Rest in peace, and condolences to all who are grieving. Her death is a big deal for the nation culturally. She has been the primary symbol of the UK for all of our lives, for most of us. And from what I know, she has taken her obligations as a figurehead and constitutionally very seriously, for an extraordinarily long time.
I can say all this as someone who doesn't believe that inherited monarchy is the best way to run a democratic society. I have no interest in disparaging her or those who are deeply affected by her passing.
Isn't it deeply strange, though, how on such occasions (the death of Diana being another) a kind of conformism descends on our national discourse? We are informed that we are a nation in mourning. We are collectively grieving. Last night I was working in a fairly crowded café when the news broke. I heard someone's voice say "the Queen has died". I looked up. Everyone looked up. Conversations stopped. Faces looked surprised and a little sad. After a few seconds everyone resumed doing whatever they were doing. Some conversations picked up where they left off. Some people talked about 'what next' in a matter of fact way. There were one or two quips about whether we'll get any bank holidays. I know that some people are hit harder than the random people in that Costa, and they should be respected. But no one I know is 'grieving', and I would guess that the majority of the country isn't in the emotional space that Nicholas Witchell and co says we are. And everyone knows this, says it privately, and knows that there's no way national broadcasters can acknowledge the fact. Social media brutally amplifies this disjunction between official narrative and reality in a way that didn't happen in 1997.
It's weird, isn't it? It's a kind of unspoken collective pact to pretend something is happening when we know that it isn't.
The Queen
posted on 10/9/22
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 2 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by Zach Robinson (U1734)
posted 24 minutes ago
Tourists come to Scotland because of the amazing scenery as well as the history. Are you essentially saying that England is a shiitehole but has the Monarchy so tourists go there and wouldn't if there was no Monarchy cos then it would just be a shiiitehole? For the most arrogant country in the world you sure lack self confidence. Maybe you could reinvent yourself like when teenagers leave school and go to uni. Could no longer be known as the shiitehole who has a queen. Now is a good time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't have a queen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the post you're replying to.
Zach makes no mention of king or queen.
Are your eyes so full of tears you can't read?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right back at you
posted on 10/9/22
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 11 hours, 13 minutes ago
"but I would happily wager that tourism revenue would drop should we get rid of the monarchy. I might be wrong but I highly doubt it."
It would probably increase as all palaces and royal residences could be opened up fully to tourists all year round.
Questions of affordability, or their money-making potential shouldn't be a reason for retaining this archaic institution, after all slavery was very profitable and no one misses that.
"Then we have the charitable contributions both financial and influential. Charles & Elizabeth (and others) have contributed hugely"
There was a report published a couple of years ago that concluded that there was no benefit to charities in having a royal patron.
You may want to look into how much time they actually spend each month 'not working' on our behalf (data publicly available).
When they count each phonecall, attendance at a sporting or social event, cutting a ribbon, or simply receiving someone for 20min as 'official engagements', and with more days off than on each month it's astonishing how little work they actually do, all for which they are well rewarded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if you get your wish then perhaps we will find out.
Affordability and profit making was brought up by others and always is, hence my post?
Ah yes, the current monarchy and slavery….I see the similarities……
Got a link to said report? Would you like to provide the data on how much time they actually spend on charitable work which clearly demonstrates that Charles & Elizabeth have not contributed hugely?
posted on 10/9/22
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 11 hours, 13 minutes ago
"but I would happily wager that tourism revenue would drop should we get rid of the monarchy. I might be wrong but I highly doubt it."
It would probably increase as all palaces and royal residences could be opened up fully to tourists all year round.
Questions of affordability, or their money-making potential shouldn't be a reason for retaining this archaic institution, after all slavery was very profitable and no one misses that.
"Then we have the charitable contributions both financial and influential. Charles & Elizabeth (and others) have contributed hugely"
There was a report published a couple of years ago that concluded that there was no benefit to charities in having a royal patron.
You may want to look into how much time they actually spend each month 'not working' on our behalf (data publicly available).
When they count each phonecall, attendance at a sporting or social event, cutting a ribbon, or simply receiving someone for 20min as 'official engagements', and with more days off than on each month it's astonishing how little work they actually do, all for which they are well rewarded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if you get your wish then perhaps we will find out.
Affordability and profit making was brought up by others and always is, hence my post?
Ah yes, the current monarchy and slavery….I see the similarities……
Got a link to said report? Would you like to provide the data on how much time they actually spend on charitable work which clearly demonstrates that Charles & Elizabeth have not contributed hugely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the statement that charities are not helped by having royal patrons (and in fact it is a cost to some) - the report can be downloaded here:
https://givingevidence.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/giving-evidence-royal-charity-patronages-july-2020.pdf
Regarding data on how much 'work' the royals actually do (clearly none of them have a 9-5 job and are pretty much part-timers) you can start with the Court Circular linked below (and also the royal diary):
https://www.royal.uk/court-circular
I just did a quick check on the Prince Charles for August 2022.
One day worked (8 August)
Comprising of what they define as three engagements.
Prince Charles has himself stated that these types of engagements are usually 20 minute (and up to an hour).
So we can assume 3h work if we're being generous.
