Queen’s funeral

[PockthorpePete 331]

1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

This is true. These people are entitled to their views but some of them seem to want to spoil things for those who want to pay their respects. We all know they exist and most are ok with people having a different point of view, but to see/hear them shouting at funeral processions does them and their cause no credit. They just look like sad losers - save it for more appropriate occasions......time and place and all that.......

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.

[A Load of Squit 5,170]

My contact in the queue for the coffin viewing tells me the concession stands are selling QEII/KCIII half and half scarves.

 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

4 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Human history is littered with people anthropomorphising forces and ideas. Gods of wind, fire, death, love, litter many mythologies that evolved indepently of each other. 

Abstract ideas are the most difficult to deal with, but they're important. People have been talking about climate change for decades and the threat it represents for decades, but little has happened because it's possible to grasp the concept, but difficult to really believe in it without actual tangible evidence of it; some have been very successful in convincing people there's nothing to it at all.

Nations are similar in that they are abstract ideas that represent administrations, systems, and communities on a scale that is possible to comprehend, but not really grasp. As with the other abstract ideas, I think there's a tendency to want to boil that down to core symbols. As I touched on elsewhere, most dictators do seek to build cults of personality around themselves and seek to make the idea of them as an individual synonymous with the country if not convince people that they are the country. 

This is what she has been to me my entire life: a symbol of the country on the world stage alongside the flag and the anthem. She has been an actress all her life, seeking to play a public character that is whatever happens to be what works best for the country as the country has changed with increasing speed. As such, she has also served as an anchor of constancy in the face of phenomenal change. 

There's nothing wrong with idols; they're just representations of ideas that people value. People who believe in religions have their Gods, people who believe in Communism have Karl Marx. The problem with idols is not the idols themselves but how others might use those idols to manipulate others to their own ends. 

You can manipulate and interpret the stories and ideas of God, Allah, Mohammad, Jesus, Karl Marx, to whatever ends you seek to pursue. When the Queen spoke though, she was speaking for herself and there was no question of what she was saying. And that had tremendous value. Her visit to Ireland in 2011 and her words expressing the regret over what our country has done to Ireland carried far more weight in healing rifts than those of any politicians could have ever hoped to have done, because when she spoke, in a way it really was a reflection of an idea of the country itself that was speaking. 

Finally, the comparison to the Kardashians made me chuckle, because that sort of entertainment, and celebrity in general, does tune into the same instincts that the idea of monarchy plays on. Where I'd say it doesn't hold up is that the whole purpose of the Kardashians is to promote the interests of the Kardashians, whereas the purpose of the Royal Family is to promote the interests of the country. 

 

This is an excellent post and recognises that all groups, whether it be a nation, a football team and its supporters or your local cub scout group has a form of symbolism that acts as a glue and a form of identity to which all members can hold and identify with. 

In the case of the UK nation, the symbolism is maintained within the British Royal Family, and the acts of symbolism are played out in regular staged events or re-affirmed at times of succession. The Queen understood well that her role was to be upholder of this symbolism and she maintained that role unfailingly for over seven decades. Her power and influence came about because she knew it was not about her as a person but about the abstract things that she represented. 

It isn't so ridiculous to mention the Kardashians in the same breath since in the republican US, their pop stars and movie stars do have a similar role in representing the symbolism of that country. But it is representation to a lesser extent than the UK and it is more about the individual than is found in the Queen, but there are some parallels. 

And this is why I am sceptical about having an elected head of state in whom the symbolism is invested as it is bound to become about the individual and that individual will demand some power. Whereas at the moment we have rather cleverly stripped power away from the head, and brought it closer to the sovereign individual. 

[A Load of Squit 5,170]

23 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

 

And this is why I am sceptical about having an elected head of state in whom the symbolism is invested as it is bound to become about the individual and that individual will demand some power. Whereas at the moment we have rather cleverly stripped power away from the head, and brought it closer to the sovereign individual. 

We don't elect the HOL, we should elect a second tranche of government.

