Queen’s funeral

[Greavsy 2,413]

14 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I now realise the piper was playing while the coffin was lowered, presumably mechanically, into the crypt. I wondered at the time why I hadnt seen that. Perhaps it was felt it looked too much like a conjuring trick, potentially verging on the comic, so instead the cameras showed the piper.

but the camera did show it - well the initial parts, as the clergy said their words too, so the camera was also on them.

The first time this was EVER shown on TV was at Prince Phillip's funeral. And we got to see more of it this time too. but it has to be respectful too. I think it was.  

Looked much the same as many crematorium's mechanisms to me. Nothing comical or conjuring at all in my opinion. 

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

2 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

but the camera did show it - well the initial parts, as the clergy said their words too, so the camera was also on them.

The first time this was EVER shown on TV was at Prince Phillip's funeral. And we got to see more of it this time too. but it has to be respectful too. I think it was.  

Looked much the same as many crematorium's mechanisms to me. Nothing comical or conjuring at all in my opinion. 

Not on the feed I was watching, but thanks for the information.

Edited September 20, 2022 by PurpleCanary

[Nuff Said 5,135]

9 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Can you honestly, hand on heart, say that 13% of your families friends and associates are non-white, and can you honestly, hand on heart, say that last time you went to a family funeral or wedding... 13% of those present were non-white? 

And if you went to the funeral of an Asian man, as an example, would you expect to find that 87% of the people present were white? 

Putting aside the assumption that I’m white for a moment, you really are the champion of whataboutery on here. 
 

I’m not going to get into one of those “answer the question” wars we often get on here, so I will state it one more time - do you believe the lack of representation of BAME people in the congregation of Westminster abbey was purely or even largely down to their religious beliefs stopping them from entering a Christian place of worship?

And to answer your questions, no 13% of my family, friends and associates aren’t white. Neither do they match social demographics for age, income, education or many other measures. I’m fully aware of that and I try to bear that lack of representation in mind in how I think of the wider country and world. However, I am not a UK institution with a role to uphold the population of this country.
 

Of course 87% of people at the funeral of an Asian man are very unlikely to be white. The point, which as usual you avoid to deflect attention away to a different narrative, is that you wouldn’t expect it to be. The people there would be drawn from a specific social group. At the funeral of a head of state, you would hope the attendees would be equitably selected from the population of the country, or if not, that the fact that opportunities and education were freely available to all without prejudice or bias would mean that the mourners would fairly represent the different social groups in the country because that was how the country worked. The fact that they didn’t demonstrates that we do not live in a country without prejudice or bias and accidents of birth and entitlement still hugely matter.

I didn’t know that 200 “ordinary” people were invited as Ricardo has explained, which is a positive but that doesn’t alter the fact that the congregation demonstrated that we live in an unequal society. However, my original point was to applaud, if a little grudgingly, the diversity of the Tory cabinet, which you seem to have missed.

[lake district canary 4,531]

16 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

35 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I now realise the piper was playing while the coffin was lowered, presumably mechanically, into the crypt. I wondered at the time why I hadnt seen that. Perhaps it was felt it looked too much like a conjuring trick, potentially verging on the comic, so instead the cameras showed the piper.

but the camera did show it - well the initial parts, as the clergy said their words too, so the camera was also on them.

The first time this was EVER shown on TV was at Prince Phillip's funeral. And we got to see more of it this time too. but it has to be respectful too. I think it was.  

Looked much the same as many crematorium's mechanisms to me. Nothing comical or conjuring at all in my opinion. 

The piper walking away was visiually moving for TV viewers - but the main point of him walking away was for the congregation there to hear the sound gradually fading into the distance as the coffin was lowered - a real life going away sound. So poignant and effective.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

11 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

do you believe the lack of representation of BAME people in the congregation of Westminster abbey was purely or even largely down to their religious beliefs stopping them from entering a Christian place of worship?

I mean, I feel that the bit in bold answers your "purely" bit

14 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

87% of the country are white.

But of the other 13%, a lot of them follow religions which if followed strictly forbid entering a church.

