Queen’s funeral

[Herman 9,756]

The whole hour and 20 minutes. God bless youtube.😐😂

[ricardo 7,385]

Great to see so many losing their $hit over the TV coverage. Worldwide audience, of something we haven't seen for seventy years and many of us won't  ever witness again.

Those that don't  like it can always mow the lawn or go to the beach but this is an I was there moment and you don't  get many of those in a lifetime.

[Yellow Fever 3,772]

37 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Like someone who has been at an organisation for a long time, they take on a grandfather or grandmother kind of role (depending naturally on how they've conducted themselves) and as such simply have  gravitas. Whilst the rest of the Royal Family have had excursions shall we say, the Queen has been unique. So monarchist or republican or neither, she can be admired for a quality that can bring people, cultures, opposing views even...together. Quite a thing really.

Trouble is Charles will I think struggle to achieve such gravitas. The late Queen achieved her 'iconic' status in the days before social media and 24 hour gossip columns where public information could more easily be carefully managed and controlled . She then became simply a fixture and beyond such modern trials of personality.

Edited September 14, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[The Raptor 1,206]

The best it's a knockout/meatloaf story...

 

Meat Loaf was one of the famous competitors, but the Bat Out of Hell singer found himself in the middle of an unexpected royal rumble on set.

He claimed Prince Andrew tried to push him in a moat because he was jealous that wife Sarah Ferguson had taken a shine to him.

 

Meat Loaf, dressed in a fake suit of armour, responded by grabbing the Duke, who reportedly moaned: “You can’t touch me. I’m royal.”

 

The US rocker hit back: “Well you try to push me in the moat, Jack, I don't give a s**t who you are, you're goin' in the moat."

 

Meatloaf later claimed the Queen “hated” him ever since.

[Greavsy 2,413]

51 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

And then we'll do ' five cheers ' ..one for each of her Corgis 

Are the corgis registered? 

Talking of corgis and being registered - reminded me of this! 

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

4 hours ago, PockthorpePete said:

The reality is that save for such occasions royalists are in a minority. And however unwelcome those expressing the sentiments of the majority are, the forces of the state should not be used to suppress their expressions. I note the Mail is not referring to these attacks on freedom of speech as cancel culture.

That is utter nonsense, Republicans are firmly in a minority. About three quarters of the population supports a monarchy.

[Yellow Fever 3,772]

5 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

That is utter nonsense, Republicans are firmly in a minority. About three quarters of the population supports a monarchy.

This may help - done at the time of the Jubilee so not sure what happens now.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/support-monarchy-all-time-high  (2012)

 

Largely unremarked, support for the monarchy has fallen quite significantly over the last decade, from 80% in 2012 to 62% in 2022 –

Edited September 14, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

26 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

This may help - done at the time of the Jubilee so not sure what happens now.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/support-monarchy-all-time-high  (2012)

 

Largely unremarked, support for the monarchy has fallen quite significantly over the last decade, from 80% in 2012 to 62% in 2022 –

Crucially, still comfortably above 50%. Also, should it ever come to referendum, we should learn the lesson from the EU referendum and require a 2/3 supermajority for it to be acted upon, because once it goes it's permanent and shouldn't be determined on a blip based on current affairs.  

Edited September 14, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Canary73 160]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

Great to see so many losing their $hit over the TV coverage. Worldwide audience, of something we haven't seen for seventy years and many of us won't  ever witness again.

Those that don't  like it can always mow the lawn or go to the beach but this is an I was there moment and you don't  get many of those in a lifetime.

That's exactly why its right to call it out. As ever with anything royal it is overkill and those mourning or wailing in public clearly have a screw lose. If there has to be this royal sycophancy then make it pay per view but leave the tv stations to focus on more newsworthy stories than this. Hospital appointments and funeral services being cancelled alongside shops closing shows they have seriously misjudged the public mood. I shall not be observing any minutes silence because they are not important and don't deserve it.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

10 minutes ago, Canary73 said:

That's exactly why its right to call it out. As ever with anything royal it is overkill and those mourning or wailing in public clearly have a screw lose. If there has to be this royal sycophancy then make it pay per view but leave the tv stations to focus on more newsworthy stories than this. Hospital appointments and funeral services being cancelled alongside shops closing shows they have seriously misjudged the public mood. I shall not be observing any minutes silence because they are not important and don't deserve it.

The Queen's funeral is expected to break the record for global TV audience, so if that's the case, there's no argument for keeping the World Cup free to air. 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

I don't watch much TV but Mrs nutty seems to have coped ok without watching overkill stations. Have people been missing much? I guess 'in my day' with just 2 channels it would have been overkill.

[Mr Apples 1,320]

I've just painted a wall twice and watched it dry twice...the BBC have given me a 3 year contract with a option for another 2 and global rights. 😅

Apples

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

I just don't understand why so many left-wingers on here froth at the mouth every time the monarchy comes up, but seem relatively apathetic about electoral reform. It genuinely puzzles me. 

[Canary73 160]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I just don't understand why so many left-wingers on here froth at the mouth every time the monarchy comes up, but seem relatively apathetic about electoral reform. It genuinely puzzles me. 

Whatever we think about our political system, we get the chance the vote people in and out. There are also pluses and minuses with first past the post and PR. The freeloading parasites that are the royals are unelected.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

10 minutes ago, Canary73 said:

Whatever we think about our political system, we get the chance the vote people in and out. There are also pluses and minuses with first past the post and PR. The freeloading parasites that are the royals are unelected.