Charles hasn't been in his new job for a week and he's getting stuck into the politics, the Queen and Prince Charles have also used Queens Consent to alter draft legislation.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-king-charles-northern-ireland-protocol-dup-b2166495.html

Charles was paying his first visit to Northern Ireland as monarch and had a lengthy conversation with Sir Jeffrey Donaldson about the European Union and NI protocol.

 

[Naturalcynic 631]

10 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

We don't elect the HOL, we should elect a second tranche of government.

Charles hasn't been in his new job for a week and he's getting stuck into the politics, the Queen and Prince Charles have also used Queens Consent to alter draft legislation.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-king-charles-northern-ireland-protocol-dup-b2166495.html

Charles was paying his first visit to Northern Ireland as monarch and had a lengthy conversation with Sir Jeffrey Donaldson about the European Union and NI protocol.

 

What did he say to Jeffrey Donaldson about the EU and the NI Protocol?

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

49 minutes 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.

Non-royalists are most definitely in the minority. Charles became king because we the people allow him to be. They wouldn't last five minutes without our consent. It's fair to say that consent is implicit and not tested by election but the national mood is an important factor in how the royals conduct themselves

[Naturalcynic 631]

56 minutes 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.

Where’s your evidence for that?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 minute ago, Rock The Boat said:

Non-royalists are most definitely in the minority. Charles became king because we the people allow him to be. They wouldn't last five minutes without our consent. It's fair to say that consent is implicit and not tested by election but the national mood is an important factor in how the royals conduct themselves

Yet thirty years ago, Charles was like a leper to many if not the majority of Royal family lovers because of his relationship with Diana. Now he is the greatest with the same group of the public.

In other words, hypocrisy from the public determines the status of the Royal family.

[lake district canary 4,533]

50 minutes 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.

Depends on what you mean by by "Royalists". There are probably a small amount of actual diehard royalists as such - and a huge amount of people who just accept royalty, appreciate it and understand why it is there. Then there will be a fair amount who don't really care one way or the other and a few diehard anti-royalists. 

As with most things the middle ground has the majority - and that is who royalty have to appeal to. Keep that majority on board and they will be ok.  

As for the forces of the state - well they are right imo to stop people disrupting a peaceful and reverent occasion. 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

18 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Yet thirty years ago, Charles was like a leper to many if not the majority of Royal family lovers because of his relationship with Diana. Now he is the greatest with the same group of the public.

In other words, hypocrisy from the public determines the status of the Royal family.

The Bible says To Err is human, To Forgive is Divine. 

[KiwiScot 1,450]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

stands are selling QEII/KCIII half and half scarves.

Lets get Jesus in there he'll kick some ****.

[A Load of Squit 5,170]

11 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

The Bible says To Err is human, To Forgive is Divine. 

Alexander Pope in the early 18th century.

[cornish sam 954]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

We don't elect the HOL, we should elect a second tranche of government.

Charles hasn't been in his new job for a week and he's getting stuck into the politics, the Queen and Prince Charles have also used Queens Consent to alter draft legislation.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-king-charles-northern-ireland-protocol-dup-b2166495.html

Charles was paying his first visit to Northern Ireland as monarch and had a lengthy conversation with Sir Jeffrey Donaldson about the European Union and NI protocol.

 

But the whole point of HOL is that they should be able to be free of having to go appealing for votes so that they can apply good sense and long term thinking to legislature and govt behaviour. An unelected chamber does make sense I  that context and the problem is more with the fact that so many cronies and people who don't particularly want to be there are involved. If you want to see what having constant vote chasing for both houses does to a nation have a look at how broken bi-partisan democracy has got over in the states!

[A Load of Squit 5,170]

20 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

But the whole point of HOL is that they should be able to be free of having to go appealing for votes so that they can apply good sense and long term thinking to legislature and govt behaviour. An unelected chamber does make sense I  that context and the problem is more with the fact that so many cronies and people who don't particularly want to be there are involved. If you want to see what having constant vote chasing for both houses does to a nation have a look at how broken bi-partisan democracy has got over in the states!

