Search the forum using the power of Google

Viewing 40 posts - 1,721 through 1,760 (of 1,835 total)
  • Thoughts with the Queen and her family.
  • ernielynch
    Free Member

    They can’t risk being unprepared if he dies before the coronation.

    masterdabber
    Free Member

    I’ve studiously tried to avoid most of the coverage up until today. I particularly couldn’t stand all the sycophantic interviews and stuff.

    This morning I had a very nice relaxed ride around Swinley (Crown Estate land near Windsor if you aren’t familiar with it).

    After getting home, turned TV on and the Long Walk procession was just starting. I ended up watching all of that and the service in St George’s chapel. I found it mightily impressive, despite my cynicism… as others have said, we can certainly do this sort of thing.

    I’ve always liked Windsor Castle although less so since they started charging. I used to occasionally have to visit the private area for work when the “Family” moved in from Buck House. I watched Montgomery’s funeral in Windsor (back in the day) … that was impressive but nothing on this scale.

    sweepy
    Free Member

    so that’s what Ken MacKenzie’s up to now. Preposterous.

    Now then, now then!

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Except for the fact that, without a constitutional monarchy, we would have President Truss.

    We dont need a head of state separate to the head of the government

    There is simpky no need for one.

    All reasons for one are made up. The USA has a president who is also the head of tbe government ie both roles one person.

    The people should be sovereign as in the us and allegence can be sworn to anything representing them

    squirrelking
    Free Member

    @tjagain I’d hardly hold the US up as a shining beacon of democracy.

    chewkw
    Free Member

    Feel a bit quiet today with the end of Queen Elizabeth II era. It is just silence.

    zippykona
    Full Member

    Don’t worry Chewk, King Charles will do a good job.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    The people should be sovereign as in the us and allegence can be sworn to anything representing them

    I’m really not sure how the people in the US being sovereign is giving them any advantage over us.

    I’ve sworn allegiance to the Queen at various points in my 53 years, and I’ve always taken it to be an oath to the country and/or people rather than to the individual person currently on the throne.

    I suspect a lot pragmatic folk who don’t overthink these things take the same view.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    The people should be sovereign as in the us and allegence can be sworn to anything representing them

    I totally agree. And I also agree that in an advanced democracy there is no obvious need for a head of state. A democratic self-governing society has no need for a single person to benevolently watch over it as a father would a child.

    However we are still a very long way from an advanced democratic society imo and priorities for me dictate that abolition of the monarchy isn’t very high up on the things to do list.

    The benefits of abolition of the monarchy would be insignificant imo and have no bearing on the lives of most people. Furthermore support for the monarchy currently remains overwhelming, better to focus on what is achievable and could actually be winnable policies for the next general election.

    EG abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement by a chamber which is fully democratic representing the Nations and Regions of the UK through proportional representation, and in which minorities have significant representation. Also bringing into democratic control vital industries and the commanding heights of the economy.

    If you really believe in a genuine shift in political and economic power that should be your aims imo. The monarchy would not and could not stand in the way of such developments, and if it did it would be making the case of abolition itself without much help.

    Talk of the abolition of the monarchy now is a pointless unachievable distraction imo.

    Edit : Sorry TJ I have just realised that when said “us” you meant “US”. I thought you meant “us the people”. The US is a pisspoor example of democracy. I really wouldn’t hold it up as something that we should emulate.

    TiRed
    Full Member

    abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement by a chamber which is fully democratic representing the Nations and Regions of the UK through proportional representation

    Steady. There is a lot of expertise in the Lords. Many of whom might not be persuaded to seek public office via an electoral system. I wouldn’t throw out the entire system. I don’t agree with hereditary peers, nor Boris’ gift peers. But… How many scientists are there in the House of Commons? How many in the Lords?

    Historic change tends to happen on historic timescales. We’ll see change.

    ctk
    Full Member

    Yeah PR should be the priority. Missed the whole lot today 👌

    jambourgie
    Free Member

    Bloody bagpipers. They always seem to encroach on such occasions where everyone is too polite or grief-stricken to tell them to **** off.

    IdleJon
    Full Member

    You can knock the monarchy, government etc but you cannot deny that we really are very good at doing these big state occasions.

    Best in the world!

