Queenie

[Yellow Fever 3,749]

30 minutes ago, Van wink said:

No doubt some the affection being shown is for the Queen as perceived as a "person" rather than her position as Monarch, Charles will never replicate that affection in my view nor will he be able to avoid the media attention in the same way as his mother seemed to be protected. Also I suspect, as I think Purple may have referred to earlier, there will undoubtedly be much greater scrutiny of his role and influence over new legislation that may adversely affect the financial interests of the Crown. Choppy waters ahead.

Agree that a lot of the posts on here have been measured which is good to see.

I'm only going to add one observation. I'm not a a monarchist for all the obvious reasons although I can and do respect the Queen as a job well done. We struck lucky and she was the right person for those times.

However my wife, much more of a natural royalist, who has actually met the Queen and other members of the royal family several times, upon noticing I was watching Sky News this morning and yet more endless 24/7 coverage of the queues said 'load of squit'. 

It's simply getting all too much for nearly everybody. We'll be pleased when Tuesday comes.

[Herman 9,717]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

I can understand for security reasons why MP's get to jump the queue but why the hell are they allowed to bring four guests?

 

Although most are pretty much unrecognisable I get the security reason but definitely not sure why the amount of guests. Plus one on the invite would have sufficed.

[KiwiScot 1,437]

I also can understand for security reasons. But mainly I would feel you'd question why they are queuing for 12+hrs when they should turning the wheels of goverment towards a war, a poverty crisis and arranging the largest international event in recent history Then you'd ask an MP why haven't you paid respect to the Queen?

[Herman 9,717]

Can't disagree with any of that Kiwi.👍

 

[Rock The Boat 1,326]

Disgraceful behaviour from Norwich MP Clive Lewis who in the Guardian claims that the people have been coerced into supporting the Royal Family. 

No, Mr Lewes, what you are witnessing is genuine love and respect from not just the citizens of this country but from people of diverse nations around the globe. 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

17 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Without getting into an argument about the extent of the print coverage, not least because it is possible to avoid it, it has forced some otherwise good writers into producing turgid stuff. Such as Simon Schama, who is usually very much worth reading, in the FT. A really pedestrian piece that went nowhere at great length.

And the same could be said for some of the overly reverent articles in the Washington Post (although Eugene Robinson did OK) and the New York Times. As a generalisation, without having read that much, I think the European commentators have tended to strike the best balance between respect for the Queen and a cold-eyed assessment of the UK's place in the world at the end of her reign.

On a lighter note, it has been fun to see the Dail Mail get in a spin over Megan Markle. Initially she was this princess from modern-day central casting, showing the Royal Family could be welcome diversity. Then she morphed into crazed Hollywood bimbo who had turned Harry into some New Age airhead, all in an attempt to bring down the monarchy. Now she is being respectfully mournful and demure and not self-indulgently hogging the limelight, leaving that to idiot Mail columnist Dan Wootton...

[Herman 9,717]

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

3 hours ago, Van wink said:

No doubt some the affection being shown is for the Queen as perceived as a "person" rather than her position as Monarch, Charles will never replicate that affection in my view nor will he be able to avoid the media attention in the same way as his mother seemed to be protected. Also I suspect, as I think Purple may have referred to earlier, there will undoubtedly be much greater scrutiny of his role and influence over new legislation that may adversely affect the financial interests of the Crown. Choppy waters ahead.

Agree that a lot of the posts on here have been measured which is good to see.

I think Charles is going to be interesting. Given how long his parents lived he could reign for 20 years or more, and has certainly had enough time to decide what he fancies doing. And unlike the Queen he does have a long history of public statements on public affairs.

The point about the Queen making private comments and even requests on legislation, which she did hundreds of times, is that although anyone can do that, she was bound to be taken seriously. What has been explained is that in some cases the government of the day caved in because it simply decided it didn't want a fight with the Queen. Not something it would do if it was just Joe Public making similar representations.

[A Load of Squit 5,134]

58 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Disgraceful behaviour from Norwich MP Clive Lewis who in the Guardian claims that the people have been coerced into supporting the Royal Family. 

No, Mr Lewes, what you are witnessing is genuine love and respect from not just the citizens of this country but from people of diverse nations around the globe. 

Maybe you should read what he wrote as from your comments it's obvious you haven't.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/16/mourning-republicans-system-privilege

Everything from the gratuitous wall-to-wall media coverage to the arrest of anti-monarchy protestors and the state-sanctioned cancel culture of those who dissent has laid bare the fact that this transition is as much about coercion as consent.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/16/idea-of-monarchy-as-symbol-of-duty-or-sacrifice-a-lie-says-labours-clive-lewis

 

[Yellow Fever 3,749]

19 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I think Charles is going to be interesting. Given how long his parents lived he could reign for 20 years or more, and has certainly had enough time to decide what he fancies doing. And unlike the Queen he does have a long history of public statements on public affairs.