OK, it is a problem in the USA but does that mean it doesn't work elsewhere?

Isn't the lesson here, don't use the American system?

[nutty nigel 7,539]

I'm quite ambivalent about the whole show. But I don't believe having a monarchy has ever done me any harm. Can't say the same about the elected elite.

 

 

 

 

 

[PockthorpePete 331]

1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

Depends on what you mean by by "Royalists". There are probably a small amount of actual diehard royalists as such - and a huge amount of people who just accept royalty, appreciate it and understand why it is there. Then there will be a fair amount who don't really care one way or the other and a few diehard anti-royalists. 

As with most things the middle ground has the majority - and that is who royalty have to appeal to. Keep that majority on board and they will be ok.  

As for the forces of the state - well they are right imo to stop people disrupting a peaceful and reverent occasion. 

I doubt even you can put a case for arresting someone standing with a blank sheet of paper. I suspect a good number will attend to watch for the spectacle. Much as they would were Charles to be suffering the fate of the Ist Charles. Why did the police not arrest those shouting out at Liverpool last night, during the period of quiet ?

[A Load of Squit 5,170]

Wouldn't it have been better for the teams to time waste as much as possible and then the applause could be on 96 minutes?

 

[PockthorpePete 331]

1 hour ago, cornish sam said:

But the whole point of HOL is that they should be able to be free of having to go appealing for votes so that they can apply good sense and long term thinking to legislature and govt behaviour. An unelected chamber does make sense I  that context and the problem is more with the fact that so many cronies and people who don't particularly want to be there are involved. If you want to see what having constant vote chasing for both houses does to a nation have a look at how broken bi-partisan democracy has got over in the states!

The sovereign has NO input to any legislation. They merely rubber stamp what is put in front of them. That role has been retained as it gives the impression that the UK has a better system of governance. It is nothing more than a Ruritanian bit of pageantry. I suspect, like the Church of England, it will continue to have less and less importance in our lives.

[A Load of Squit 5,170]

3 minutes ago, PockthorpePete said:

The sovereign has NO input to any legislation. They merely rubber stamp what is put in front of them. That role has been retained as it gives the impression that the UK has a better system of governance. It is nothing more than a Ruritanian bit of pageantry. I suspect, like the Church of England, it will continue to have less and less importance in our lives.

Well there's these 2 examples,

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

A Scottish government memo obtained by the Guardian reveals that “it is almost certain” draft laws have been secretly changed to secure the Queen’s approval.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/28/prince-charles-pressured-ministers-change-law-queen-consent

Official papers unearthed in the National Archives reveal ministers in John Major’s government yielded to his demands amid fears that resisting the heir to the throne could spark a constitutional crisis.

[lake district canary 4,533]

9 minutes ago, PockthorpePete said:

Why did the police not arrest those shouting out at Liverpool last night, during the period of quiet ?

Different, isn't it - a football match over hundreds miles away - and shouting abuse up close to a cortege at members of close family to the deceased - which is at the least inconsiderate to those genuinely mourning, boardering on breach of the peace.

 

[Greavsy 2,415]

8 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Different, isn't it - a football match over hundreds miles away - and shouting abuse up close to a cortege at members of close family to the deceased - which is at the least inconsiderate to those genuinely mourning, boardering on breach of the peace.

 

Different rules for football. Ill keep saying it. 

I dont get how people can behave in an unacceptable way, but because its at the football nothing happens. 

[cornish sam 954]

21 minutes ago, PockthorpePete said:

The sovereign has NO input to any legislation. They merely rubber stamp what is put in front of them. That role has been retained as it gives the impression that the UK has a better system of governance. It is nothing more than a Ruritanian bit of pageantry. I suspect, like the Church of England, it will continue to have less and less importance in our lives.

I wasn't arguing that, I was arguing that the House of Lords provides the a-party political checks and measures on the Govt....or at least should.

