ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
What the Queen Meant to America: Jon Meacham on Her Legacy and Leadership | Amanpour and Company
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2022
- In her 70 year reign, Queen Elizabeth developed a close relationship with the U.S., meeting 12 of the 14 serving presidents during her reign. Following the death of President John F. Kennedy, she shared a particularly moving tribute. Historian Jon Meacham speaks with Walter Isaacson about Her Majesty’s relationship with America and its presidents.
Originally aired on September 9, 2022.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to the Amanpour and Company. channel here: bit.ly/2EMIkTJ
Subscribe to our daily newsletter to find out who's on each night: www.pbs.org/wne...
For more from Amanpour and Company, including full episodes, click here: to.pbs.org/2NB...
Like Amanpour and Company on Facebook: bit.ly/2HNx3EF
Follow Amanpour and Company on Twitter: bit.ly/2HLpjTI
Watch Amanpour and Company weekdays on PBS (check local listings).
Amanpour and Company features wide-ranging, in-depth conversations with global thought leaders and cultural influencers on the issues and trends impacting the world each day, from politics, business and technology to arts, science and sports. Christiane Amanpour leads the conversation on global and domestic news from London with contributions by prominent journalists Walter Isaacson, Michel Martin, Alicia Menendez and Hari Sreenivasan from the Tisch WNET Studios at Lincoln Center in New York City.
#amanpourpbs
"Jon Meacham speaks with Walter Isaacson" a quality presentation by two scholars. Thank you.
Wisdom as always from Mr. Meacham
Refreshing conversations by two gentlemen.
I see lots of vapid hot air.
@@SR-oj2vv barf
@@Terry-te1ij Back ony you!!! BARF
ALWAYS a joy - to THIS Englishman - to hear well-educated, intelligent Americans !
Don't be so arrogant. Everyone who can read can be intelligent.
The Americans can't help that they have poor health care and bad education.
They have been brought up and are brainwashed to make a "deal" with "Uncle Sam" because they did not have union fights and think socialism is the same thing as authoritarian communism...
@@fbenbow2197
"Don't be so arrogant"
Frankly, I fail to understand how an expression of appreciation for the intelligence displayed by a certain individual can be regarded as _arrogant_ ! Bizarre observation............................
@@marvinc9994 Don't get out much do you?
Thank you for saying that. We are not all Meghan Markles and we value education here, as You Wonderful Brits Do.
GOD SAVE THE KING! Mary Duffy
@@dodge-ut6ti
"Don't get out much do you?"
That question is as meaningless as it's witless. Are you, perchance, a product of State 'Education'?
Her father had great faith and trust in her abilities. This is important. With all the accolades attributed to Her Majesty, restraint, constancy, sense of duty, etc., I think her greatest quality was her curiosity. It shows in movies and photos of her even from infancy. Great woman who understood her place in history, always self aware and hopeful.
Jon Meacham's distinction regarding the representative, unifying and dignified part of ruling versus the efficient part and his comparative observations were shrewd. You seem dignified and wise yourself, sir.
America is still a very young country. Our intellectual and emotional history touch that of the United Kingdom. When we lose our way, like now and some forget our values, we can look back to the ancient paths and remember history. Her Majesty embodied the ancient paths of wisdom. The Queen was a "wise woman," a Boss Woman. We celebrate her life as we learn from her example. Blessings to our friends. 🕊
Very well said!
Wise, and gracious
Every inch a Queen
A smiley face on 3/4s of a century of genocide! You're so right.
Beautifully said. Thank you.
Indeed. Studying world history from the age of feudalism onward gives much insight.
Jon Meacham is a national treasure during our ideologically conflicted times.
I wish more American people would listen to his wise words of wisdom.
We are the rebellious child, who rejected their rule. However, like in most families, we return for the weddings and the funerals. We are sad, together, when Gran passes from us.
Beautiful sentiment. Well stated
Thanks for this comment! Had I scrolled down I wouldn’t have entered my own comment. You said it better!
We are their most steadfast ally and partner in leading the developed world, regardless of our beginnings. Neither world wars could have been won without our mutual cooperation. The queen and her father played no small role in those global victories. She was a force to be reckoned with, who exemplified stability - and we are heartbroken at the loss of her. It's truly a new age.
The warmth and generosity of spirit on display from both gentlemen was very touching. Thank-you.
Fascinating, warm and wonderful! I could have watched for hours. Thank you both!
Two men I admire and from whom I always learn so much, Gracias
As Canadian married to an American- Canadian we have many US friends and family. There is however a special bond that Canadians have with our now King and the other constitutional monarchies of the British Commonwealth . This bond is above the normal trading relationship between countries
@Nick Martin Elizabeth was Queen of Canada. Charles now is our King. I agree with everything Don McMaster said.
I loved Queen Elizabeth, she was a true professional.
A different time a different place, she was an amazing person.
What a top-class commentator John Meachan is, so erudite and engaging.
This remarkable woman and much loved Queen fixed and drove ambulances when Hitler was bombing 💣 London. As to this stark difference between good and evil, I have no better example.
May she RIP forever. Condolences from Pennsylvania.
"Nobody is arguing to go to a British constitution." Well, as an American monarchist, I would! I know it won't happen, but that's where my heart is. Still, a thoughtful and interesting interview. God Save the King.