Many of the UK's muslims for example (about 4% of the population) would consider entering any church to be makruh, strictly forbidden. Many of the more conservative and orthodox Jews would consider it forbidden to enter a church too.

Yes, I know there were some Saudi's at the funeral, but the point remains valid.

But no, I wouldn't expect a white Christian family who have lived their lives in mainly rural areas in the provinces to have a great deal of friends from ethnic backgrounds.

Because as much as 13% of the population is non-white, I don't think there is a Brixton Palace, or a Royal estate just outside Bradford.

The Queen's main residence was in North Norfolk, and her preferred getaway was Balmoral.

I wonder what proportion of that 13% are Royalists, just to put the shoe on the other foot. Many of the 13% come from an ethnic background which isn't in the commonwealth, and that's another valid point. Can't imagine your typical Afghan refugee has a photo of the Queen on their mantel piece.

Edited September 20, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[ron obvious 1,502]

34 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Not quite, but I will always say she'll never really have had the experience regardless of how much empathy she clearly showed. If we're going to complain that many of our politicians are massively out of touch as they've not had a much more typical upbringing, then by definition you really do have to double it for the Queen.

As a guy, there are some women's issues I'll never have full insight into by dint of the fact I'm a bloke. As a proud non-parent, there are some issues I'll never grasp fully when a parent vents to me. And by the same logic, an exceptionally wealthy lady from a very privileged background won't always be able to fully grasp the struggles her subjects faced. It's night and day between simply "being aware of the feelings" and fully grasping them.

Would also say in protecting Prince Andrew to some extent that she also looked like she misjudged matters. Agree that Diana was a misstep, and would also agree, if that is your stance, that the tide of emotion that followed her death was in the realms of the twee.

Not so I think. If you want someone who perfectly represents everyone in the country you will seek them in vain. All anyone will do is represent their own unique situation. Now although the monarch will obviously always represent the interests of the monarchy they long ago came to terms with the fact they govern by consent, & their continuation is predicated on maintaining that consent. As I said we've removed monarchs before.

Rich kids, offspring of wealthy people, are certainly privileged & have no responsibilities or duties. This is not so for monarchs & as I say I think their privileges would not make up for the lives they are forced to live for the vast majority of us. Any Marklesque fantasies about being a royal would rapidly evaporate in the heat of the reality.

Anyway, must stop this as that garage roof isn't getting slated while I witter on. Toodle pip.

[Greavsy 2,413]

15 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

that garage roof isn't getting slated while I witter on. Toodle pip

some on here are good at slating others just for voicing a differing opinion to theirs. 

[sonyc 5,517]

20 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

some on here are good at slating others just for voicing a differing opinion to theirs. 

And that's because (I believe anyway) a big majority on this forum are male Greavsy. I realise I might be offending now, really don't wish to at all. Yet, study after study demonstrates that there is a power differential between people in conversations. Gender is clearly a factor. Men often converse to gain status, a standing and even to put others down. I realise it is a generalisation but women are more cooperative etc.

That's the experience I have of this forum. Dominated by people who believe their views are everything. At some point it descends to insult. Yet, there are many (men, I think) who manage not to do this and make up the best posters here. We could all name the most even ones. 

It's all the more odd to be reading about the Queen, what she meant, her ways and so on ...when she was someone who listened, networked and was ever curious. It's a massive reason why she was respected as a person. 

I think people should just accept we are all unique in many ways, have our odd beliefs at times (maybe...or they are quite boring) but just converse about those differences. Rather than resorting to being personal. 

[Greavsy 2,413]

34 minutes ago, sonyc said:

And that's because (I believe anyway) a big majority on this forum are male Greavsy. I realise I might be offending now, really don't wish to at all. Yet, study after study demonstrates that there is a power differential between people in conversations. Gender is clearly a factor. Men often converse to gain status, a standing and even to put others down. I realise it is a generalisation but women are more cooperative etc.

That's the experience I have of this forum. Dominated by people who believe their views are everything. At some point it descends to insult. Yet, there are many (men, I think) who manage not to do this and make up the best posters here. We could all name the most even ones. 