I see July was a lot busier as he was required to work on 10 days, having to attend the commonwealth games, the Sandringham flower show among other engagements.
posted on 10/9/22
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 2 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by Zach Robinson (U1734)
posted 24 minutes ago
Tourists come to Scotland because of the amazing scenery as well as the history. Are you essentially saying that England is a shiitehole but has the Monarchy so tourists go there and wouldn't if there was no Monarchy cos then it would just be a shiiitehole? For the most arrogant country in the world you sure lack self confidence. Maybe you could reinvent yourself like when teenagers leave school and go to uni. Could no longer be known as the shiitehole who has a queen. Now is a good time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't have a queen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the post you're replying to.
Zach makes no mention of king or queen.
Are your eyes so full of tears you can't read?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right back at you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, where does he mention the queen?
posted on 10/9/22
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 2 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by Zach Robinson (U1734)
posted 24 minutes ago
Tourists come to Scotland because of the amazing scenery as well as the history. Are you essentially saying that England is a shiitehole but has the Monarchy so tourists go there and wouldn't if there was no Monarchy cos then it would just be a shiiitehole? For the most arrogant country in the world you sure lack self confidence. Maybe you could reinvent yourself like when teenagers leave school and go to uni. Could no longer be known as the shiitehole who has a queen. Now is a good time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't have a queen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the post you're replying to.
Zach makes no mention of king or queen.
Are your eyes so full of tears you can't read?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right back at you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, where does he mention the queen?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wtf
posted on 10/9/22
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 2 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by Zach Robinson (U1734)
posted 24 minutes ago
Tourists come to Scotland because of the amazing scenery as well as the history. Are you essentially saying that England is a shiitehole but has the Monarchy so tourists go there and wouldn't if there was no Monarchy cos then it would just be a shiiitehole? For the most arrogant country in the world you sure lack self confidence. Maybe you could reinvent yourself like when teenagers leave school and go to uni. Could no longer be known as the shiitehole who has a queen. Now is a good time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't have a queen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the post you're replying to.
Zach makes no mention of king or queen.
Are your eyes so full of tears you can't read?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right back at you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, where does he mention the queen?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wtf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I going crazy or is this guy completely blind ?
posted on 10/9/22
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 11 hours, 13 minutes ago
"but I would happily wager that tourism revenue would drop should we get rid of the monarchy. I might be wrong but I highly doubt it."
It would probably increase as all palaces and royal residences could be opened up fully to tourists all year round.
Questions of affordability, or their money-making potential shouldn't be a reason for retaining this archaic institution, after all slavery was very profitable and no one misses that.
"Then we have the charitable contributions both financial and influential. Charles & Elizabeth (and others) have contributed hugely"
There was a report published a couple of years ago that concluded that there was no benefit to charities in having a royal patron.
You may want to look into how much time they actually spend each month 'not working' on our behalf (data publicly available).
When they count each phonecall, attendance at a sporting or social event, cutting a ribbon, or simply receiving someone for 20min as 'official engagements', and with more days off than on each month it's astonishing how little work they actually do, all for which they are well rewarded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if you get your wish then perhaps we will find out.
Affordability and profit making was brought up by others and always is, hence my post?
Ah yes, the current monarchy and slavery….I see the similarities……
Got a link to said report? Would you like to provide the data on how much time they actually spend on charitable work which clearly demonstrates that Charles & Elizabeth have not contributed hugely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the statement that charities are not helped by having royal patrons (and in fact it is a cost to some) - the report can be downloaded here:
https://givingevidence.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/giving-evidence-royal-charity-patronages-july-2020.pdf
Regarding data on how much 'work' the royals actually do (clearly none of them have a 9-5 job and are pretty much part-timers) you can start with the Court Circular linked below (and also the royal diary):
https://www.royal.uk/court-circular
I just did a quick check on the Prince Charles for August 2022.
One day worked (8 August)
Comprising of what they define as three engagements.
Prince Charles has himself stated that these types of engagements are usually 20 minute (and up to an hour).
So we can assume 3h work if we're being generous.
I see July was a lot busier as he was required to work on 10 days, having to attend the commonwealth games, the Sandringham flower show among other engagements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheers, will have a read later on
posted on 10/9/22
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 day, 5 hours ago
It depends how you define morning. They are levels to it for me. I'm not going to shed a tear for someone that I didn't know. At the same time, I am a little sad. I don't know anyone who has expressed anything other than sadness at her passing. Sure, the media will overplay it. But on the whole, I'd say we are a county in mourning, albeit it at different levels.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who decided that though? The BBC?
posted on 10/9/22
Well I shall be going out on the route tomorrow to show my respects to the carcass as it passes by on its way to hell* via Edinburgh. Some good spots by the Forth bridges. Will take the bike and some beers. Anyone else going to show their respects this week?
*England. Don't shout at me
posted on 10/9/22
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 2 hours, 42 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 2 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by Zach Robinson (U1734)
posted 24 minutes ago
Tourists come to Scotland because of the amazing scenery as well as the history. Are you essentially saying that England is a shiitehole but has the Monarchy so tourists go there and wouldn't if there was no Monarchy cos then it would just be a shiiitehole? For the most arrogant country in the world you sure lack self confidence. Maybe you could reinvent yourself like when teenagers leave school and go to uni. Could no longer be known as the shiitehole who has a queen. Now is a good time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't have a queen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the post you're replying to.
Zach makes no mention of king or queen.
Are your eyes so full of tears you can't read?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right back at you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, where does he mention the queen?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wtf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I going crazy or is this guy completely blind ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no, completely McBonkers