Prince Harry is married to an American; wouldn't their line be a foundation for an American monarchy?
Britain doesn't have a constitution. Go look it up.
Forgive this Brit intruding on US domestic interests but your comment intrigued me. As someone who has worked and travelled in the USA I struggle with the perennial contradictions your Founding Fathers somewhat mischievously created between Presidents, the House and the Senate. 3 always was a crowd. By having three competing elements it seems to me that it achieves nothing but more elections. And IMHO you have too many of those anyway.
I have believed for some time that a version of the UK's Parliamentary system would provide better (ie more efficient) government. For background:
We elect MPs but not Prime Ministers and do it every 5 years.
We have an election on a Thursday and a new Government on a Friday after the Monarch has appointed her new Prime Minister who would be the leader of the winning party by number of seats.
The House of Lords is not elected but can only offer amendments to legislation and all can be overruled by the House of Commons as it has Primacy.
In the USA you elect Representatives (2 years), Presidents (4 years) and Senators for 6 years but 1/3 are up for election every 2 years. So by the time a President is elected he / she is already in election mode for the 'Half Terms'. Plus the likelihood of an majority for one party in all 3 areas is 30%. As indeed we see now with a hung Senate.
So it seems to me that if you did not elect Presidents but elected every Representative at the same time every 5 years and then made the leader of the winning party in the House the new President that would bring stability, increase the likelihood of passing Bills, save a $Bns and the President would be an elected Representative.
And the Senate? Reduce their tenures to 5 years, elect them all at once along with the Representatives and remove their right to block legislation coming up from the House. Its too much power for 100 people. Oh and increase the number of Representatives to 600+ Let Senators amend legislation by all means but the House should have Primacy as there are 5 times as many and their leader would be President.
As you say it will never happen as there are too many vested interests but I think its more of a goer than some King of America..... But thanks for triggering some thought.
@@1chish There are concepts you need to understand:
1. Parliamentary Sovereignty and Separation of Powers
2. Unitary state and Federation
3. Uncodified constitution and codified constitution
The United Kingdom has *Parliamentary Sovereignty* where the legislature is supreme over all other branches of government including executive or judicial bodies. Parliamentary Sovereignty also holds that the legislative body may change or repeal any previous legislation and so it is not bound by written law (in some cases, not even a constitution) or by precedent. The UK does not have a codified constitution. The United States, on the other hand, has *Separation of Powers* with three co-equal branches of government under a *codified* constitution. The intention behind a system of separated powers is to prevent the concentration of power by providing for checks and balances. The legislature can pass a law, but the president can veto the law especially if the executive (president) and the legislature (Congress) are from opposing parties. In Parliament, the executive (prime minister) and the legislature (House of Commons) are always from the same party, never from opposing parties.
The United Kingdom has a devolved government within a *unitary state* . In contrast, the United States is a *federation* with federal government and 50 self-governing state governments with their own three branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) and codified state constitutions. A federation differs from a devolved state, such as the United Kingdom, because, in a devolved state, the central government (Parliament) can revoke the independence of the subunits (Scottish Parliament, the Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly in the case of the UK) without changing the *uncodified* constitution. In the United States, the codified constitution prohibits Congress from revoking the independence of the 50 state governments. Any law that Congress passes that is found to be unconstitutional can be overturned by the judiciary. In contrast, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (established recently in 2009) is much more limited in its powers of judicial review than the constitutional or supreme courts of some other countries. It cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament.
None of the three branches of the federal government on their own can change the U.S. Constitution. Amending the U.S. Constitution requires two-thirds majority of both the House of Representatives and the Senate *_plus_* approval of three-quarters of the state legislatures (38 out of 50). There have only been 27 amendments made to the United States Constitution throughout the history of the U.S.
The United States Senate is not the "power of 100 people". It is the power of the 50 states in the *federation* with each state equally represented by two Senators. In American political discourse, states' rights are political powers held for the state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, reflecting especially the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. The enumerated powers that are listed in the Constitution include exclusive federal powers, as well as concurrent powers that are shared with the states, and all of those powers are contrasted with the reserved powers-also called states' rights-that only the states possess. So any discussion of limiting the powers of the United States Senate will be viewed as limiting the powers of each of the 50 states. These reserved powers are something that none of the 50 states would ever want to give up. The United States Constitution gives the states in the federation a higher level of autonomy than that given by the Australian Constitution to the states of Australia which is also a federation. For example, marriage law is state law in the United States. But marriage law is federal law in Australia.
The U.S. Senate is not "hung". The Vice President of the United States is the tie breaker on the Senate which also gives the party controlling majority.
@@RaymondHng I am sure you didn't mean it the way it was written but I do indeed understand very well the workings of my own country, the difference between a written and unwritten constitution and have a passing understanding of the US arrangements.
However thank you for a very interesting and detailed comparator between the UK and the USA. I have to say what I was offering for discussion was not what pertains today (which you described very well and explained well the issues I briefly described) but what might improve the US legislative processes in the future. I am never sure what was written 240 years ago in a very different and very much smaller country and in very different global circumstances holds well for the 21st Century. The fact it is written and cannot change as you describe without impossible approvals worries me greatly. Nothing should be sacrosanct. It just entrenches positions and allows any minority political group to demand 'something in return' or to just say a flat 'NO'. Or just use the Constitution as some sacred defender of their position. Forgive my bias but that is why the UK's unwritten constitution adapts, flexes and improves year by year by the will of Parliament, has done over its 800 years existence and its done totally democratically.
