Surely the interregnum is the most appropriate time to comment on this?
———
I appreciated this choice or words.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 37 minutes ago
By the way, MU52, if you're still following this thread, I hope you don't feel sore about the differences in perspective. I know that a lot of people who view the royal funeral differently have a great deal of respect and affection for you, which hasn't changed over the last fortnight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The effigy I erected of mu52 that's currently ablaze in the courtyard would beg to differ, RR.
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - No laughing matter (U1282)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 22 minutes ago
It would be nice to separate assessment of the Queen's legacy from political questions, but you can only do so by taking very political assumptions as a starting point.
Is the monarch as a powerless figurehead or a foundation stone of the British state and system of government? If the latter, then it isn't irrelevant to talk about the abuses of empire that took place under her reign (to take one example, the brutal repression of the Mau-Mau rebellion in Kenya). If the latter, then it's legitimate to talk about how the presence and cultural influence of the monarchy acts as a barrier to deeply needed constitutional reform to complete the UK's transition from feudal to democratic society.
The more you argue that it's the former, the less claim you have that her passing is a national event of such gravity and significance that we should suspend all discussion of how to solve the cost of living crisis, the disastrous under-staffing of the NHS, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She was in Kenya when she became Queen. There was competition among her officers who could inflict the most pain and suffering on natives. Only the most brutal received military accolades.
Until now, Diana's funeral is the most watched televised events in history, not just in UK but around the world. It is estimated that as many as 2.5 billion people around the world tuned in to watch the funeral of the Princess of Wales on 6 September 1997.
The Queen will do well to get a fifth of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you smoking today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Marijuana from Kenya actually.
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 25 minutes ago
You are vastly understating it if you think it won't even get 500million viewers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, how about a quarter? Even a third perhaps? Makes no difference.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
By the way, MU52, if you're still following this thread, I hope you don't feel sore about the differences in perspective. I know that a lot of people who view the royal funeral differently have a great deal of respect and affection for you, which hasn't changed over the last fortnight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I second this. I don't want to fall out with MU52 over this either.
Her powers were not the determining factor for deciding the importance of her reign, death and funeral.
You’re conflating two issues I think here.
It’s not powerless figurehead vs foundation stone of British government
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I think the extent of her symbolic power and what ends it was used to support are fairly important in assessing the Queen's place in history. In my view, there is a benign and valuable side to this: acting as a unifying embodiment of the nation (aloof from politics) at times of national significance (and tragedy).
It's also my view that the monarchy symbolises and amplifies the feudal, imperial and deferential dimensions of the national image, and that this has a malign influence on our political culture and our ability both to address profound problems in the UK and look with clarity at our place in the world.
I don't think Elizabeth II was personally at fault for the above, and I think she generally fulfilled her constitutional responsibilities in a sensitive and diligent manner. But I'd rather have an elected ceremonial president (as Germany and Israel have, among other countries) to play the role of benign conscience of the nation, who doesn't carry all this historical baggage. And I don't think it's inappropriate or disrespectful to talk about that at the time a new head of state is appointed by accident of birth.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 23 minutes ago
Surely the interregnum is the most appropriate time to comment on this?
———
I appreciated this choice or words.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The last interregnum was 1649-1660. Theoretically as soon as one of them shuffles off this mortal coil another one of them instantly gets the big chair.
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 40 minutes ago
You are vastly understating it if you think it won't even get 500million viewers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm genuinely curious about this. A figure of four billion TV viewers is being widely repeated today. That's over half the population of the world. This would imply that billions of people got up very early or went to bed very late, and that the majority of the Western world interrupted their work / schooling (it wasn't a bank holiday outside of the UK), just to watch the UK say farewell to its head of state. I was at an international conference last week. Had dozens and dozens of conversations with people from all over the world - Europe, North America, a scattering from South America, Israel, Singapore and Australia. No one brought up the death of the Queen, except for a Welsh lady who mentioned she had passed through London and decided to take a look at the crowds in front of Buckingham Palace out of curiosity.
I don't deny it's a very big story globally, but I don't buy the idea that four billion people tuned in to watch. Maybe it was broadcast live in countries and territories totalling four billion population. Maybe an estimated four billion people saw some content about the funeral in their feeds / on their news headlines.
Five hundred million seems a bit more credible to me - and is still a massive number watching a live event.
Agree about the 4 billion figure but if 2.5 billion watched Diana than I struggle to think only 500 million would watch this one.
Curiosity at a state funeral if nothing else.
The population of The Commonwealth is about 2.5 billion. Maybe somone just thought they'll all be watching and added in Europe and the US as she seems quite popular there as well. I think RR's estimate of 500 million is high, but probably more likely.