It's a myth perpetuated by anti-monarchists that they're freeloaders. The Crown Estate was originally royal land that George III gifted the proceeds of to the state in exchange for paying off his debts and a grant. This has been a profitable exercise for the state, with the added bonus that it's assets the government can't sell. Quite apart from that, I think you'll find the schedules of duties and appointments of most working royals would floor a lot of people. 

As for being elected or not, that's completely irrelevant given the practical involvement of the monarchy is about overseeing the processes rather than policy. 

On the other hand, the electoral system we have ensures that a huge proportion of votes cast have no impact on the outcome of the election anyway. 

Edited September 14, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Canary73 160]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's a myth perpetuated by anti-monarchists that they're freeloaders. The Crown Estate was originally royal land that George III gifted the proceeds of to the state in exchange for paying off his debts and a grant. This has been a profitable exercise for the state. Quite apart of that, I think you'll find the schedules of duties and appointments of most working royals would floor a lot of people. 

As for being elected or not, that's completely irrelevant given the practical involvement of the monarchy is about overseeing the processes rather than policy. 

On the other hand, the electoral system we have ensures that a huge proportion of votes cast have no impact on the outcome of the election anyway. 

Except that they meddle....https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

1 minute ago, Canary73 said:

Except that they meddle....https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

Only stuff that affected her and the Crown Estate personally, which is fair enough. it's not like she was having a say on setting universal credit. 

[Canary73 160]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Only stuff that affected her and the Crown Estate personally, which is fair enough. it's not like she was having a say on setting universal credit. 

Or the Scottish referendum....

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

3 minutes ago, Canary73 said:

Or the Scottish referendum....

As the head of state of the Union of the Crowns of Scotland and England, I'm at a loss why the head of state of Scotland wouldn't take an interest in that. 

Edited September 14, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[ricardo 7,385]

1 hour ago, Canary73 said:

That's exactly why its right to call it out. As ever with anything royal it is overkill and those mourning or wailing in public clearly have a screw lose. If there has to be this royal sycophancy then make it pay per view but leave the tv stations to focus on more newsworthy stories than this. Hospital appointments and funeral services being cancelled alongside shops closing shows they have seriously misjudged the public mood. I shall not be observing any minutes silence because they are not important and don't deserve it.

Billions of TV viewers and every important political leader of most countries in the world say you are badly wrong.

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's a myth perpetuated by anti-monarchists that they're freeloaders. The Crown Estate was originally royal land that George III gifted the proceeds of to the state in exchange for paying off his debts and a grant. This has been a profitable exercise for the state, with the added bonus that it's assets the government can't sell. Quite apart from that, I think you'll find the schedules of duties and appointments of most working royals would floor a lot of people. 

As for being elected or not, that's completely irrelevant given the practical involvement of the monarchy is about overseeing the processes rather than policy. 

On the other hand, the electoral system we have ensures that a huge proportion of votes cast have no impact on the outcome of the election anyway. 

I think you’ll find this point is utter tosh. I mean total and utter tossshhhh. If they don’t floor an elderly woman exempting the last year or two of poor health, then there is NO WAY the duties and appointments can be considered hard work. I think the vast majority of people working actual jobs would happily swap their daily slog for private jets, brief appearances, speeches mostly written for them, schedules completely created for them so you just go where you’re told, a job where literally EVERYONE is grateful just because you turned up, incredible food laid on, etc, etc, etc, etc. there’s a reason the royals can ‘undertake’ their duties into their old age. It’s because it is not hard work, it’s barely work at all if we are being honest. I’d say 30 years in my job is harder than 70 years in theirs and I’d swap it in a heartbeat 

[ricardo 7,385]

36 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

. It’s because it is not hard work, it’s barely work at all if we are being honest. I’d say 30 years in my job is harder than 70 years in theirs and I’d swap it in a heartbeat 

We'd have your head off in five minutes.

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

Just now, ricardo said:

We'd have your head off in five minutes.

😂😂😂 I don’t doubt it! 

[ricardo 7,385]

Just now, SwearyCanary said:

😂😂😂 I don’t doubt it! 

Nice blunt axe😉

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

Just now, ricardo said:

Nice blunt axe😉

I’d take a spoon 

[Rock The Boat 1,330]

9 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

Alexander Pope in the early 18th century.

You are, of course, correct. The year was 1711.

[Herman 9,756]

10 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I just don't understand why so many left-wingers on here froth at the mouth every time the monarchy comes up, but seem relatively apathetic about electoral reform. It genuinely puzzles me. 

Massive reforms to both would suit me fine and I think a lot of "left-wingers" would feel the same.

[DraytonBoy 147]

If you're going to get rid of the Monarchy then everything must change - make the House of Lords a second elected chamber, bring in PR and have fixed terms for the president. The change will of course cost shed loads but it will be worth it in the long run because they'll be more money for the NHS, schools, infrastructure etc, etc.   

[Rivvo 257]

22 minutes ago, DraytonBoy said:

If you're going to get rid of the Monarchy then everything must change - make the House of Lords a second elected chamber, bring in PR and have fixed terms for the president. The change will of course cost shed loads but it will be worth it in the long run because they'll be more money for the NHS, schools, infrastructure etc, etc.   

I heard it was about 350 million a week, oh wait…….

[Mr Apples 1,320]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

Massive reforms to both would suit me fine and I think a lot of "left-wingers" would feel the same.

Herman, I hope you've run that comment by the Pink'un's libertarian freedom of speech approval committee to ensure it is acceptable? 🤣

Apples