> the soap opera situations that have dogged the rest of the [royal] family

"Soap opera situations" seems like a gentle way to put it. Several of her family members have been accused of serious crimes, and associated with some very nasty people. For years they were shielded by their association with her.

Exactly. Her silence/defence of Andrew is shameful. No moral compass there. Her distinguishing feature has been to give no public interviews and to entrench antidemocratic privilege as best we can.

Dangs top post irritated me because it felt like this has to be the time to remember the whole life - not just the fantasy we are typically sold.

Source on her trying to entrench antidemocratic privilege?

Liberal exercise of it, to protect her family's interests: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...

sustaining and not disbanding the Royal family for 70 years?

I think it would be safe to say she put on a stoic face to the world while fronting for what is possibly the most out of touch, dysfunctional, and entitled family in the world.

and I think things that were really sad like the triangle between Prince Charles, Princess Diana, and Camilla Parker Bowes.

I really don't want to go on criticizing the queen at length here because I think it's a bit insensitive, so I'll be brief, but I don't think that "avoiding soap opera situations" is really the same as "being a moral authority". Not that I think she was horribly bad either, but my standards for "moral authority" are quite a bit higher. Royal families tend to be neutral to a fault.

An immoral authority. She paid no taxes, lived a lifestyle of luxury paid for by her so called subjects, has offshore accounts, no public accountability, etc. Very easy, paid for life. Nothing moral about it.