Who was it that said 6bn people watched it?
Wasn't Diana's on a weekend, the Queen's was on a monday when most people work.
How do you even work it out, how long have you have to have watched it to count? I turned on my TV and it was on and I quickly turned over, am I the same as some one who 'only' watched 1 or 2 hours or the whole thing?
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Who was it that said 6bn people watched it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe it was compulsory to watch it in China because Wang Qishan was there
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 53 minutes ago
Her powers were not the determining factor for deciding the importance of her reign, death and funeral.
You’re conflating two issues I think here.
It’s not powerless figurehead vs foundation stone of British government
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I think the extent of her symbolic power and what ends it was used to support are fairly important in assessing the Queen's place in history. In my view, there is a benign and valuable side to this: acting as a unifying embodiment of the nation (aloof from politics) at times of national significance (and tragedy).
It's also my view that the monarchy symbolises and amplifies the feudal, imperial and deferential dimensions of the national image, and that this has a malign influence on our political culture and our ability both to address profound problems in the UK and look with clarity at our place in the world.
I don't think Elizabeth II was personally at fault for the above, and I think she generally fulfilled her constitutional responsibilities in a sensitive and diligent manner. But I'd rather have an elected ceremonial president (as Germany and Israel have, among other countries) to play the role of benign conscience of the nation, who doesn't carry all this historical baggage. And I don't think it's inappropriate or disrespectful to talk about that at the time a new head of state is appointed by accident of birth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you sum it up here much better than previously.
I don't agree with the historical baggage point, however. She is not to blame for the negatives of the empire or colonialism. She didn't enact the policies, nor was she able to stop most of them.
I do not hold people to account for the actions of their forbearers.
I think he’s talking about the Monarchy as an institution having that historical baggage.
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - No laughing matter (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - No laughing matter (U1282)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 22 minutes ago
It would be nice to separate assessment of the Queen's legacy from political questions, but you can only do so by taking very political assumptions as a starting point.
Is the monarch as a powerless figurehead or a foundation stone of the British state and system of government? If the latter, then it isn't irrelevant to talk about the abuses of empire that took place under her reign (to take one example, the brutal repression of the Mau-Mau rebellion in Kenya). If the latter, then it's legitimate to talk about how the presence and cultural influence of the monarchy acts as a barrier to deeply needed constitutional reform to complete the UK's transition from feudal to democratic society.
The more you argue that it's the former, the less claim you have that her passing is a national event of such gravity and significance that we should suspend all discussion of how to solve the cost of living crisis, the disastrous under-staffing of the NHS, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She was in Kenya when she became Queen. There was competition among her officers who could inflict the most pain and suffering on natives. Only the most brutal received military accolades.
Until now, Diana's funeral is the most watched televised events in history, not just in UK but around the world. It is estimated that as many as 2.5 billion people around the world tuned in to watch the funeral of the Princess of Wales on 6 September 1997.
The Queen will do well to get a fifth of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you smoking today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Marijuana from Kenya actually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Explains a lot
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 10 minutes ago
I think he’s talking about the Monarchy as an institution having that historical baggage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't matter - I don't compare the modern day monarchy with that of the medieval times.
Much like I don't compare what our political leaders do compared to 100 years ago.
Heck - we struggle to fairly compare football players from the 1960s with today.
Things change over time. Not once have I looked at the Queen or thought about Queen Elizabeth and thought to myself about anything that previous monarchs did. I think it's ridiculous to do so.
That’s all well and good, but RR is talking about what the Monarchy symbolises. Everyone looks at it through the prism of history, whether it’s right to do so or not. And it comes with baggage as a result.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 11 seconds ago
That’s all well and good, but RR is talking about what the Monarchy symbolises. Everyone looks at it through the prism of history, whether it’s right to do so or not. And it comes with baggage as a result.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And it comes with positivity also, not that you would particularly gleam that from his assertions, or yours.
Hence why the majority of the country are in favour of having a monarchy.
The negative baggage that you are referring to is from the angry minority with an ever louder voice. Similar to many social topics in recent years.
Depends on how much you value those positive aspects. One of the main arguments, which I do actually get, is the history and tradition, and how that’s tied up in our national story. But people have become more uncomfortable with these nationalists stories, particularly where the Empire is concerned, so it’s understandable that people don’t particularly value that argument.
What previous monarchs did impacts us today. For example we have yet another non-Welsh Prince of Wales allocated to us.
Some people can't seem to distinguish between stating the Queen was probably a nice lady and a decent head of state with the ridiculous notion of monarchy itself.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 36 minutes ago
Who was it that said 6bn people watched it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Likely the same crackpots that inflated figures during previous royal events.
