The Queen is dead.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just switched on the telly (out of curiosity to get an update on what's happening with late queenie) and the BBC were interviewing a woman that had stayed out all night to get a front row view of the coffin's journey to Westminster hall. She was absolutely soaked, hair dripping and looking exhausted. Don't ask me .... guess it's the price you pay for devotion. 

There will always be people who are prepared to go to what others might consider extreme lengths in order to see something, get tickets for something etc etc. If they wish to, that's fine with me.

What does concern me is the level of bias in the reporting, particularly from the BBC. Those few (and proportionately they are few) who will queue to see the lying in state, or those turning up for a glimpse of the coffin go past, or perhaps to see Charles at a walk-about etc aren't representative of the vast majority of the country, who although they may be saddened by the Queen's death and feel there is the end of an era, won't go to such extreme lengths. But if you'd accept the BBC editorial line you'd consider this to be the norm rather than the exception.

But it goes further - of course the BBC feels the need to then interview these people to get their views - well guess what, interview ardent monarchists (i.e. those likely to drop everything to walk past a coffin or get a glimpse of the new King) and they will tell you how great the monarchy is - that the Queen was beyond reproach and that Charles will be great. But these views aren't representative nation-wide, merely representative of people who go are prepared to do anything to turn up at a royal event. It is a bit like only interviewing tory members as Truss became PM - you are hardly likely to get a balanced view.

What it creates is a distorted narrative that everyone is planning to turn out to these events and that everyone thinks unflinchingly that the monarchy is great. That isn't the case.

I'd argue that a more typical person in the UK is:

1. Saddened by the death of the Queen, but recognises that it wasn't unexpected and inevitable
2. Feels a sense of loss as the Queen has been there their whole lives and regardless of broader views about the monarchy feel the Queen personally did a really good job
3. Feels a greater need than normally to be around friends, family and their broader community which feels safe, comfortable and stable
4. Does not plan to go to the lying in state/watch royals go past at the side of the road/go to London for the funeral
5. Will probably watch all or some of the funeral on the tv
6. Supports the monarchy, hopes Charles will be a good monarch but isn't yet convinced and is a little worried in that regard
7. Feels the wall to wall coverage is a bit over the top and has spent much of the last few days trying to avoid the endless repetition on the tv
8. Somewhat hypocritically doesn't really object to events etc to be cancelled as long as they affect others, but would be unhappy if that affected them personally. Actually feels it better to incorporate appropriate elements to recognise and respect the Queen during those events.

[Nearly Sane]

To add to Prof Davey's point, there has been a strong subtext, and often just text, from BBC Scotland that the crowds that turned out in Edinburgh and along the routes have been indicative of support for unionism.

There were a couple of suggestions about splitting out the political posts on this thread to a different thread but the problem is the subject is inherently political. You can't really discuss the accession of a new monarch and avoid it.

[Anchorman]

Maybe some of those queuing have 'The king's ill' - scrofula - and hope Chairlie's alternative medicine might just work....
Just saying.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'd argue that a more typical person in the UK is:

1. Saddened by the death of the Queen, but recognises that it wasn't unexpected and inevitable
2. Feels a sense of loss as the Queen has been there their whole lives and regardless of broader views about the monarchy feel the Queen personally did a really good job
3. Feels a greater need than normally to be around friends, family and their broader community which feels safe, comfortable and stable
4. Does not plan to go to the lying in state/watch royals go past at the side of the road/go to London for the funeral
5. Will probably watch all or some of the funeral on the tv
6. Supports the monarchy, hopes Charles will be a good monarch but isn't yet convinced and is a little worried in that regard
7. Feels the wall to wall coverage is a bit over the top and has spent much of the last few days trying to avoid the endless repetition on the tv
8. Somewhat hypocritically doesn't really object to events etc to be cancelled as long as they affect others, but would be unhappy if that affected them personally. Actually feels it better to incorporate appropriate elements to recognise and respect the Queen during those events.

And possibly most importantly looking forward to everything getting back to some semblance of normality in a week or so.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to use Prof D's list as a personal checklist:


1. Saddened by the death of the Queen, but recognises that it wasn't unexpected and inevitable

Yes - saddened probably too strong a term. Understanding that it is sad for others.

2. Feels a sense of loss as the Queen has been there their whole lives and regardless of broader views about the monarchy feel the Queen personally did a really good job

No
3. Feels a greater need than normally to be around friends, family and their broader community which feels safe, comfortable and stable

No

4. Does not plan to go to the lying in state/watch royals go past at the side of the road/go to London for the funeral

Yes
5. Will probably watch all or some of the funeral on the tv

No
6. Supports the monarchy, hopes Charles will be a good monarch but isn't yet convinced and is a little worried in that regard

No

7. Feels the wall to wall coverage is a bit over the top and has spent much of the last few days trying to avoid the endless repetition on the tv

Yes
8. Somewhat hypocritically doesn't really object to events etc to be cancelled as long as they affect others, but would be unhappy if that affected them personally

No

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe some of those queuing have 'The king's ill' - scrofula - and hope Chairlie's alternative medicine might just work....
Just saying.