    Obviously, I’ve never watched the funeral procession or coronation of a foreign monarch, but stands to reason that we do this the best!

    ctk
    Full Member

    Also agree with above post. PR in the commons and slim down the lords might be the way to go.

    IdleJon
    Full Member

    Bloody bagpipers. They always seem to encroach on such occasions where everyone is too polite or grief-stricken to tell them to **** off.

    Curiously, there was one in a park on my ride home earlier. South Wales, home of the half dressed bagpiper lurking in the bushes!

    kelvin
    Full Member

    but stands to reason that we do this the best!

    What I find odd (it may be too soon to say this) is how little has been updated since the funeral of Elizabeth’s father. Why still such a focus on the military? Is that what we are still first and foremost? A military power? Are we stuck as a country in the immediate post war period? Obviously not, but nothing that has happened in the last week would signify that we have moved on at all.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Using the USA merely as an example of why you do not need a head of government and a head of state as separate people.

    Earlier in this thread i was told a head of state was essential but no one can come up eith any convincing reason.

    Personally I see no need for a second chamber either given the proviso of a properly democratic unicameral chambet of course. Our pseudo democracy / parliament is hugely bloated with appraching 2000 members.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    How many scientists are there in the House of Commons? How many in the Lords?

    I have no idea. The make-up of the House of Lords is considerably less important than the make-up of the House of Commons because the Lords has very limited power in comparison to the Commons. You could have a Lord representing stamp collectors for all the difference it would make.

    Scientists can advise governments but it is not for them to make decisions which need to be made by governments.

    IMO a second chamber is needed to scrutinise legislation from the first chamber and effectively challenge anything which is seriously detrimental to nations, regions, and minorities. It needs to have some teeth however otherwise it becomes a completely pointless exercise.

    zippykona
    Full Member

    You can ditch the marching bands , give me a lone piper any day.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    Scientists can advise governments but it is not for them to make decisions which need to be made by governments.

    Why can’t scientists be in government? They have been before. Why is that not the case now? Why so few MPs with a scientific background?

    [ this all feels like an interesting topic for a separate thread to me ]

    Northwind
    Full Member

    Because we’ve made “politician” into a career path and skillset and it doesn’t match up well with “scientist”, mostly. I know a bunch of scientists and engineers that dabble in politics, but only a couple would have the slightest chance as an MP/MSP and all but one of those wouldn’t want the job. And the one who would, and does, is an absolute ringpiece.

    mashr
    Full Member

    jambourgie
    Free Member
    Bloody bagpipers. They always seem to encroach on such occasions where everyone is too polite or grief-stricken to tell them to **** off

    Did you get upset by the Queens personal bagpiper?

    Why still such a focus on the military?

    Because the military has inextricable links to the crown that predate her father.

    For example, the Grenadier Guards who have been at the forefront of the recent events draw their lineage back to a group of soldiers who stayed loyal to the crown and were formed to protect the exiled Charles II.

    As such they don’t have to stand or even deliver the loyal toast if they choose, as their loyalty to the crown is deemed unquestionable.

    There are so many things that link the military and the crown throughout history. And both the crown and military are custodians of those traditions. Even if we had a purely ceremonial monarch, many of those would still exist.

    jambourgie
    Free Member

    give me a lone piper any day

    🤣

    kelvin
    Full Member

    I’m still surprised that nothing* (correct me if I’m wrong) has been changed after 70 years. I’m not suggesting no military contingent at all (I’ve spoken already about by own father’s military role in a past funeral procession), just that seemingly nothing has been changed. As if the UK is preserved in aspic. What about other public servants? This felt an entirely suitable send off for a monarch in the period immediately after the Second World War. It didn’t feel (to me) as it has anything has moved on in all that time. The full on military focus feels like an anachronism.

    [ * thought of an example, Anne would probably not have had the role she had this week if it was the 1950s ]

    seadog101
    Full Member

    Is it safe to turn on the telly or radio yet?

    TiRed
    Full Member

    You could have a Lord representing stamp collectors for all the difference it would make.

    Or one who specialises in reproduction ethics. The second chamber is to scrutinise. The expertise in the second chamber does that. One of these has a Nobel prize, for example https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/193/science-and-technology-committee-lords/membership/

    There are, however a lot of hangers on.