It's all the more odd to be reading about the Queen, what she meant, her ways and so on ...when she was someone who listened, networked and was ever curious. It's a massive reason why she was respected as a person. 

I think people should just accept we are all unique in many ways, have our odd beliefs at times (maybe...or they are quite boring) but just converse about those differences. Rather than resorting to being personal. 

Good reply and agree. 

Whilst these days everyone is trying to equal the male / female imbalance, people can't help but resorting to type, whatever that may be, and showing the traits you describe. 

It's a fair point you raise and whilst there are considerably less females on the forum (from my perception) I don't recall any of them getting involved in petty squabbles / name calling etc.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 hour ago, ron obvious said:

Not so I think. If you want someone who perfectly represents everyone in the country you will seek them in vain. All anyone will do is represent their own unique situation. Now although the monarch will obviously always represent the interests of the monarchy they long ago came to terms with the fact they govern by consent, & their continuation is predicated on maintaining that consent. As I said we've removed monarchs before.

Rich kids, offspring of wealthy people, are certainly privileged & have no responsibilities or duties. This is not so for monarchs & as I say I think their privileges would not make up for the lives they are forced to live for the vast majority of us. Any Marklesque fantasies about being a royal would rapidly evaporate in the heat of the reality.

Anyway, must stop this as that garage roof isn't getting slated while I witter on. Toodle pip.

And that sums up precisely why, for all the empathy the Queen appeared to show, she could never quite understand. Conversely, you could also say we would never begin to appreciate all the little difficulties, pitfalls and pratfalls of being royalty.

This is a question of extent over principle, in essence.

Edited September 20, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[Yellow Fever 3,781]

1 hour ago, ron obvious said:

Rich kids, offspring of wealthy people, are certainly privileged & have no responsibilities or duties. This is not so for monarchs & as I say I think their privileges would not make up for the lives they are forced to live for the vast majority of us. Any Marklesque fantasies about being a royal would rapidly evaporate in the heat of the reality.

Hi Ron.

This argument however is EXACTLY that used by the LANDED gentry as to why they should be hereditary peers, and historically why only they should have a vote. They had these vast estates to maintain inter-generationally.

After-all, us plebs don't by contrast have any 'long-term' responsibility or duties (or vast estates) so never were thought to have a 'long term' view. 

 

Edited September 20, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[ron obvious 1,502]

No it isn't - or rather, if it is it's completely untrue. The landed gentry have no responsibility to the people at large & they have no need of anyone's consent. I think quite a few people wouldn't mind living as landed gentry.

[Yellow Fever 3,781]

42 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

No it isn't - or rather, if it is it's completely untrue. The landed gentry have no responsibility to the people at large & they have no need of anyone's consent. I think quite a few people wouldn't mind living as landed gentry.

I think you've misunderstood. It's the reason why pre-universal (male) suffrage you needed to be a free holder and later property ownership. 

The left over extension of this is that the peers (and by inference) the Monarch had a longer term 'investment' or caretaker role in the future unlike the 'serfs'. 

Look up 40 shilling freeholders etc.

Edited September 20, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[ron obvious 1,502]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I think you've misunderstood. It's the reason why pre-universal (male) suffrage you needed to be a free holder and later property ownership. 

The left over extension of this is that the peers (and by inference) the Monarch had a longer term 'investment' or caretaker role in the future unlike the 'serfs'. 

Look up 40 shilling freeholders etc.

That may be historically true, but it's not the same argument as that for retention of the monarchy.

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

On 19/09/2022 at 22:22, ron obvious said:

Merely?? Why would it be necessarily be an improvement though? And how do you replace 1,000 years of history?

It's to do with memory. I remember (!) seeing a programme, perhaps by Oliver Sacks, which included a man who'd lost his short-term memory. He was incredibly distraught & upset, his life was almost unliveable. Our history is our collective memory & functions to keep us whole, gives us a national identity, even when there are parts we may not like. The monarchy may evolve into something else, in fact I'd suggest the reason it's still here is because it has evolved (c.f. Charles 1st & Charles 3rd). They are only in their position by consent - witness Charles 1st's fate & the Glorious Revolution - & there's no guarantee a republican leader would be so attuned to the public mood.