While Parliament is supreme its not true to suggest it has power over the Judiciary or indeed power over the Executive (Government) come to that. The Government is answerable to Parliament for its actions but Parliament cannot dictate to Government as was shown just a couple of years ago in a long forgotten world pre COVID. As for the Judiciary yes it makes laws for the judiciary to administer but all judiciary in the UK is totally independent and non political. Its why they swear allegiance to the Crown, not Parliament, and all justice is administered by 'The Crown' in criminal cases.
You then suggest:
"in a devolved state, the central government (Parliament) can revoke the independence of the subunits (Scottish Parliament, the Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly in the case of the UK) without changing the uncodified constitution"
Last point first. The UK constitution is defined by its laws and (contrary to another suggestion) historical precedent and it is the passing of laws that changes the constitution. They are not disparate structures. As regards the 3 devolved Parliaments it is not correct to say the UK Parliament can remove them. For example in the Scotland Act 2016, Part 2A, Clause 63A:
"3) In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum"
The Senedd is similarly safeguarded and the NI Assembly is protected by the Good Friday Agreement as there has always been a devolved Parliament in Ireland. This shows very well how an unwritten constitution offers the same if not more protection to arrangements. We do not need a written document that, in reality, can never be changed.
As regards the Senate is is indeed a hung or rather a deadlocked body because the VP's vote is only drawn when it is deadlocked. Which it is now.
I have to repeat my thanks for an interesting reply.
Take care.
This topped even BBC retrospective chats, so far. Excellent.
John Meacham is always a well of information you can trust. Ever a gentleman, and greatly respected by so many in this country.
I like what Helen Mirren said after making the movie "The Queen": "I'm not a royalist, but I am a Queenist". Thank you, Walter Isaacson and Jon Meacham, for putting the Queen's role and influence into perspective for us. She was a unifying presence and figure of constancy and civility, and there's something to be said for that.
What a treat to have this conversation between two of the most distinguished biographers of our time
Thank you both for the history lesson.
Thoroughly enjoyed !!!!
God Bless ! 🙏🌎🌍🌏🙏💗🇺🇲
Agree with many points raised but what's not often said is the Queen bond with Obama was due to his personality, being the first black president and the Queen being the head of the commonwealth. She went from being at the head of the British empire to being a modern Queen. A lot is made of the wrong of colonialism and the sad truth is no one can rewrite the past. However, the Queen sought to be a unifying force and did not prevent any countries from becoming a republic. She was popular because of her commitment to duty, easy going nature, consistency and hard work up until 2 days before she does.
Wow, this was wonderful, may our two countries always remain close, love from London
This was an astute and perceptive interview, with very good and timely questions. One piece, right at the end, struck me as too hopeful for the present: having earlier said that the monarchy is the "dignified" part of government and the Parliament is the "efficient" part, and then returning to that idea in thinking of the present, he said that perhaps we can strive to substitute the values of the Declaration of Independence's core and the Constitution as our own dignified part, and agree to treat politics as a means to that end which we can then debate and disagree about.
I think that's a wonderful sentiment, and that until about 15 years ago, we tended to hold to that idea pretty well.
We don't any more, and that is at the heart of the perilous pass we find ourselves in.
Trump Republicans (I can't call them conservatives in the previous sense, they're ethno-nationalists with a strong Christian chauvinist streak) neither believe in majority rule nor free and fair elections as principles, only approving contingently if they prevail. Their increasingly authoritarian tone and tolerance of the idea of political violence as means to their ends, are their defining characteristics.
I don't believe they can be induced in the near future to embrace what Meacham hopes for in this interview, and I'm afraid we will have to survive some horrible spasm of right-wing political violence or, even worse, extract the country from a fascist-adjacent era in which elections cannot rescue us because the false accusers of corruption have won control by truly corrupting them. I could write for days about what the consequences of falling into that pit might be for the American future and the world's.
The Democrats, particularly the Progressive wing, of which I consider myself an old-school member of, have concerning but far lesser faults, particularly a tendency to want to see most policy issues through bifocal lenses (an overemphasis on hyphenated identity politics) and a wish to suppress opposing voices they see as extreme or illegitimate.
These problems are made worse by having MAGA Republicans view "taking back our country" as "taking back THEIR country", as in backwards to a less plural, less tolerant politics. It is very evident to me that Republicans are, as a group, and conceding many exceptions, growing less and less reconciled to "E Pluribus, Unum" if it means that they cannot wield most of the power all of the time.
2022 and 2024 are going to determine whether Mr. Meacham's hope is justified.
Thank you for your politically correct comments. It is difficult to know where America's future will go when Republicans have been plotting to destroy democracy since the Reagan era, especially, it exploded under Obama and as a result Trump trampled on the Constitution with support from conservative legislative politicians in the Senate of Congress.
In the Wikipedia, there is a new word “Christofascism” for the MAGA movement that you can refer to it. Wish you have a nice day.