There are certain hints of this. The royal family seem like some form of sin eaters, or harvest royalty, for some people.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just to use Prof D's list as a personal checklist:
8. Somewhat hypocritically doesn't really object to events etc to be cancelled as long as they affect others, but would be unhappy if that affected them personally

No

Wasn't really adding this as a checklist, but would be interesting to see what other poster responses are.

NS - on this one, is it a 'No' because you don't want things cancelled, or because you'd not be unhappy is you were personally affected by cancelled events. I suspect I know the answer, but it would be helpful to clarify. I guess my statement doesn't have a simple yes/no answer as it is in two parts.

[ProfessorDavey]

To answer my own points

1. Saddened by the death of the Queen, but recognises that it wasn't unexpected and inevitable
Yes, but it is difficult to be overly saddened by the death of someone who lived to 96 and seemed in pretty good health nearly to the end

2. Feels a sense of loss as the Queen has been there their whole lives and regardless of broader views about the monarchy feel the Queen personally did a really good job
Yes - it feels like the end of an era and something constant in my life has gone. Probably did a good job but hard to tell really as no comparisons and there isn't really any proper scrutiny

3. Feels a greater need than normally to be around friends, family and their broader community which feels safe, comfortable and stable
Actually yes - although it was pretty evident last Thursday afternoon that she was dead or dying, I heard the official news while at a school Trustees meeting and later in the evening went to a choir rehearsal (neither were cancelled). Somehow it seemed right to be coming together with people I knew at that time, even though there was no mention at the latter and brief mention at the former, partly because we were all finding out in 'live time' by text/social media etc, but also as it has impacts on the school.

4. Does not plan to go to the lying in state/watch royals go past at the side of the road/go to London for the funeral
Kind of - no plans to go to see lying in state etc, but did walk past Buckingham palace on my way back from the cricket on Sunday, largely out of curiosity rather than any general sense of needing to. The atmosphere was weird.

5. Will probably watch all or some of the funeral on the tv
Kind of - will probably see bits of it, but have no desire to sit down and watch it in full

6. Supports the monarchy, hopes Charles will be a good monarch but isn't yet convinced and is a little worried in that regard
No - I don't support the monarchy

7. Feels the wall to wall coverage is a bit over the top and has spent much of the last few days trying to avoid the endless repetition on the tv
Yes - too much coverage, too little actual news, and if you have so much coverage as part of news then you need more balance.

8. Somewhat hypocritically doesn't really object to events etc to be cancelled as long as they affect others, but would be unhappy if that affected them personally. Actually feels it better to incorporate appropriate elements to recognise and respect the Queen during those events.
No - I don't think events should be cancelled, and not just for things I planned to do. Seems to me that most events can be tweaked a little to make them more appropriate and preventing people from coming together at events at this time seems wrong. The only exception to my mind is actually on Monday morning during the funeral itself.

[Nearly Sane]

Wasn't really adding this as a checklist, but would be interesting to see what other poster responses are.

NS - on this one, is it a 'No' because you don't want things cancelled, or because you'd not be unhappy is you were personally affected by cancelled events. I suspect I know the answer, but it would be helpful to clarify. I guess my statement doesn't have a simple yes/no answer as it is in two parts.

Actually it's a bit of both. I think cancelling some events is just odd, and I am going to an event on Saturday that I did think might be cancelled, it isn't, but I wouldn't be that bothered.


ETA: I had been going to attend an event tomorrow. A protest in front of the Scottish Parliament in support of women's sex based spaces. Given the shut down of the parliament for the week, it meant the protest was obviously pointless. Seemed all reasonable to me.

[ProfessorDavey]

Actually it's a bit of both. I think cancelling some events is just odd, and I am going to an event on Saturday that I did think might be cancelled, it isn't, but I wouldn't be that bothered.

I guess it will depend on the nature of the event. I would have been really hacked off had the cricket been cancelled on Sunday - would have been totally unnecessary and the event was a little different because of the Queen's death, which seems right, but people could come together.

The cancellation that really seemed odd to me was the Proms - surely if there is anything that is a celebration of Britishness etc etc it is the last night of the Proms. Now I know usually it is a bit jingoistic flag-waving, but it would have seemed really straight forward to something a little more respectful and sombre. They did this after 9/11. So had it gone ahead I think it would have been different but probably incredibly special and appropriate. But nope, had to be cancelled, and in this regard I think the BBC has a lot to blame.