In fact something that's struck me since her death is the Queen's ordinariness. Seeing film clips of her as a young woman I see a not particularly gifted well-to-do woman who you could imagine living a middle class life, just raising a family with all the usual concerns. But she performed extraordinary feats of duty & service, demonstrating what average people are capable of if the circumstances demand it & they are prepared to rise to the challenge.

So in an odd way you could say she was our representative in government; a calm bastion of normality & constancy while all around her politicians of different stripes came & went, able to offer advice but not command.

Her successors may or may not be as effective but I think the example she set has had a profound effect. It's not a perfect system - no such animal - but I'm hard pressed to think of one guaranteed to be better.

 

Firstly, I didn’t watch the funeral but I’m glad to see those that did like the Queen were happy with her send off. Many of my family watched all day and I respect their views and decision to watch just ad they respected my decision to go for a walk to look for mushrooms. I do think though that some of what you say in argument against a republic has aspects of question. 

1) a change from monarchy to republic doesn’t erase 1000 years of royal history, it starts a new chapter of history. The last 1000 years stays where it is.

2) the Queen’s ordinariness is a really odd phrase. Her life is far from ordinary, it’s the exact reason the last ten days of everyone else’s ordinary lives have been affected in some way, mostly minor. Ordinary suggests commonplace or a life shared by the majority. If you think the Queen’s carefully planned and orchestrated public life is anything like the majority then I have no way to convince you otherwise but it surprises me greatly.

3) if you can imagine the Queen as living as a middle class person with all the usual concerns then you don’t seem to appreciate the majority of concerns for ordinary people revolve largely around finances. Money doesn’t make you happy is the old adage, but it does remove several barriers to peoples happiness. I’d be a LOT happier if I never had to worry about a bill or having enough cash for my entire lifetime, as well as having my own fleet of doctors and cooks to look after my family’s every need aside from social, which thanks to my circumstances I have plenty of time to nurture. I appreciate the Queen went to a lot of stuff but if you think her non working downtime was less than the ordinary person then I think we could do with evidencing her working hours relative to others (and I’m a teacher with loads of holidays).

4) remarkable feats of duty and service is very subjective when you look at what she actually did. She was essentially a figurehead. She did a long shift I agree, but to say that she did this as an average person is crazy to me and your definition of what constitutes average varies from most of the population I’d wager. 

5) someone from the Queens background cannot represent the commoner in parliament as someone with her upbringing and privilege can NEVER understand the circumstances they have never had to experience and have been protected from as part of their life. Experience cannot be fully gained without being lived and the Queen was a (fairly distant) observer. In the same way a white male cannot experience racism towards black people or sexism towards women, the Queen cannot understand the existence of a child on free school meals. No amount of watching children in need cuts it I’m afraid. I’m not saying she didn’t do ‘something’ and offer loads of hope, but honestly, it’s the very least she could do and most in her position would do that as a minimum given the same resources. You might refute that but I can only speak for the people I know and all of them would. 

6) no system is ever guaranteed to be ‘better’, but the issue is with people insisting we can’t possibly change a 1000 year old system we will never have the chance to try. If you stick with the current you won’t progress either, that’s just a given. Reform of the monarchy doesn’t have to mean the abolition of it. 

In summary. She seemed like a nice lady, who used her vast means to do some good for the country, some for the good of her family (£12 million for Andrew). But let’s face it, anything less and she would’ve been abusing her privileges. The monarchy is only relevant for as long as they continue to do good and as long as they don’t try and comment on real peoples issues that rely on the democratic process. Charlie’s political views and his past willingness to spout them (whether I agree with them or not) I feel will potentially be the moment he overstretches his privilege into interfering. I don’t happen to feel anyone should have this power and potential influence endowed upon them just because they happened to be bred into it. Liz to her credit managed not to meddle for a long while, but not all monarchs will have the same restraint. That said I think our ‘elected’ leader is nearly just as outside the sphere of ordinary as the monarchy are. 

Each to their own. 

