonight. Definitely worth a look, is my verdict. Mirren is brilliant, uncannily believable. (Better get that Oscar speech ready, Helen). This film is surprising in a number of ways. The Queen comes across as a sympathetic character, bound up in a sense of duty that puts her at odds with the manic celebrity culture that developed around Diana. You sense, as the film goes on, that the qualities that have stood this lady in good stead for most of her life will ultimately prove more valuable than the meritricious arts of media manipulation and spin that have become associated with the court of Tony Blair.
Oddly, I will admit that the portrayal of Tony Blair surprised me by showing that this man, whom most Samizdata writers will regard with fair levels of loathing, comes across fairly well: someone who realised that the Queen was being bullied by an almost-deranged media and part of the British public. The guy playing spin-doctor-in-chief, Alastair Campbell, was also very good, showing that Campbell was, and is, one of the most malevolent persons to have held power in British life for many years, admittedly quite a feat.
I have fairly mixed views about monarchy. I suppose, given my brand of post-Enlightenment liberalism, that I should take a dim view of this institution and its representation of hereditary power, but one has to recognise that if we are to have a head of state at all, then there are distinct advantages if that head is a person who is not elected and hence a necessarily controversial figure but someone who gets the job through the lottery of birth and is restricted by checks and balances of a constitution. (There is a case for arguing why we need a head of state at all. The Swiss seem to have a sort of revolving mayoral system, which works fine). This film may not persuade people on either sides of the argument on the case for or against constitutional monarchy, but it is a thought-provoking film and also has the merit of being relatively short.
Now she’s playing Elizabeth II? I think she’s in a contest with Judy Dench to see who can portray the most English monarchs.
She will get an Oscar this year.
Put money on it. She’s a shoo in!
I havent seen Liz 2
But I did see Liz 1.
Mirren the Magnificent!
Prunella Scales was damn good too!
In that little Allan Bennett number
“A Matter of Attribution”
I read that the director and lead actress began this project with, at best, chilly neutrality towards the Monarchy. They ended up with great respect for the Queen.
I am the “if we are going to have a head of state…” brigade. Pres. Blair? No thanks!
As for the Swiss model, it sounds a little too “Holy Grail” to me – “Who lives in that Presidential Palace?”
The traditional rationale of the British system of government is that the three forms of government – Democracy, Aristocracy and Monarchy – all have their peculiar virtues and defects and so a wisely constructed constitutional system will contain elements of all three. At least until the New Labour barbarians got their way.
As the virtue of Monarchy is stability and the defect is propensity to tyranny, the British Monarchy is wisely constructed in that it retains the former and minimises the latter by ensuring the Queen delegates all her actual power to the Cabinet, Lords and Commons.
TimC, well, the thing about the Swiss head of state is that no-one outside their local cantons seems to have heard of them.
I personally find the whole “we need a head of state” argument a bit weak in many cases. Do we need such a figure at all, either elected or hereditary? It is a question worth putting because in most debates about monarchy or elected presidents, the “need” for such a head figure is stated as a given fact.
I personally find the whole “we need a head of state” argument a bit weak in many cases.
I personally find the whole “we need a state” argument a bit weak in many cases.
I am not a terribly great fan of the institution of monarchy either, but I rather like the present queen. To me she comes across as a decent lady with a strong sense of duty and concern for the good of the country.
It is just a shame her eldest son is such a tosser.
Charlie is the reason a monarch is preferable to an elected president, if we must have a HoS. C can say what he likes and we all laugh and get on with our lives. An elected HoS with a “mandate” says what he likes, and some bugger comes along and bans it or makes it compusory as appropriate.
I’m not English, but the monarchy seems to me somehow like a nice thing to have. I would not advocate establishing a new monarchy, but since you have a nice one, with a long tradition – why destroy it ?
Maybe it’s like an old building, I’d rather preserve it that demolish it…
I’ve never seen this written, maybe it’s an original thought but I doubt it.
It is a positive good that government contain some inherited positions. Basic human liberty includes the freedom to endow others. What better way to ensure that citizens remember, respect, and keep this liberty than to embed it in the selection of the personnel of government itself?
staghounds,
Thankee sor, I be tugging me forelock as I type.
You can endow others only with things you actually own.
You don’t own positions of public office.
Not even the Queen. It is not up to her who succeeds her.
Minette Marrin ran a nice piece on this. By the way, there might be something which interests you today, Johnathan.
Frankly, I prefer an anarchic system that has a standing poll that asks, “are we under attack?” When the percent reaches a certian threshold, a lottery is held, and the winner is Dictator Pro Tempore for the duration, until another poll asking, “Have we won/lost yet?” reaches a certain threshold, whereupon, the dictator pro tempore is out of a job. The only two things the Dictator cannot do is interfere with the operation of that second poll, and surrender.
Not going too far back to the Georgians but Victoria was a great monarch, her son (Edward VII) was an imbecile, his son (George V) was a great monarch and both of his sons were pretty much a waste of space, except the youngest gave us Elizabeth II. Given this regular skip in generations we can but have hopes for William.
Personally I’m in favour of Charles standing down his natural inheritance and sailing off into the horizon with Camilla and his plants, in favour of William.
Julian – I tend to suspect that is what he wants for himself. If mummy lives to 100 he’ll be over 70 so he can “graciously” stand aside as the country will need a younger monarch. He needs to make the case though, because he was brought up to understand his grandmother’s vitriolic hatred of Edward VIII for dereliction of duty (resulting in the death of her husband). Age may be enough of a case for him to feel justified.