This is an argument I have often given to Americans about the benefits to Constitutional Monarchy (there are downsides too ofc), so it was nice to hear an American explain it. Having a completely non-political titular Head of State gives citizens a shared space to identify with (or even if a republican - at least a space where politics don't enter) on a national level - without the politics. This is why you still have certain modern developed democracies as Constitutional Monarchies. It doesn't mean it's the right system - it has major flaws too - but if your country has historically evolved that way, your probably going to be fine with it.
Of course one of the the arguments against a hereditary Constitutional Monarch, as Head of State, is that you can run the risk of ending up with a bad one. So, quite a bit of it is down to luck that countries like Britain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, the Commonwealth Realms etc have so far survived as modern Parliamentary democracies with constitutional monarchs.
So heartbreakingly well said. thank you.
Meacham is an American treasure. The queen was a treasure as well. She was an amazing example of perseverance and fortitude. 🐕🐕🐕💛 👑.
She also had it played last yr at Windsor for the 20th anniversary....no other COUNTRY did THAT 🇬🇧🇺🇸🌈🌹🦋
Excellent. Thank you. I’m listening to this on September 11.
Thank you for a most inciteful commentary, sir. Something which King Charles highlighted yesterday, and which adds another great distinction between the US way of doing things and that of the Windsors, is that Elizabeth, as does Charles today, embodied the quiet discipline of their devout Christian Faith, of that uniquely Anglican/Episcopal (St Thomas NY) variety. Understatement is everything in the constitutional monarchy system. BTW, whilst living in the US in the 90s, HM visited the Mellon home near Middleburg, close to my own house, on more than one occasion; another private home she enjoyed in VA hunt country. So it wasn't only in KY she stayed at private homes in the US.
When did Her Majesty live in the US??
I replied directly to "miss toronto" but didn't want you to miss it, T.A.K. Palfrey. "Obviously the writer meant while he/ she was living in the the US during the 90s, despite the grammatically incorrect phrase that lacked the subject "I" as in "whilst I was living..." So your comment was either that of a poor reader who misses context or was inappropriately snide. If not, then YOUR comment lacked context that would allow this reader( remedial reading teacher) to ferret out the communication implicit in your question, "Miss Toronto."
that was a lovely summery by Jon, its been touching to hear so many stories and anecdotes about the queen.
I Absolutely Admired "The Queen" She will be truly missed🙏🏻🇺🇸♥️
Her absence will be felt on December 25 when she will not be there with her annual Christmas message.
Jon, you may...Beloved was a wise, humble, compassionate, fun loving & wonderfully mischievous individual. And, she WAS the A bomb of diplomacy, tact and reading any kind of a situation. Thank-you for your kind words, as we both celebrate her life, & grieve. I was blessed, that she blessed my future marriage, to a NY American, Tom. She " admired his character & did everything to show him that. I am, Veteran, Iraq, Afghanistan & Continent of Africa. She cared about us deeply, as we so deeply loved her
As a Brit, I've just read a warm tribute from Trump, praising her, with no perceptible irony, for many of her great qualities, which he and many of his supporters, are so conspicuously devoid of. Glaringly obvious. I in turn sincerely wish the US well and desperately hoping your democracy remains strong.
If it was above a 6th grade level, it was written for him.
Can this old Brit just say thank you to this channel for allowing this excellent man to make such very accurate analysis of a) why we have a Monarchy and b) why she was so proficient at doing what she did. And how she enabled the UK to be No 1 in Global Soft Power.
Its worth remembering that HM The Queen only ever attended two Prime Ministers' funerals: Those for Churchill and Thatcher and she conferred the Order of Merit (the highest order in the gift of the Monarch) on Thatcher when she left office. They were more of a team than maybe is realised.
During COVID the Queen gave a really excellent address to the nation ending with the words "We will meet again" which are the lyrics to a WWII song but it captured the spirit of her address which was one of comfort, endurance and hope. I remember an American on TV commenting that the USA has no such figure who can bring people together, comfort them and give them hope because its all about politics in the USA.
In light of what is happening in the USA Today I think we would be better off with a monarch like the Queen. She was a constant that stood for good and stability.
I think as a Briton, I agree with you. Queen Elizabeth kept a 1000 yr old tradition alive. It just doesn't come and go every 4 yrs.
Hi Cash, thank you for sharing this very positive and life-affirming method to allow us to contribute to our midterm elections. 🥰❤️
When the queen played the star spangled Banner after 9/11, I remember getting chills and crying 😢
What a wonderful conversation. Thank you, Gentlemen!
This was actually very good of Meacham. Most American commentators do not understand the concept of a constitutional monarch as Head of State and the reason why there are still developed modern democracies countries that keep that model. That's not to say it's a better or worse system than a republic, rather they appreciate some of the subtle advantages it can have.
One of the most interesting and insightful interview about Queen Elizabeth II ! Fascinating!
Americas love of the queen and the monarchy is likely akin to how our children overthrow their parents as a necessary path to independence and then retain a deeper love for the origins of primal attachment. It seems embedded in human and cultural evolution.
Well played. Thank you.
I reject ANY Monarchy.... especially Christian ones. A relict of a time long gone....which is a good thing.
Luckily Secularism put a boot in the behind of these feudalistic kings and queens that only have the title thanks to DNA.
These two are educators. This is beautiful🇬🇧
Excellent episode.