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

16 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

EXACTLY that used by the LANDED gentry

You  rang?😇

[DraytonBoy 149]

Ultimately it's the people who decide whether the monarchy stays or is replaced and as long as they don't step out of line or abuse their limited powers then I can't see any real change happening in my lifetime.  

[ron obvious 1,502]

 

8 hours ago, SwearyCanary said:

Firstly, I didn’t watch the funeral but I’m glad to see those that did like the Queen were happy with her send off. Many of my family watched all day and I respect their views and decision to watch just ad they respected my decision to go for a walk to look for mushrooms. I do think though that some of what you say in argument against a republic has aspects of question. 

1) a change from monarchy to republic doesn’t erase 1000 years of royal history, it starts a new chapter of history. The last 1000 years stays where it is.

2) the Queen’s ordinariness is a really odd phrase. Her life is far from ordinary, it’s the exact reason the last ten days of everyone else’s ordinary lives have been affected in some way, mostly minor. Ordinary suggests commonplace or a life shared by the majority. If you think the Queen’s carefully planned and orchestrated public life is anything like the majority then I have no way to convince you otherwise but it surprises me greatly.

3) if you can imagine the Queen as living as a middle class person with all the usual concerns then you don’t seem to appreciate the majority of concerns for ordinary people revolve largely around finances. Money doesn’t make you happy is the old adage, but it does remove several barriers to peoples happiness. I’d be a LOT happier if I never had to worry about a bill or having enough cash for my entire lifetime, as well as having my own fleet of doctors and cooks to look after my family’s every need aside from social, which thanks to my circumstances I have plenty of time to nurture. I appreciate the Queen went to a lot of stuff but if you think her non working downtime was less than the ordinary person then I think we could do with evidencing her working hours relative to others (and I’m a teacher with loads of holidays).

4) remarkable feats of duty and service is very subjective when you look at what she actually did. She was essentially a figurehead. She did a long shift I agree, but to say that she did this as an average person is crazy to me and your definition of what constitutes average varies from most of the population I’d wager. 

5) someone from the Queens background cannot represent the commoner in parliament as someone with her upbringing and privilege can NEVER understand the circumstances they have never had to experience and have been protected from as part of their life. Experience cannot be fully gained without being lived and the Queen was a (fairly distant) observer. In the same way a white male cannot experience racism towards black people or sexism towards women, the Queen cannot understand the existence of a child on free school meals. No amount of watching children in need cuts it I’m afraid. I’m not saying she didn’t do ‘something’ and offer loads of hope, but honestly, it’s the very least she could do and most in her position would do that as a minimum given the same resources. You might refute that but I can only speak for the people I know and all of them would. 

6) no system is ever guaranteed to be ‘better’, but the issue is with people insisting we can’t possibly change a 1000 year old system we will never have the chance to try. If you stick with the current you won’t progress either, that’s just a given. Reform of the monarchy doesn’t have to mean the abolition of it. 

In summary. She seemed like a nice lady, who used her vast means to do some good for the country, some for the good of her family (£12 million for Andrew). But let’s face it, anything less and she would’ve been abusing her privileges. The monarchy is only relevant for as long as they continue to do good and as long as they don’t try and comment on real peoples issues that rely on the democratic process. Charlie’s political views and his past willingness to spout them (whether I agree with them or not) I feel will potentially be the moment he overstretches his privilege into interfering. I don’t happen to feel anyone should have this power and potential influence endowed upon them just because they happened to be bred into it. Liz to her credit managed not to meddle for a long while, but not all monarchs will have the same restraint. That said I think our ‘elected’ leader is nearly just as outside the sphere of ordinary as the monarchy are. 

Each to their own. 

1) True that you cannot erase history, although many regimes have attempted to do so (it's happening in this country at the moment). But to do so in the UK would require a complete shift in national identity. I'm not sure that's a good idea.

2) Her LIFE was far from ordinary, but I think she was an ordinary person in terms of talents, gifts, personality etc. However I regard the degree of duty, service & sheer self-control she demonstrated to be extraordinary; what I'm saying is that her virtues are latent in all of us & are frequently enacted in daily life. She was an example to us all, regardless of upbringing.