The point about the Queen making private comments and even requests on legislation, which she did hundreds of times, is that although anyone can do that, she was bound to be taken seriously. What has been explained is that in some cases the government of the day caved in because it simply decided it didn't want a fight with the Queen. Not something it would do if it was just Joe Public making similar representations.

What your're crashing into is the fact that despite some on here saying the Queen only had a ceremonial role - in-fact the Monarch is indeed engaged behind the scenes in what broadly might be determined as politics or foreign policy. That's all well and good with the late Queen who rarely put a foot a wrong but a liability with unknown future monarchs. One only has to think of Edward VIII and his 'sympathies' (I'll leave it at that) with pre-war Germany to see the fallacy in hereditary monarchs.

I think as VW said/implied some (most) people don't distinguish between respect for the late Queen and the Monarchy as an institution.  

Edited September 17, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[KernowCanary 214]

I did respect the Queen and I did this while being a Republican and believing we would be better off with an elected head of state, doing this through achievement rather than falling into the right bloodline, but gosh I will be glad when her funeral is over and life can get back to normal.

 

The never-ending coverage of everything she ever did or said or wore, alongside people sending in memories of when they met her to TV shows, plus how the family are bearing up and moving into new roles is draining. I'm still not over that stupid interview with a member of the public yet asking her what was in her sandwiches.

 

Most of them are only in that queue so they can say "I've been there, this is history happening", while hardly any of them are Royalists, many were waving at the camera and smiling, while that Brummie the reporter pulled over was all cheery.

 

Just my opinion, but I appreciate others feel different especially since someone said to me that we would be "f*cked" without a monarchy and that I totally disagree with. Someone on my other half’s Facebook said we need them and the length of the line proves they are loved and wanted, but it goes back to the start of my argument. How many actually cared for her and just want to virtue signal?, if they had to pass a test to prove they are a Royalist in order to be allowed to attend, not even half of those would have been there.

 

The website even updating us on the length, isn’t doing the stereotype any favours either. I read it comes from the idea of people queuing up getting clock cards punched after a work shift.

 

[MooreMarriot 310]

Don't skate near King Charles's car:

 

Police stop rollerblader near King Charles's car - BBC News

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2022 by MooreMarriot

[KernowCanary 214]

The number of people on the better half’s Facebook feed checking into this is just ridiculous. This country is just ridiculous also and also fawning to a family who call us “commoners” while we were her “subjects” and not citizens although their passports state otherwise.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

15 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

I can understand for security reasons why MP's get to jump the queue but why the hell are they allowed to bring four guests?

 

Wife, Mistress,Rent boy, Dealer.

[Herman 9,717]

I know it's all about tradition, pomp, ceremony etc. but something about this really makes me uncomfortable.

 

[KernowCanary 214]

STOP THE PRESS!!!!… Prince William has gone and told the idiots queuing that they are now halfway through, and there is an article on the BBC website called “The queue and the expert who created it”.

Jesus wept, just someone please freeze me in ice and unthaw me on Monday!?. This is the slowest bank holiday ever.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

On 17/09/2022 at 12:42, PurpleCanary said:

On a lighter note, it has been fun to see the Dail Mail get in a spin over Megan Markle. Initially she was this princess from modern-day central casting, showing the Royal Family could be welcome diversity. Then she morphed into crazed Hollywood bimbo who had turned Harry into some New Age airhead, all in an attempt to bring down the monarchy. Now she is being respectfully mournful and demure and not self-indulgently hogging the limelight, leaving that to idiot Mail columnist Dan Wootton...

On another lighter note there is a fun piece in The Guardian pointing out there is one person in the UK who is totally p*ssed off, and that is BoJo the Clown, because if still PM he somehow would have managed to gate-crash all the sombre events, zip-wiring into the vigil and so on, and instead no-one is giving him a second's thought.

[Barbe bleu 815]

32 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

no-one is giving him a second's thought.

I hadn't. Until you brought it up. 

[sonyc 5,492]

2 hours ago, KernowCanary said:

STOP THE PRESS!!!!… Prince William has gone and told the idiots queuing that they are now halfway through, and there is an article on the BBC website called “The queue and the expert who created it”.

Jesus wept, just someone please freeze me in ice and unthaw me on Monday!?. This is the slowest bank holiday ever.

This gave me a smile at least KC.

 

 

[Naturalcynic 629]

On 17/09/2022 at 10:57, Rock The Boat said:

Disgraceful behaviour from Norwich MP Clive Lewis who in the Guardian claims that the people have been coerced into supporting the Royal Family. 