The following article maybe provides some insight:
https://newmatilda.com/2011/05/13/right-royal-overcalculation/
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - No laughing matter (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 22 minutes ago
It would be nice to separate assessment of the Queen's legacy from political questions, but you can only do so by taking very political assumptions as a starting point.
Is the monarch as a powerless figurehead or a foundation stone of the British state and system of government? If the latter, then it isn't irrelevant to talk about the abuses of empire that took place under her reign (to take one example, the brutal repression of the Mau-Mau rebellion in Kenya). If the latter, then it's legitimate to talk about how the presence and cultural influence of the monarchy acts as a barrier to deeply needed constitutional reform to complete the UK's transition from feudal to democratic society.
The more you argue that it's the former, the less claim you have that her passing is a national event of such gravity and significance that we should suspend all discussion of how to solve the cost of living crisis, the disastrous under-staffing of the NHS, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She was in Kenya when she became Queen. There was competition among her officers who could inflict the most pain and suffering on natives. Only the most brutal received military accolades.
Until now, Diana's funeral is the most watched televised events in history, not just in UK but around the world. It is estimated that as many as 2.5 billion people around the world tuned in to watch the funeral of the Princess of Wales on 6 September 1997.
The Queen will do well to get a fifth of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2.5 billion out of 5.8 billion in 1997
Some joker you are..
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 36 minutes ago
Who was it that said 6bn people watched it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Likely the same crackpots that inflated figures during previous royal events.
The following article maybe provides some insight:
https://newmatilda.com/2011/05/13/right-royal-overcalculation/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And this one:
https://www.sportingintelligence.com/2011/05/08/revealed-royal-wedding%e2%80%99s-real-tv-audience-closer-to-300m-than-2bn-because-sport-not-royalty-reigns-080501/
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 7 minutes ago
What previous monarchs did impacts us today. For example we have yet another non-Welsh Prince of Wales allocated to us.
Some people can't seem to distinguish between stating the Queen was probably a nice lady and a decent head of state with the ridiculous notion of monarchy itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well put.
Sign in if you want to comment
The Queens funeral today
Page 11 of 20
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
posted on 20/9/22
Surely the interregnum is the most appropriate time to comment on this?
———
I appreciated this choice or words.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 37 minutes ago
By the way, MU52, if you're still following this thread, I hope you don't feel sore about the differences in perspective. I know that a lot of people who view the royal funeral differently have a great deal of respect and affection for you, which hasn't changed over the last fortnight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The effigy I erected of mu52 that's currently ablaze in the courtyard would beg to differ, RR.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - No laughing matter (U1282)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 22 minutes ago
It would be nice to separate assessment of the Queen's legacy from political questions, but you can only do so by taking very political assumptions as a starting point.
Is the monarch as a powerless figurehead or a foundation stone of the British state and system of government? If the latter, then it isn't irrelevant to talk about the abuses of empire that took place under her reign (to take one example, the brutal repression of the Mau-Mau rebellion in Kenya). If the latter, then it's legitimate to talk about how the presence and cultural influence of the monarchy acts as a barrier to deeply needed constitutional reform to complete the UK's transition from feudal to democratic society.
The more you argue that it's the former, the less claim you have that her passing is a national event of such gravity and significance that we should suspend all discussion of how to solve the cost of living crisis, the disastrous under-staffing of the NHS, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She was in Kenya when she became Queen. There was competition among her officers who could inflict the most pain and suffering on natives. Only the most brutal received military accolades.
Until now, Diana's funeral is the most watched televised events in history, not just in UK but around the world. It is estimated that as many as 2.5 billion people around the world tuned in to watch the funeral of the Princess of Wales on 6 September 1997.
The Queen will do well to get a fifth of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you smoking today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Marijuana from Kenya actually.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 25 minutes ago
You are vastly understating it if you think it won't even get 500million viewers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, how about a quarter? Even a third perhaps? Makes no difference.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
By the way, MU52, if you're still following this thread, I hope you don't feel sore about the differences in perspective. I know that a lot of people who view the royal funeral differently have a great deal of respect and affection for you, which hasn't changed over the last fortnight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I second this. I don't want to fall out with MU52 over this either.
posted on 20/9/22
Her powers were not the determining factor for deciding the importance of her reign, death and funeral.
You’re conflating two issues I think here.
It’s not powerless figurehead vs foundation stone of British government
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I think the extent of her symbolic power and what ends it was used to support are fairly important in assessing the Queen's place in history. In my view, there is a benign and valuable side to this: acting as a unifying embodiment of the nation (aloof from politics) at times of national significance (and tragedy).