3)As a working class person I appreciate the concerns lack of money brings. However I deliberately said middle class, i.e. someone whose life is not beset by financial worries. And I don't think you can imagine the utter, utter boredom & tedium she had to go through -& with no hope of escape. Short of abdication she couldn't change her job, which is something you can do which she couldn't.

I'm not daft, I'm sure she had many enjoyable times & led a very cossetted life. But my god was she trapped; "A Bird In a Gilded Cage".

4) Don't really understand this point. I'm saying she was an average human being in an extraordinary situation & expected to be permanently smiling & diplomatic, never offend anyone or put a foot wrong & she rose to perform these functions exceptionally well.

5) I think she did understand people as well as it is possible for anyone to understand a vast number of other people. I will never fully understand you & you will never fully understand me. My working life experience will have been far different to yours (& I suspect less narrow: I've been a teacher for a while & found the mindset to be rather constricted. In the adult world I've worked with representatives of about  20 different nationalities/religions, some of them highly intelligent, & come across people with views right across the political spectrum).

6) That's the same argument as sack the manager/owners/tea lady; it can only make things better, right? More often it's a case of " Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". There may well be a better way of fulfilling the present, evolved role of the monarchy but you better be pretty damn sure you won't make things worse. Just saying " I know, let's have a republic" doesn't cut it for me, & that seems to be the attitude of most republicans. Details please.

Your penultimate paragraph I pretty well agree with & in large part sums up my attitude. I was very concerned about Charles but as long as he stands by his promise to keep it buttoned then I think he'll be OK. As I've said they're only really there by consent, something they are very aware of. So although not democratically mandated their (limited, advisory) power depends very much on public perception & support.

Back on the roof I go.

Edited September 21, 2022 by ron obvious

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

10 hours ago, ron obvious said:

 

1) True that you cannot erase history, although many regimes have attempted to do so (it's happening in this country at the moment). But to do so in the UK would require a complete shift in national identity. I'm not sure that's a good idea.

2) Her LIFE was far from ordinary, but I think she was an ordinary person in terms of talents, gifts, personality etc. However I regard the degree of duty, service & sheer self-control she demonstrated to be extraordinary; what I'm saying is that her virtues are latent in all of us & are frequently enacted in daily life. She was an example to us all, regardless of upbringing.

3)As a working class person I appreciate the concerns lack of money brings. However I deliberately said middle class, i.e. someone whose life is not beset by financial worries. And I don't think you can imagine the utter, utter boredom & tedium she had to go through -& with no hope of escape. Short of abdication she couldn't change her job, which is something you can do which she couldn't.

I'm not daft, I'm sure she had many enjoyable times & led a very cossetted life. But my god was she trapped; "A Bird In a Gilded Cage".

4) Don't really understand this point. I'm saying she was an average human being in an extraordinary situation & expected to be permanently smiling & diplomatic, never offend anyone or put a foot wrong & she rose to perform these functions exceptionally well.

5) I think she did understand people as well as it is possible for anyone to understand a vast number of other people. I will never fully understand you & you will never fully understand me. My working life experience will have been far different to yours (& I suspect less narrow: I've been a teacher for a while & found the mindset to be rather constricted. In the adult world I've worked with representatives of about  20 different nationalities/religions, some of them highly intelligent, & come across people with views right across the political spectrum).

6) That's the same argument as sack the manager/owners/tea lady; it can only make things better, right? More often it's a case of " Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". There may well be a better way of fulfilling the present, evolved role of the monarchy but you better be pretty damn sure you won't make things worse. Just saying " I know, let's have a republic" doesn't cut it for me, & that seems to be the attitude of most republicans. Details please.

Your penultimate paragraph I pretty well agree with & in large part sums up my attitude. I was very concerned about Charles but as long as he stands by his promise to keep it buttoned then I think he'll be OK. As I've said they're only really there by consent, something they are very aware of. So although not democratically mandated their (limited, advisory) power depends very much on public perception & support.

Back on the roof I go.

Nice to have a sensible debate without anyone losing their rag, I appreciate the time taken to respond also. As you say, we may well never be of the same mind but very much glad to accept that is just a part of life on many matters. 

OTBC