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

I struggle to see the Monarchy as anything other than a leftover bit of medieval feudalism with tourist pageantry and funny costumes/walks and titles co-opted today into a soap opera for the masses chasing ratings in it's week by week, year by year serialization. How many watched Den give Angie her divorce papers in EastEnders in Xmas 1986. About 30 million!

Who will be the soap villains - today it's Meghan and Andrew but yesterday it was Camilla (and Charles). Diana was of course the Peoples Princess terribly treated by Charles. Another 'plot' line. All change tomorrow or next week.

It's what the 21st century monarchy has become - a media show with fairy princesses plus a bit of pageantry.

It has almost zero to do with being an effective head of state / defender of the 'mythical' constitution.

Yes the Queen did a good job in her inherited role, re-inventing as DoE called it the 'the firm' from the mid 20th century but I'd look to leave that there and now move on. Charles at least realizes we need a new slimmer more Scandinavian style monarchy if it is to survive its own inconsistencies.

[BurwellCanary 216]

2 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

The Bible says To Err is human, To Forgive is Divine. 

Just mis read this as to Buh is human, to forgive is Diane

 

Off to specsavers

[sonyc 5,526]

8 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Nations are similar in that they are abstract ideas that represent administrations, systems, and communities on a scale that is possible to comprehend, but not really grasp. As with the other abstract ideas, I think there's a tendency to want to boil that down to core symbols. As I touched on elsewhere, most dictators do seek to build cults of personality around themselves and seek to make the idea of them as an individual synonymous with the country if not convince people that they are the country. 

This is what she has been to me my entire life: a symbol of the country on the world stage alongside the flag and the anthem. She has been an actress all her life, seeking to play a public character that is whatever happens to be what works best for the country as the country has changed with increasing speed. As such, she has also served as an anchor of constancy in the face of phenomenal change. 

Very thoughtful piece LYB. And whatever any of us think about monarchy (well to be more specific, our particular constitutional one) I would argue that in some ways (with the Queen's approach over decades) it helps democracy.

Certainly, it boosts public unity. The Queen has arguably done this far better than any of our political parties, especially perhaps in modern times when we have witnessed so many fissures within the main two parties.

I posted about neutrality a while ago. To remain or appear to others to be neutral or open is a much undervalued skill set. So, your anchoring note is right I believe. 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.

Edited September 14, 2022 by sonyc

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Yet thirty years ago, Charles was like a leper to many if not the majority of Royal family lovers because of his relationship with Diana. Now he is the greatest with the same group of the public.

In other words, hypocrisy from the public determines the status of the Royal family.

Was he a leper, though? As with most disputes, particularly relationship breakups, people tend to make judgements based on limited information. They may also change their views as time progresses.

Funnily enough, I went to see the documentary on Diana and Charles at the cinema the other week, and the feeling I had by the end was a sympathy for both of them that I didn't have before.

I don't think hypocrisy is a word that can be applied to shifts in public opinion over time either; by that argument, it would be hypocritical of the public not to vote in a Conservative government at the next election!

[sonyc 5,526]

12 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Charles at least realizes we need a new slimmer more Scandinavian style monarchy if it is to survive its own inconsistencies.

Yes 👍, and that is needed. Too many extras really. The power is with the top person. He has started well and his walkabouts have been popular. The sooner we hear less of lots of others will not be too soon (from neither a monarchist nor a republican).

[Herman 9,779]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

I'm quite ambivalent about the whole show. But I don't believe having a monarchy has ever done me any harm. Can't say the same about the elected elite.

 

 

 

 

 

The Royal It's A Knockout is quite high up there. Not quite a crime against humanity but..... 

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

52 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Wouldn't it have been better for the teams to time waste as much as possible and then the applause could be on 96 minutes?

 

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

[nutty nigel 7,539]

15 minutes ago, Herman said:

The Royal It's A Knockout is quite high up there. Not quite a crime against humanity but..... 

 

Can't wait for the Elected Elite It's A Knockout Tournament...

Edited September 14, 2022 by nutty nigel