    BTW Therese Coffey has a PhD from UCL in Chemistry, before she went into company finance and then politics.

    bigdaddy
    Full Member

    Bloody bagpipers. They always seem to encroach on such occasions where everyone is too polite or grief-stricken to tell them to **** off.

    This is the best I’ve heard this put! The bagpipes are the most god awful noise! Wouldn’t be quite so bad without that noise from the bag sounding like the last continuous breath of a dying cat. The bugles and trumpeters however were outstanding!

    halifaxpete
    Full Member

    Avoided most of it between DIY and bike faffage. Echo what others have said though, great send off regardless wether your a royalist or not, The lone bagpiper walking down the corridor was very poignant.

    rogermoore
    Full Member

    Emley Moor Mast is lit up purple.
    (Not a euphemism)
    RM.

    whatgoesup
    Full Member

    Riding this morning, got home mid afternoon. But caught up on it this afternoon. As a country we do put on a good show, and I believe that is a significant part of our national identity on the international stage, so am quite willing to accept the last weeks worth of goings on as the equivalent of the “back stage view” of the show that the rear of the world are seeing. Can only be good for the UK. What comes in the future with Charles and then William I don’t know – I fear that we will see the “decline of the brand” but fingers crossed.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    BTW Therese Coffey has a PhD from UCL in Chemistry, before she went into company finance and then politics.

    She’s gonna make a great Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Health 😉

    Liam Fox is another great example!

    There is no reason why scientists shouldn’t have an input. However imo it is not relevant to whether we should keep some arcane undemocratic relic from the pre-industrial revolution feudal days, whose members we call “lords” and “baroness” ffs, and which most other advanced countries seem to have managed to move on from.

    dpfr
    Full Member

    There is a lot more science & technology horsepower in the Lords than in the Commons. The current Commons S&T Committee has one chemist, one biologist and one physicist among its ten members. I’ve dealt with both, and they are quite different. Don’t assume though, because the Commons committee has fewer scientists and engineers in its membership, that it is not a seriously challenging experience.

    blokeuptheroad
    Full Member

    This felt an entirely suitable send off for a monarch in the period immediately after the Second World War. It didn’t feel (to me) as it has anything has moved on in all that time. The full on military focus feels like an anachronism.

    I don’t understand the idea that the military is/was only associated with WW2?  There have only been a handful of years since WW2 where there haven’t been British military operational deaths somewhere – Over 7000 in total.  The Queen, her three sons and two Grandsons have all served in some capacity, including during two post WW2 armed conflicts.  Her recently deceased husband was a decorated wartime naval officer. Many of the Royals, including Anne are honorary colonels in chief of corps and regiments, many of which have ‘Royal’ in their name. All british military personnel swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch who is the commander in chief.  The royals are so inextricably linked with the military it would be very odd if they weren’t a large part of the funeral would it not?  Nothing to do with WW2 IMO.

    FB-ATB
    Full Member

    As a country we do put on a good show, and I believe that is a significant part of our national identity on the international stage…… Can only be good for the UK.

    So we’ll be able to trade deals based on loads of military marching in time?

    I hear Russia & North Korea do impressive parades- and that’s every year.

    squirrelking
    Free Member

    Why are there always the obligatory ignorant prats that like to shit on bagpipes? What’s up, not enough bells and hankies?

    stgeorge
    Full Member

    Why still such a focus on the military?

    I suppose the massed ranks and bands of supermarket workers, warehouse staff (of which I am one), and various sports cheerleaders would have put on an equivalent show/tribute had they been asked last Thursday.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    The military stuff was about displays of power. Now its just more bread and circuses

    Klunk
    Free Member

    like to shit on bagpipes?

    I blame Paul McCartney

    Klunk
    Free Member

    just circuses these days.

Viewing 40 posts - 1,721 through 1,760 (of 1,835 total)

The topic ‘Thoughts with the Queen and her family.’ is closed to new replies.

Search the forum using the power of Google

Thanks for popping by - why not stay a while?IT'S FREE

Sign up as a Singletrack Member and you can leave comments on stories, use the classified ads, and post in our forums, do quizzes and more.

Join us, join in, it’s free, and fun.