It's also my view that the monarchy symbolises and amplifies the feudal, imperial and deferential dimensions of the national image, and that this has a malign influence on our political culture and our ability both to address profound problems in the UK and look with clarity at our place in the world.
I don't think Elizabeth II was personally at fault for the above, and I think she generally fulfilled her constitutional responsibilities in a sensitive and diligent manner. But I'd rather have an elected ceremonial president (as Germany and Israel have, among other countries) to play the role of benign conscience of the nation, who doesn't carry all this historical baggage. And I don't think it's inappropriate or disrespectful to talk about that at the time a new head of state is appointed by accident of birth.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 23 minutes ago
Surely the interregnum is the most appropriate time to comment on this?
———
I appreciated this choice or words.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The last interregnum was 1649-1660. Theoretically as soon as one of them shuffles off this mortal coil another one of them instantly gets the big chair.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 40 minutes ago
You are vastly understating it if you think it won't even get 500million viewers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm genuinely curious about this. A figure of four billion TV viewers is being widely repeated today. That's over half the population of the world. This would imply that billions of people got up very early or went to bed very late, and that the majority of the Western world interrupted their work / schooling (it wasn't a bank holiday outside of the UK), just to watch the UK say farewell to its head of state. I was at an international conference last week. Had dozens and dozens of conversations with people from all over the world - Europe, North America, a scattering from South America, Israel, Singapore and Australia. No one brought up the death of the Queen, except for a Welsh lady who mentioned she had passed through London and decided to take a look at the crowds in front of Buckingham Palace out of curiosity.
I don't deny it's a very big story globally, but I don't buy the idea that four billion people tuned in to watch. Maybe it was broadcast live in countries and territories totalling four billion population. Maybe an estimated four billion people saw some content about the funeral in their feeds / on their news headlines.
Five hundred million seems a bit more credible to me - and is still a massive number watching a live event.
posted on 20/9/22
Agree about the 4 billion figure but if 2.5 billion watched Diana than I struggle to think only 500 million would watch this one.
Curiosity at a state funeral if nothing else.
posted on 20/9/22
The population of The Commonwealth is about 2.5 billion. Maybe somone just thought they'll all be watching and added in Europe and the US as she seems quite popular there as well. I think RR's estimate of 500 million is high, but probably more likely.
posted on 20/9/22
Who was it that said 6bn people watched it?
posted on 20/9/22
Wasn't Diana's on a weekend, the Queen's was on a monday when most people work.
How do you even work it out, how long have you have to have watched it to count? I turned on my TV and it was on and I quickly turned over, am I the same as some one who 'only' watched 1 or 2 hours or the whole thing?
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Who was it that said 6bn people watched it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe it was compulsory to watch it in China because Wang Qishan was there
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 53 minutes ago
Her powers were not the determining factor for deciding the importance of her reign, death and funeral.
You’re conflating two issues I think here.
It’s not powerless figurehead vs foundation stone of British government
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I think the extent of her symbolic power and what ends it was used to support are fairly important in assessing the Queen's place in history. In my view, there is a benign and valuable side to this: acting as a unifying embodiment of the nation (aloof from politics) at times of national significance (and tragedy).
It's also my view that the monarchy symbolises and amplifies the feudal, imperial and deferential dimensions of the national image, and that this has a malign influence on our political culture and our ability both to address profound problems in the UK and look with clarity at our place in the world.
I don't think Elizabeth II was personally at fault for the above, and I think she generally fulfilled her constitutional responsibilities in a sensitive and diligent manner. But I'd rather have an elected ceremonial president (as Germany and Israel have, among other countries) to play the role of benign conscience of the nation, who doesn't carry all this historical baggage. And I don't think it's inappropriate or disrespectful to talk about that at the time a new head of state is appointed by accident of birth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you sum it up here much better than previously.
I don't agree with the historical baggage point, however. She is not to blame for the negatives of the empire or colonialism. She didn't enact the policies, nor was she able to stop most of them.
I do not hold people to account for the actions of their forbearers.
posted on 20/9/22
I think he’s talking about the Monarchy as an institution having that historical baggage.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - No laughing matter (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - No laughing matter (U1282)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 22 minutes ago
It would be nice to separate assessment of the Queen's legacy from political questions, but you can only do so by taking very political assumptions as a starting point.
Is the monarch as a powerless figurehead or a foundation stone of the British state and system of government? If the latter, then it isn't irrelevant to talk about the abuses of empire that took place under her reign (to take one example, the brutal repression of the Mau-Mau rebellion in Kenya). If the latter, then it's legitimate to talk about how the presence and cultural influence of the monarchy acts as a barrier to deeply needed constitutional reform to complete the UK's transition from feudal to democratic society.