Thanks to both of you for your insight and graciousness.
I think President Kennedy, had he lived a long, natural life, would have had a close relationship with the Queen, since he had lived in England while his father was Ambassador to England.
Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom, was noted for his anti-British sentiment. He argued strongly against providing military and economic aid to the United Kingdom. "Democracy is finished in England. It may be here", he stated in the _Boston Sunday Globe_ of November 10, 1940. With German troops having overrun Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and France, and with daily bombings of Great Britain, Kennedy unambiguously and repeatedly stated that the war was not about saving democracy from National Socialism (Nazism) or from Fascism. In an interview with two newspaper journalists, Louis M. Lyons of _The Boston Globe_ , and Ralph Coghlan of the _St. Louis Post-Dispatch_ , Kennedy said:
"It's all a question of what we do with the next six months. The whole reason for aiding England is to give us time ... As long as she is in there, we have time to prepare. It isn't that [Britain is] fighting for democracy. That's the bunk. She's fighting for self-preservation, just as we will if it comes to us. ... I know more about the European situation than anybody else, and it's up to me to see that the country gets it."
The affect of QE II was like Xanyx throughout my life. She gave me relief, hope and trust that I was not alone in this world.
I love you so much, Jon Meacham ❗❗❗
As an Englishman of 82 years I found that discussion interesting and hopeful.
An interesting segment! But you really shouldn't refer to the late queen as "the Queen of England". The last person to be the Queen of England was Queen Anne (who reigned 1702-1714). This is because, in 1707, the Treaties and Acts of Union united England and Scotland into the Kingdom of Great Britain. (This is why the 1776 Declaration of Independence directs its complaints against the "King of Great Britain", not the "King of England.") Later, Ireland - and then just Northern Ireland - were incorporated into the kingdom. So, the late Queen was Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Love that citation of CS Lewis on friendship
Thank you for mentioning Ambassador Farish.
I do hope the new King Charles III will keep the US-UK special relationship aalive.
US leaving the Empire was probably a historical error. Today the United States, UK, and it's offspring form the Five Eyes and militarly form one entity. Today one could argue that 1776 served as a wake up call for London; the growth, prosperity and political development of the 'settler colonies,' however, were in Britain's interest and it's unlikely North America would be very much different today had history followed another course.
It is long past time for the US to join the Commonwealth, and, as globalization breaks down, look towards it as a trade hub with military implications with particular attention to Nigeria, India & South Africa.
You are forgetting Europe
Except it’s likely that if America hadn’t broken away Britain wouldn’t have gone east into India and South Asia or even later Africa. By breaking away, Britain could rely on America to spread the Anglo ideology west across the American continent while watching from Canada, while it could busy itself with Asia and Africa.
@@MackerelCat very true 👍🇺🇸🇬🇧🤟
I like the connection to Greece and Rome, I think that's true.
very perceptive and learned talk .you've given me as an aussie a deeper appreciation of the role of the monarchy . jordon peterson said the same thing the other day th-cam.com/video/_5os9bT9zuo/w-d-xo.html saying she represented the symbolic arm of government ,that aided with her historical wisdom to keep prime ministers in check .thanks very much to both of you for your contribution
Two knowledgeable and interesting gentlemen. Not used to this level of insight...
Blood, history, and . . .
language!
Don't you dare even remind me that this KAAAANT is in any freaking way related to "can't"....stop spreading fake news.
@@Raydensheraj, now that is an interesting and informative response. Thanks for writing. Perhaps I’ll be more considerate in the future. Or dare anyway. Or not.
Queen Elizabeth II WAS England, a living symbol of everything solid and true and great about the amazing tiny island nation 🇬🇧
That tiny island nation is not “England” Please learn the difference between England and Great Britain. Then there’s N. Ireland
@catherinesaenger439 Well, thank you for schooling me. Apologies for causing offense. I'll try to do better in the future.
Thank you
Superb article
Excellent perspective on the relationship between Queen Elizabeth 2nd and USA.
One point to note...she was Queen of UK not just England.
Meachams inaugural speech for Biden was truly humbling UNITY which is what joe has given us
brilliant analysis
The English initiated the endeavor of liberty over 800+years, the American Revolution was just another step toward that goal that continues. Thatcher would have known this and was reminding Bush of that long history.
The monarch is, now, the King of the UK & N.Ireland not just of England. The Scottish and English crowns were United under James I, Vi of Scotland in 1606. Elizabeth II was ca. Half Scottish, her mother from a long line of Scottish roots back, I believe, to the C14.
It's _The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland_
If you understand the British monarchy and what it means and the type of power and stability it projects then you will better understand your neighbour to the North
Haha. Good luck with your future King of America:) But seriously, the concept of a constitutional monarchy in a democratic society is not that bad. In Sweden we have our king and his family. His daughter will become queen some day and her daughter after her. They may seem aloof sometimes but are really great for the whole society and an institution everyone can rely on. Decades after decades and even for centuries. A rare gift of history in my opinion.
Princess Victoria does not appear to be aloof. The Crown Princess was a surprise presenter of the LGBT Person of the Year award to Jonas Gardell in 2013 and she gave the inaugural speech for Stockholm Pride 2020.