No, Mr Lewes, what you are witnessing is genuine love and respect from not just the citizens of this country but from people of diverse nations around the globe. 

Is that the kinder, gentler, progressive Clive “get on your knees b**ch” Lewis?

Edited September 18, 2022 by Naturalcynic

[KernowCanary 214]

Not a fan of Clive Lewis, but he has a point.

[A Load of Squit 5,134]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

Is that the kinder, gentler, progressive Clive “get on your knees b**ch” Lewis?

Another one who hasn't read what he said.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,511]

18 hours ago, KernowCanary said:

The number of people on the better half’s Facebook feed checking into this is just ridiculous. This country is just ridiculous also and also fawning to a family who call us “commoners” while we were her “subjects” and not citizens although their passports state otherwise.

So what? The idea of absolute equality is a fantasy anyway. A Chinese peasant farmer is not Xi Jinping's equal; Trump won an election but many still said 'not my president'.

You can't please everybody, but the monarchy comes closer to that than any of our elected politicians, 

[kick it off 1,948]

58 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You can't please everybody, but the monarchy comes closer to that than any of our elected politicians, 

Dont massively disagree. I am an absolute die hard Republican and anti-monarchy... but if you took away the tax payer funding element and let them live off their own massive wealth then frankly I couldn't give a toss about them either way. They'd just be another rich family.

Thats the bit I'm massively bothered about. In a cost of living crisis, why on earth are we paying tens of millions, to people with hundreds of millions, to fix their palaces which arent open to the public? Let them pay their own way. (Yes tourism blah blah blah, it would still exist if they were using their massive wealth to pay their own way).

I should add, that I respected the Queen and her death was sad on a human level.

Edited September 18, 2022 by kick it off

[Yellow Fever 3,749]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

Another one who hasn't read what he said.

I think the phrase is play the ball (read the article) and not the man.

[yellowrider120 761]

18 minutes ago, kick it off said:

Dont massively disagree. I am an absolute die hard Republican and anti-monarchy... but if you took away the tax payer funding element and let them live off their own massive wealth then frankly I couldn't give a toss about them either way. They'd just be another rich family.

Thats the bit I'm massively bothered about. In a cost of living crisis, why on earth are we paying tens of millions, to people with hundreds of millions, to fix their palaces which arent open to the public? Let them pay their own way. (Yes tourism blah blah blah, it would still exist if they were using their massive wealth to pay their own way).

I should add, that I respected the Queen and her death was sad on a human level.

Good to see you back KIO!!

[MooreMarriot 310]

2 hours ago, kick it off said:

Dont massively disagree. I am an absolute die hard Republican and anti-monarchy... but if you took away the tax payer funding element and let them live off their own massive wealth then frankly I couldn't give a toss about them either way. They'd just be another rich family.

Thats the bit I'm massively bothered about. In a cost of living crisis, why on earth are we paying tens of millions, to people with hundreds of millions, to fix their palaces which arent open to the public? Let them pay their own way. (Yes tourism blah blah blah, it would still exist if they were using their massive wealth to pay their own way).

I should add, that I respected the Queen and her death was sad on a human level.

Surprised to learn that the crown estate owns almost all the seabed around the UK for a distance of 12 nautical miles which is now worth £5  billion to them as a result of the sale of seabed licences for windfarms. 25% of the profit from sales is returned to the royal household as the sovereign grant .

Edited September 18, 2022 by MooreMarriot

[kick it off 1,948]

2 hours ago, MooreMarriot said:

Surprised to learn that the crown estate owns almost all the seabed around the UK for a distance of 12 nautical miles which is now worth £5  billion to them as a result of the sale of seabed licences for windfarms. 25% of the profit from sales is returned to the royal household as the sovereign grant .

Exactly. They have enough money. Why on earth should any of the seabed belong to them. This is why I'm anti monarchy. How much good could 1.25 billion pounds do for the public in this climate... sickening.

[KernowCanary 214]

They shown a man packing his suitcase to go London and watch it on the big screen.

Cannot wait for all this to end. Bring on 12:00.

Citizen, not a subject, not a serf and not looking up to any powers.

Edited September 19, 2022 by KernowCanary

[A Load of Squit 5,134]

Nothing sums up the decline of this country more than the disruption to travel by the creaking infrastructure affecting Paddington Station.

Marvel at the pomp and ceremony but pretty soon we'll be back to usual failures bought about by years of papering over the cracks and blaming someone else.

https://www.itv.com/news/london/2022-09-19/travel-chaos-for-mourners-as-rail-journeys-are-disrupted-at-paddington-station