Peg Herring's Blog - Posts Tagged "ruling"
Speaking Tudor - Simon
(Author's note: sorry for being MIA last week. Being a brand new Grandma took precedence!)
Simon Maldon, Guest in 2010 from 1537
I told a bit last week about my adventure with Her Highness, the princess Elizabeth Tudor. Now I will tell you about her, at least what I know.
The princess has been ignored by her father the king for most of her life, and I believe this pains her greatly. She admires him above all others, and his distaste for her, although understandable under the circumstances, is as bitter as gall.
His Majesty sees in Elizabeth the woman he once loved, the one he saw accused of the worst of crimes: witchcraft, incest, and wantonness. I know not what Henry really thought of Anne Boleyn, but to those who say Elizabeth is not his daughter I would say, "His Majesty knows she is."
I saw them together once, and it was obvious to me that each recognizes the other, not only as blood but as kindred spirits as well. Henry knows Elizabeth is his child; it is only that he wanted -- no, needed -- a son so badly that he rejected her mother, and her as well.
Although I do not claim to know what is in the mind of the king, I thought I saw in him a wish that he had not taken the path he did, for seeing Elizabeth grown, he must have known that she, of all his children, was the one most capable of ruling, the one with both the courage and the acumen needed to head the nation and lead it to prosperity.
Simon Maldon, Guest in 2010 from 1537
I told a bit last week about my adventure with Her Highness, the princess Elizabeth Tudor. Now I will tell you about her, at least what I know.
The princess has been ignored by her father the king for most of her life, and I believe this pains her greatly. She admires him above all others, and his distaste for her, although understandable under the circumstances, is as bitter as gall.
His Majesty sees in Elizabeth the woman he once loved, the one he saw accused of the worst of crimes: witchcraft, incest, and wantonness. I know not what Henry really thought of Anne Boleyn, but to those who say Elizabeth is not his daughter I would say, "His Majesty knows she is."
I saw them together once, and it was obvious to me that each recognizes the other, not only as blood but as kindred spirits as well. Henry knows Elizabeth is his child; it is only that he wanted -- no, needed -- a son so badly that he rejected her mother, and her as well.
Although I do not claim to know what is in the mind of the king, I thought I saw in him a wish that he had not taken the path he did, for seeing Elizabeth grown, he must have known that she, of all his children, was the one most capable of ruling, the one with both the courage and the acumen needed to head the nation and lead it to prosperity.
Speaking Tudor- Anonymous- 1-28-2010
An anonymous noblewoman with strong opinions, also a character in HER HIGHNESS' FIRST MURDER, is our Thursday blogger.
I watched your leader speak last evening on the television, and it was quite intriguing. Your nation of elected leaders functions, though not very efficiently. Each man -- in modern times, each person -- has opinions as to how life should go, and if each is free to pursue that course, chaos is inevitable. Your Alexander Hamilton opined that "the people is a beast." Your beast does not know what it wants, only that no one wants to give up anything he already has.
A leader has two tasks: one is to lead, to take a nation in the direction he or she
feels it must go. If that leader has absolute power, things move most efficiently, and that is the way I would recommend your nation move. I will admit that the leader's personality may make things difficult in some areas, but when there is one voice of leadership, everyone knows what the goals of the nation are. Each person has the choice to work toward the leader's goals or be removed from the process. Efficient.
The other task of a leader is to provide what I will call the image of leadership.
He or she must appear capable and hopefully dedicated to the task. It seems to me
that your two-party system sets itself up to fail, since it almost required that the party out of power carp, whine, and in any way possible detract from the successes and goals of the other in order that it may put itself in power. They do that by attacking the leader's image, making him or her seems weak, and forcing decisions that appease the people's fears but are not in the best interests of the nation. When the party out of power convinces people the leadership cannot lead, they are elected, the roles reverse, and the process begins again.
Were I asked, I would advise your governments, American, British, and any others with similar systems, to give the "ruling" party full power, let it implement the plans it promised, and then decide, in four years, or seven, or ten, if it deserves to remain in control. To elect a leader and then refuse to let him do what he promised seems the height of inefficiency to me, and the detractors are quite annoying. I'm not a great fan of beheadings, but a few of them cause me to consider the benefits.
I watched your leader speak last evening on the television, and it was quite intriguing. Your nation of elected leaders functions, though not very efficiently. Each man -- in modern times, each person -- has opinions as to how life should go, and if each is free to pursue that course, chaos is inevitable. Your Alexander Hamilton opined that "the people is a beast." Your beast does not know what it wants, only that no one wants to give up anything he already has.
A leader has two tasks: one is to lead, to take a nation in the direction he or she
feels it must go. If that leader has absolute power, things move most efficiently, and that is the way I would recommend your nation move. I will admit that the leader's personality may make things difficult in some areas, but when there is one voice of leadership, everyone knows what the goals of the nation are. Each person has the choice to work toward the leader's goals or be removed from the process. Efficient.
The other task of a leader is to provide what I will call the image of leadership.
He or she must appear capable and hopefully dedicated to the task. It seems to me
that your two-party system sets itself up to fail, since it almost required that the party out of power carp, whine, and in any way possible detract from the successes and goals of the other in order that it may put itself in power. They do that by attacking the leader's image, making him or her seems weak, and forcing decisions that appease the people's fears but are not in the best interests of the nation. When the party out of power convinces people the leadership cannot lead, they are elected, the roles reverse, and the process begins again.
Were I asked, I would advise your governments, American, British, and any others with similar systems, to give the "ruling" party full power, let it implement the plans it promised, and then decide, in four years, or seven, or ten, if it deserves to remain in control. To elect a leader and then refuse to let him do what he promised seems the height of inefficiency to me, and the detractors are quite annoying. I'm not a great fan of beheadings, but a few of them cause me to consider the benefits.