Being English as I am but educated on a degree level I did my masters degree at Cornell University in Upstate New York, I was taken aback in 2017 when then American President Donald Trump ( I must say you’re worst President in living memory and a Crook to boot ) behaved disgracefully , he’s someone who has been to state dinners all over the world you’d of thought he’d of known how to behave but his manners were a disgrace but what do you expect from someone who’s in league with Vladimir Putin and split your country in two and caused an insurrection when he lost the election !!!!!!!!!
The ignoramus to who you refer is what we call "an ugly American", money can not buy manners, class or decency.
Look I love this, however we Americans should not be calling her "Her Majesty" we aren't her subjects. News anchors should call her Queen Elizabeth. By her title of office, not her honorific.
An arbiter or more are needed sorely by the American people, someone or someone's who can use ethics, integrity, and persuasive writing, speech to show the people and politicians where a better path goes.
Unfortunately the royal family has an ingrained standard that ties them to privilege and class distinction. This is my warning to the USA to avoid someone who comes from the monied class, those privileged to be an arbiter.
King Charles doesn't and won't truly understand his parents because both grew up during the Great Depression, hardships because of the political change in Europe that destroyed the parents and relatives of Prince Phillip.
Hardships teach valuable lessons, especially when people need to depend on each other.
What's this got do with America? You cannot compare. There is a thousand years of invasions of Britain that led to years of being invaded by Vikings, Saxons, Druids and Romans. The romans invaded for over 300 years, not withstanding the attacks from the French and Spanish. You talk about ethics, maybe you should read about the writing of the "Magda Carta" that brought law and order to the land, in the first justice recourse to ordinary people. It was written in 1215 and resurrected in the 16th century, giving people civil rights to choose their Government. King Charles will be as his mother was. A link to the past.
God Save the King.
A significant difference in approach between the US and UK is the concept of social project or social experiment. Projects and experiments are by definition temporary. America should reconsider the use of these terms in favor of something more permanent and self sustaining.
In fact they might think about a social democracy and not a liberal democracy, as well as we might guard against losing a social democracy in favour of a liberal democracy
There is nothing like dying to make you a saint. She did a wonderful job, and was not the brightest bulb in the tree. However she was faithful to her duties, but not a good mother.
As all of us, had her faults.
Mr Meacham is just a bit to fond of Her Majesty!
From just before 16:00 to the end, no pun intended, "ow wouldn't it be loverly".
We need an new American Oath.
Indeed.... without Christian Nationalism.
Hey Walter, don’t forget and you shouldn’t have that the Star Spangle Banner was also about Killing black slaves who ran away to join the British Army. How we forget .. and the author of it was a slave owner … you are a historian brother - speak it all.
I'm sure he is well aware of this fact. But it really didn't fit into the context of the conversation.
The British queen was not the government of Great Brittain. She was the figurehead, the symbol only. To Great Brittain she set the social tone and promoted social ideals as their country sees them. She did nothing at all for me, an elderly American retired working class woman.
To us she was the face on Brittish money. But she didn't affect us at all except that the ordinary people of our country slavishly suck up to famous and rich people. We are fans. We hope some of their shine rubs off on us. But in reality royalty is not part of our nation. We live an entirely different kind of life. Nothing Elizabeth said made my life better, increased my salary or my Social Security check. She didn't make my rent more affordable, the bus stop closer to my apartment, the cost of food more reasonable or even mitigate our runaway climate. Maybe someone in London, Wales or some bit of their small, wet, cold island nation paid attention to her but my life is far from there and I have American issues and problems to concern myself with. Once, long ago I even visited England. It was interesting but very cold and damp in October. Ancientness was everywhere but those weren't my people. It's a pretty green country but I had no desire to stay. I was happy to come home to my own country.
We fought our War of Independence to rid ourself of royalty. Our leaders govern and set the style and policy for this country all at the same time. They rotate through the Presidency and are gone in four or eight years sometimes leaving chaos and sometimes leaving style, grace and prosperity. Similarly our legislators come and go so that bad leaders can be removed or retained as we see fit. It's a good system but we don't take it seriously enough.
The British monarchy is supported on the backs of the citizens of their country. The wealth of those royals is inconceivable to ordinary American working people. I cannot figure our why the British tolerate it. The Queen was one of the richest women, if not THE richest woman in the world. She did work as the public face of the country but she was hugely compensated and she inherited her privilege, wealth and position. Royalty is the epitome of exclusive privilege and stuffiness. But none of that benefited our country or our people. The legislative branch of Great Brittain's country was the true benefit to our country. So, if you ask me, this whole nonstop American coverage of the death of the Queen of England is completely excessive, and the inherited privilege and position of her son who is the ultimate stuffy snob is uninteresting altogether.