ETA: I had been going to attend an event tomorrow. A protest in front of the Scottish Parliament in support of women's sex based spaces. Given the shut down of the parliament for the week, it meant the protest was obviously pointless. Seemed all reasonable to me.

Well I guess that's a bit different isn't it - this isn't a cancellation as a direct result of the Queen's death, but because it would be pointless if the people you wanted to protest against aren't there.\

Would you have thought it correct to cancel the event if Parliament had decided to sit and were discussing this issue?

[Nearly Sane]

I guess it will depend on the nature of the event. I would have been really hacked off had the cricket been cancelled on Sunday - would have been totally unnecessary and the event was a little different because of the Queen's death, which seems right, but people could come together.

The cancellation that really seemed odd to me was the Proms - surely if there is anything that is a celebration of Britishness etc etc it is the last night of the Proms. Now I know usually it is a bit jingoistic flag-waving, but it would have seemed really straight forward to something a little more respectful and sombre. They did this after 9/11. So had it gone ahead I think it would have been different but probably incredibly special and appropriate. But nope, had to be cancelled, and in this regard I think the BBC has a lot to blame.
Well I guess that's a bit different isn't it - this isn't a cancellation as a direct result of the Queen's death, but because it would be pointless if the people you wanted to protest against aren't there.\

Would you have thought it correct to cancel the event if Parliament had decided to sit and were discussing this issue?

In what way is a cancellation because the people you mean to protest to not being there because of the Queen's death not a direct result of the Queen's death?

[ProfessorDavey]

In what way is a cancellation because the people you mean to protest to not being there because of the Queen's death not a direct result of the Queen's death?

I'd argue that it is indirectly the result of the Queen's death.

The direct reason is that the Scottish Parliament aren't sitting. Why they aren't sitting is because the Queen had died, hence indirect.

If the parliament had chosen to sit this week and debate the issue that you were protesting, the organisers of the protest may have decided to go ahead with the protest. Possibly they'd have thought that even if the parliament had been sitting that a protest would not have sat well with public perception and would have been counterproductive in changing opinion. In that case cancellation would have been a more directly the result of the Queen's death rather than primarily due to the pointlessness as parliament not sitting.

Semantics really.

[Gordon]

My take on Prof D's list.

1. Saddened by the death of the Queen, but recognises that it wasn't unexpected and inevitable.

No more so than on hearing of the death of anyone, but at 96 and in declining health it really isn't a tragedy.

2. Feels a sense of loss as the Queen has been there their whole lives and regardless of broader views about the monarchy feel the Queen personally did a really good job

Nope - I'm indifferent to a role I think to be superfluous so I feel no personal loss.

3. Feels a greater need than normally to be around friends, family and their broader community which feels safe, comfortable and stable

Nope - in personal terms her demise means nothing to me so in no sense do I feel insecure because she has died.

4. Does not plan to go to the lying in state/watch royals go past at the side of the road/go to London for the funeral

If wouldn't go if these things were happening at the end of the road I live in - no idea why people would bother.

5. Will probably watch all or some of the funeral on the tv

Will avoid all coverage of this like the plague.

6. Supports the monarchy, hopes Charles will be a good monarch but isn't yet convinced and is a little worried in that regard

Nope - I want to see the monarchy dispensed with.

7. Feels the wall to wall coverage is a bit over the top and has spent much of the last few days trying to avoid the endless repetition on the tv

The coverage is beyond OTT. I've even stopped watching BBC news since it seems that for now nothing else matters.

8. Somewhat hypocritically doesn't really object to events etc to be cancelled as long as they affect others, but would be unhappy if that affected them personally

I really can't see the need for stuff to be cancelled at all - seems like a hysterical over-reaction to me, and in some cases little more that virtue signalling (such as in cancelling weather forecasts 'out of respect').

[Udayana]

My take on Prof D's list.
...
7. Feels the wall to wall coverage is a bit over the top and has spent much of the last few days trying to avoid the endless repetition on the tv

The coverage is beyond OTT. I've even stopped watching BBC news since it seems that for now nothing else matters.
...

Same here. But the media/news, especially the BBC, is supposed to be balanced. Clearly it is no way "balanced", just pandering to the monarchy obsessed.

- Let alone all the non-authorities issuing edicts about what should be cancelled or not - all based on their personal whim.

[ProfessorDavey]

Same here. But the media/news, especially the BBC, is supposed to be balanced. Clearly it is no way "balanced", just pandering to the monarchy obsessed.

I think part of the issue here is that the BBC feels itself to be part of the 'holy quadrangle' of establishment - along with the royals, parliament/government and the church of england.