The more you argue that it's the former, the less claim you have that her passing is a national event of such gravity and significance that we should suspend all discussion of how to solve the cost of living crisis, the disastrous under-staffing of the NHS, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She was in Kenya when she became Queen. There was competition among her officers who could inflict the most pain and suffering on natives. Only the most brutal received military accolades.
Until now, Diana's funeral is the most watched televised events in history, not just in UK but around the world. It is estimated that as many as 2.5 billion people around the world tuned in to watch the funeral of the Princess of Wales on 6 September 1997.
The Queen will do well to get a fifth of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you smoking today?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Marijuana from Kenya actually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Explains a lot
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 10 minutes ago
I think he’s talking about the Monarchy as an institution having that historical baggage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't matter - I don't compare the modern day monarchy with that of the medieval times.
Much like I don't compare what our political leaders do compared to 100 years ago.
Heck - we struggle to fairly compare football players from the 1960s with today.
Things change over time. Not once have I looked at the Queen or thought about Queen Elizabeth and thought to myself about anything that previous monarchs did. I think it's ridiculous to do so.
posted on 20/9/22
That’s all well and good, but RR is talking about what the Monarchy symbolises. Everyone looks at it through the prism of history, whether it’s right to do so or not. And it comes with baggage as a result.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 11 seconds ago
That’s all well and good, but RR is talking about what the Monarchy symbolises. Everyone looks at it through the prism of history, whether it’s right to do so or not. And it comes with baggage as a result.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And it comes with positivity also, not that you would particularly gleam that from his assertions, or yours.
Hence why the majority of the country are in favour of having a monarchy.
The negative baggage that you are referring to is from the angry minority with an ever louder voice. Similar to many social topics in recent years.
posted on 20/9/22
Depends on how much you value those positive aspects. One of the main arguments, which I do actually get, is the history and tradition, and how that’s tied up in our national story. But people have become more uncomfortable with these nationalists stories, particularly where the Empire is concerned, so it’s understandable that people don’t particularly value that argument.
posted on 20/9/22
What previous monarchs did impacts us today. For example we have yet another non-Welsh Prince of Wales allocated to us.
Some people can't seem to distinguish between stating the Queen was probably a nice lady and a decent head of state with the ridiculous notion of monarchy itself.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 36 minutes ago
Who was it that said 6bn people watched it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Likely the same crackpots that inflated figures during previous royal events.
The following article maybe provides some insight:
https://newmatilda.com/2011/05/13/right-royal-overcalculation/
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - No laughing matter (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 22 minutes ago
It would be nice to separate assessment of the Queen's legacy from political questions, but you can only do so by taking very political assumptions as a starting point.
Is the monarch as a powerless figurehead or a foundation stone of the British state and system of government? If the latter, then it isn't irrelevant to talk about the abuses of empire that took place under her reign (to take one example, the brutal repression of the Mau-Mau rebellion in Kenya). If the latter, then it's legitimate to talk about how the presence and cultural influence of the monarchy acts as a barrier to deeply needed constitutional reform to complete the UK's transition from feudal to democratic society.
The more you argue that it's the former, the less claim you have that her passing is a national event of such gravity and significance that we should suspend all discussion of how to solve the cost of living crisis, the disastrous under-staffing of the NHS, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She was in Kenya when she became Queen. There was competition among her officers who could inflict the most pain and suffering on natives. Only the most brutal received military accolades.
Until now, Diana's funeral is the most watched televised events in history, not just in UK but around the world. It is estimated that as many as 2.5 billion people around the world tuned in to watch the funeral of the Princess of Wales on 6 September 1997.
The Queen will do well to get a fifth of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2.5 billion out of 5.8 billion in 1997
Some joker you are..
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 36 minutes ago
Who was it that said 6bn people watched it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Likely the same crackpots that inflated figures during previous royal events.
The following article maybe provides some insight:
https://newmatilda.com/2011/05/13/right-royal-overcalculation/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And this one:
https://www.sportingintelligence.com/2011/05/08/revealed-royal-wedding%e2%80%99s-real-tv-audience-closer-to-300m-than-2bn-because-sport-not-royalty-reigns-080501/
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 7 minutes ago
What previous monarchs did impacts us today. For example we have yet another non-Welsh Prince of Wales allocated to us.
Some people can't seem to distinguish between stating the Queen was probably a nice lady and a decent head of state with the ridiculous notion of monarchy itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well put.
Page 11 of 20
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16