Our own country is in crisis. We are suffering economically. We are financing a foreign war when our own national security is in a shambles as the result of four years of Trumpian misrule. We are in serious danger of losing the democracy we fought England for. Our current internal confusion is weakening our nation because of a wave of fascists that have gained strength as the result of the plotting of that bad leader, Trump, who still plagues us. Oh, I wish he were gone, finally! Our country is teetering on the brink of disaster and people are watching the pomp and very little circumstance of British royalty. Frankly, I'm tired of it and I'm writing this then reading a book instead of watching irritating people parade around and pompously address their subjects while I fear for my own country suffering a mass housing shortage with an upcoming wave of mass evictions. I am watching my savings shrink as inflation eats up the pathetic fund I set aside through penny pinching and saving for three pandemic years. I usualy spend each evening listening to reports of political malfeasance, corruption and backbiting. I'm innundated with political advertisements on my thirty year old tube television and pleas for money on my second hand cell phone's email. I drive a thirty year old car that I am trying to keep alive until I die, which at 81 years of age cannot be far off. The queen with her diamond tiaras and three strand pearl necklace does not interest me. She did not affect my life and her snooty son won't either. For all the dead queen's privilege and pronouncements the lives of British working people are no better on the whole either. Royalty is expensive and the money and land owned by royalty could be better used. Please, I've had days of this lionizing of Elizabeth II. Can we go back now to the news and solving our American problems?
No one asked u to get involved - enjoy your America and God Bless and all the best to you, I personally am sad our queen has died and I’ll be following EVERYTHING in great detail - good day to u sir 🤟
Actually, I am not presently enjoying my America. We currently have a half-a-loaf President (thouh he is way better than the prior one who nearly overturned everything our founding fathers fought for.) My beloved country is so bogged down in corruption and some wierd Q-Annon conspiracies as well as a horrifying antidemocratic wave of fascist authoritarianism. I'm afraid, seriously. But the principles behind our Constitution and the entire First Ammendment to it are towering accomplishments worthy of preservation and honor.
All I wa a saying was that my country is in trouble and a very important election is coming up next month. We have much more pressing information we need to hear about than the unfortunate death of a rich old lady who inherited her position and her job. She didn't earn it. Maybe she didn't want it, but she didn't reject it either and by all accounts she had very expensive hobbies like breeding dogs and racehorses to divert her from her job. It was all coming to her because of monarchy. She was a public figure that serves no practical purpose either governmentally or practically except as a social media influencer with a huge salary and privilege. She and her family are expensive and priviled.
If I were British I would be antimonarchy. But I'm American and our system is also in trouble. We have too many people in power who are the sons and daughters of rich privileged people too. But at least there are some ordinary folks in Congress and in local government and our leeches and hangers on can be gotten rid of...still. Our democracy is not certain right now and we have work to do and information to disseminate. We don't need a diversion at this time.
So now you Brits have a King who already has had two public tantrums. HE certainly wants the job and the special deference. I do support his love of nature and the environment but he isn't going to make your island into an environmental paradise. That is the job of your politicians. Maybe he will be a better social influencer on that issue than his mother was, but I doubt it. Glad the monarchy is yours.
14:25 Meacham never stated that The Queen was the Head of Government. He said that _Obama_ was being received as Head of State and Head of Government by The Queen. The President of the United States is, in fact, both Head of State and Head of Government. Meacham made the grammatical ambiguity of placing _by The Queen_ after _being received_ .
I often think that if “new England “ had not rebelled it would eventually become a republic on it’s own. Still an amazing country! But with more pomp and circumstance. My opinion.
Queen Elizabeth 2 was a credit to Britain, her grandson Harry is desiring to destroy that. The British people will never thank him for that.
The portrait on the left hand side of Jon Meacham's bookcases is framed on a stark white background like Barack Obama's Official Whitehouse Portrait.
I am now dying of curiosity to find out; Who is that man?
Had Barack Obama ever seen that image?
Curiosity killed the cat, but tenacity brought her back.
Roosevelt?
Nothing/ I don't care about the Monarchy. I do like British people.
Sometimes political commentators talk about things we are not interested in. Some people are interested in this.
It was nice to know that she wasn't going to colonize us anymore. Because we had money and power and white skin.
Looking to our new King and hoping I do not speak too prematurely, Queen Elizabeth II has been too dead too long already. Since already there are notions going about in our Press that Charles III might have something to say on matters outside of his province. I hope to God I`m wrong ( and wouldn`t be surprised given the mischevous and malign nature of our Press ) and will accept the whip that comes with it if I am.
I saw Her Majesty ( as was ) on several occasions over here in England. What to say ? She was my Queen - and I don`t accept Queens lightly !
"These are the words of the LORD: Stop at the cross-roads; look for the ancient paths; 'Where is the way that leads to what is good?' Then take that way, and you will find rest for yourselves.
~ Jeremiah 6:16
(The New English Bible with
the Apocrypha. Oxford,
Cambridge)
Bible readings don't help us in the real world.
Dam yo! You quoting the Apocrypha??
Dont worry about Jason, he's going to hell... or New Jersey...
Wow...this completely explains genocide. I think I'll skip the ancient paths.
Bible readings don't help us in the real world.
(Worth repeating.) 😏
Queen Elizabeth was so many things to so many people and should be remembered for much more than merely being a very, very close cousin to her husband. Elizabeth should only be remembered as a symbol of the brutality the British Empire unleashed on its subjects.
You are "spot" on!!!
Her great great grandmother might be remembered for that (Queen Victoria), but not Queen Elizabeth. Be accurate, and all the best to you
I've not noticed any brutality from the Queen in my 53 years of being one of her subjects
Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip are third cousins. First cousins are closely related. Third cousins are not.
Mr. Meacham gives a good analysis here, but to call Her Majesty the Queen an “old woman” isn’t very respectful. How about “mature lady”, instead? In addition, she wasn’t always an older lady, she was quite young when meeting with many US Presidents, other representatives and people. One area where the British are still superior to us Americans is good manners.