So rather than be a dispassionate observer of the events (which is what a news broadcaster should be) it sees itself as intimately part of the process - each of the parts play their role, but they are all part of the process. And you cannot be both part of the process and a dispassionate observer.

[SqueakyVoice]

On face value looks appealing since the speaker is a traditional figure BUT Do they hold too much power?

No. They'd sign the bills for every act (or act for bills? I forget which is which.  )

and how and when do they get out and about?

There is (currently) a deputy. So if the visitors or ceremony was more important, they'd go there and let the Deputy of the HoCs deal with the speeches, questions and voting. (Much the same as the royalty.)
MPs have a lot of holidays (apart from those who do work for their consistuents while the HoCs is closed). So there might be plenty of time to arrange tours and ceremonies.

[Steve H]

Security will be a nightmare on Monday, I should think: every terrorist knobjob in the world will be heading for London!

[Nearly Sane]

Security will be a nightmare on Monday, I should think: every terrorist knobjob in the world will be heading for London!

I'd agree with the first part but I suspect this would be something the vast majority of terrorists would avoid because of the security, and the optics of attacking a funeral.

[Gordon]

Another article that highlights why the monarchy needs to be binned.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/15/king-charles-billionaire-inheritance-tax-heating-eating

[ProfessorDavey]

Security will be a nightmare on Monday, I should think: every terrorist knobjob in the world will be heading for London!

I think NS may be right that terrorists may think better of attacking a funeral.

But there is another aspect - I think to plan a major terrorist attack takes months - given that we didn't know until a week ago that there was going to be a funeral that would make it much harder to plan for than an event, whose date, location, overall organisation etc are known months or even years ahead.

[Nearly Sane]

I think NS may be right that terrorists may think better of attacking a funeral.

But there is another aspect - I think to plan a major terrorist attack takes months - given that we didn't know until a week ago that there was going to be a funeral that would make it much harder to plan for than an event, whose date, location, overall organisation etc are known months or even years ahead.

Good point. I think that what the security forces will be more concerned about is random nutters. Given it's thought that this may be the biggest ever broadcast audience, there may well be some who think its their chance to become 'someone'.

Apart from it being the funeral, the heightened tension is why I hope there are not any protests on the day. I can see mistakes being made if so.

[ProfessorDavey]

Good point. I think that what the security forces will be more concerned about is random nutters. Given it's thought that this may be the biggest ever broadcast audience, there may well be some who think its their chance to become 'someone'.

Indeed - much harder to counter a random nutter.

Apart from it being the funeral, the heightened tension is why I hope there are not any protests on the day. I can see mistakes being made if so.

That's right and it may well not be linked to protests. Apparently there have been a number of altercations, currently not getting beyond verbal, between people taking photos videos etc as the coffin came past and those that think it to be inappropriate and are frustrated that they cannot see anything because there is a first of phones held aloft in front of them.

Personally I think this is a legitimate complaint - if you've come to watch, then watch and don't prevent others from doing the same. As I walked past Buckingham Palace I was struck by the number of people posing for selfies, smiling and striking a pose like you might as a tourist in front of Buckingham Palace in normal times. I didn't think that was appropriate and clearly I wasn't the only one as the looks of others confirmed. Nothing was said, but the tension was clear - easy for this to have turned nasty.

[ProfessorDavey]

Apart from it being the funeral, the heightened tension is why I hope there are not any protests on the day.

I don't think there should be protests on the day - this is a funeral for crying out loud.

And over recent days I think there has been (or should be) a distinction between events that are linked to the death/funeral and those linked to the proclamation of the new King. I don't think protesting at the former is appropriate, even if there probably isn't a law that should outlaw it. Protesting, peacefully, at the latter seems perfectly reasonable to me - as a republican if you cannot protest the proclamation of a new monarch, when can you. As far as I'm aware the republican protests (those that have received news coverage, arrests etc) have all been at the latter type events. The one in Edinburgh seems to be a direct protest against Prince Andrew with no suggestion of a specifically republican angle.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think there should be protests on the day - this is a funeral for crying out loud.

That's  why  I wrote 'Apart from it being the funeral'.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's  why  I wrote 'Apart from it being the funeral'.

Sorry, wasn't making a point aimed at you, but a general comment, agreeing with you, that I don't think there should be protests on the day.

However I would go further - in my mind there have clearly been two sets of events over the past few days, and that will continue through to Monday. The first are a set of events involving the Queen - the moving of her body, lying in state through to the funeral itself. These are associated with her death and elements leading to the funeral. The second are events clearly associated with the proclamation of a new king - the weird town crier stuff, Charles trundling off to Scotland, NI and tomorrow Wales. The former, in my opinion, are not appropriate for protests, the latter, absolutely fair game.