Trained by the Foreign Offfice ad a ga ndmther. Never oooffensive in any degeee. Deeeply understanding.
President don't sse that often.
Amanpour why don't speak of the English crimes in Iran?
The Queen of the United Kingdom was as her mother was and her grandmother, a woman who placed duty and service first and last and Charles III will be equal to that challenge as will William when the time comes. The modern constitutional monarchy is about dignity service that is welcoming and warm but lives within the protocols that help it function. You mention that the monarchy is of England but that is not correct it is of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as its as much of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as it is of England so to just focus in on England ignores the importance of the other countries.
Americans: rehabbing war criminals both foreign and domestic and waxing poetic about colonial romanticism for decades.
The British brought laws, education, medicine, ended slavery, the world was barbaric, but we don’t ask for thanks…just wish people would educate themselves, we’re fed up doin for you 😊
I don't like the way this historian is describing women leaders! It is 2022! Sad for a man who is a historian. I won't hear him like I used to hear him.
OMG, I am So disappointed with Amanpour and Co. Unsubscribing. Any informed journalist will know why.
She tried all her life to get the thirteen colonies back but she never had a chance.
She did welp some poor quality kids.
I don’t understand “royalty” and never will… Meecham can wax poetic all he wants but the monarchy is simply a tourist attraction and tremendous money maker that has outlived its usefulness, especially given the nonsense of the last 30 years
The monarchy is the embodiment of the constitution.
Yet in times of crisis it gives hope, the prime minister every week has to bow down and explain himself to the symbol of the British people, would u not like a president bowing down to the American people ?
@@ryanferguson1976 the ballot box will decide- no bowing required.
One could also say the nonsense of the last 30 years with the Presidency,@@augustwest5207
give it a rest....damn...there are more important issues. confronting the planet than focusing on a bunch of privileged people who were born into wealth...
King and queen are history. Nowadays. Power to the people.
Do some research!!!
The Iron Lady was truly that an Iron Lady otherwise called a cold bitch missing a heart.
The monarchy should come to an end so that the British government can easily establish a republic and solve its own socio-political, political and diplomatic problems and show the true expression of British democracy.
I completely disagree.
You missed the point of this interview
The problems in Britain don’t stem from the monarchy (the problem is in parliament and first past the post) and won’t be solved by republicanism, especially given that British people will not tolerate a US style presidency which we view as essentially an elected King in the old style. Our King has no power and a president would have no power either, and as such, it’s a pointless exercise to get rid of the monarchy which at the very least fulfils a cultural role by being part of British identity.
@@MackerelCat Thank you for your comments. After Elizabeth II's death. I have read the problems of the British Royal Family starting from the time she took the throne until now.
The nations of the Commonwealth have lost respect for her and the symbolic monarchy. They have been demanding the establishment of republicanism.
Scandals in the British Royal Family are a problem for the British government to deal with.
As you say, they have no authority but they have to live by the good model that the British people want. From ethical issues to life must be good. It's funny when I see celebrities in the Royal family having to lose weight to save face and follow the wishes of their subjects. A forced life they have to endure because the interests of the Royal Family are enjoying tax free and the British people are helping to pay their taxes.
I think Harry's family has more happiness and freedom than the British Royal family
Sorry Tran I think you are completely wrong.
Uh yeah, I wonder what other former colonies like India, Nigeria, etc. are feeling. Definitely not this ridiculous level of adoration
India gets billions from Britain for aid and Charles is a strong supporter of India so you might be surprised
India, Nigeria we’re not from Britain ? Try reading a history book, it’ll blow ur mind 😂
Trump made the Queen very important.
Left open the possibility of going to The UK if Trump won again. Did not feel the Queen would suffer Trump for long.
are you ok, America? praising brutal British Empire 🙄
vultures, not virtues
You know, white nationalist empires of a feather flock together, and always have time to white-wash each other's inhumanity.
@@dipthongthathongthongthong9691 I think it's even deeper connection, through enormous wealth and power
An earlier post had it right. The rwbelliouschild who comes back for weddings and funerals
There are 54 countries in the British Commonwealth that speaks for itself. Many mistakes in the past but if you chose to consider the relationship between Mandela and ER2 no sign of tension there.
You will also find the continent of North America was already settled by native Americans who ended up in reservations. Not a lot of difference really. Slavery abolished by British Parliament 1807, US 1865.
@@inakale Of course. US-British relations constitute a joint venture of global subjugation and exploitation for profits. They are both settler-colonial projects rooted in white nationalism whose economies would've been nothing without forced labor/slavery.
Listen to this historian give away the show: the monarch represented "restraint, grace, dignity" in regards to the national project... with the queen as a tool of soft power. We all know soft power reinforces and attempts to gloss over the vulgar displays of hard power. This is a typical white-washing. Nothing about the Irish famine, nothing about brutality in Kenya and India, nothing about native "residential" schools in Canada. Only that she defied the Nazis as a 14yo.
Americans and British love to chide each other as caricatures as though they are antagonists, and Americans love their "liberty attaining" break from England, but they are siblings in a history of neoliberal (neo)colonial treachery.
Not a damn thing