The Queen is dead.

[ProfessorDavey]

So perhaps to update my earlier views on the attitudes of a typical person - updates highlighted:

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. Thought they might (or felt obliged to say that they would) watch all or some of the funeral on the tv, but in the end didn't
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.
9. Glad it is all over and we can get back to something like normality

[Sriram]

My wife and I watched the entire final journey from Westminster Hall till St.Georges Chapel ceremony at Windsor. Almost a full day.

Pretty orderly and well covered. No commentary....which was good.

Impressed by Charles at 73 walking....in step....quite a long distance.  Lots of people present on the way. Monarchy may not be on the way out quite yet.

[ProfessorDavey]

My wife and I watched the entire final journey from Westminster Hall till St.Georges Chapel ceremony at Windsor. Almost a full day.

Pretty orderly and well covered. No commentary....which was good.

Where were you watching Sriram and on which broadcaster - I'd be interested to know whether different broadcasters in differing parts of the world took a different approach to the coverage.

BBC in UK was as expected - the big names all there - Huw Edwards lead in the morning then passing onto the elder statement of them all, David Dimbleby, later on.

Impressed by Charles at 73 walking....in step....quite a long distance.

I think he's pretty fit but suspect he'd be exhausted by the end. Funerals, particularly when you are one of the people near the top of the tree, are exhausting in my experience and this was a very very long one. 

Lots of people present on the way.

Rather fewer than I imagine many expected - crowds, even in the best spots, seemed only three or so deep.

Very few people seemed to have attended the big screen screenings around the country. I was at one, the only for a considerable distance - perhaps 100 or so people there. When they ran round the county to equivalent screenings in Edinburgh, Cardiff etc, etc they seemed pretty sparely populated. Even Hyde Park was quiet - nothing like the huge crowd that was there in 1997 for Diana (I know I was there).

So I suspect most people were saddened by the Queen's death and thought she did a good job, but after 10 days of astonishingly one sided mourn-fest, almost expecting/requiring people to be distraught, perhaps people had just had enough by Monday. I don't think anyone predicted that the viewing figures would place it just 3rd in the 2020s and just crept into the top ten for most viewed events in the UK overall.   

Monarchy may not be on the way out quite yet.

I never claimed it was.

However it will be diminished - once we get back to a semblance of normality I think we will find that the respect and affection for Charles will be way lower than for the Queen, and that will impact the overall support for the monarchy, much of which was actually for the Queen as monarch, rather than for the monarchy er se.

[Anchorman]

My wife and I watched the entire final journey from Westminster Hall till St.Georges Chapel ceremony at Windsor. Almost a full day.

Pretty orderly and well covered. No commentary....which was good.

Impressed by Charles at 73 walking....in step....quite a long distance.  Lots of people present on the way. Monarchy may not be on the way out quite yet.

 

In what way was no commentary 'good'?
Some of us depend on audio description, you know.

[Steve H]

 

In what way was no commentary 'good'?
Some of us depend on audio description, you know.

Surely audio description would have been available.

The 28 million figure mentioned by the Prof is the maximum viewing simultaneously. About 35 million watched at some time or other. Also, it doesn't include people who watched on big communal screens, nor people like me who watched it on a computer.

[Anchorman]

Surely audio description would have been available.

The 28 million figure mentioned by the Prof ist he maximum viewing simultaneously. About 35 million watched at some time or other. Also, it doesn't include people who watched on big communal screens, nor people like me who watched it on a computer.

 

No. The Beeb declined to offer AD.
Radio covered some of the event, but they concentrated on the music...and the commentators uttered inane banalities over the music they didn't like.

[ProfessorDavey]

The 28 million figure mentioned by the Prof ist he maximum viewing simultaneously. About 35 million watched at some time or other. Also, it doesn't include people who watched on big communal screens, nor people like me who watched it on a computer.

But the same is true for recent big events. I suspect far more people watch football in a big screen fan-zone, or in a pub than would watch a funeral.

Also the nature of the demographic of likely watchers will impact the proportion of those watching by streaming rather than traditional broadcasting. Again more likely for something like football with a broader age demographic, rather than the royals, whose support is typically older who are less likely to stream than younger people.

The point remains that there was a hyperbolic expectation that this was going to be the most watched event in UK history - it wasn't, indeed it wasn't even close. I think that tells us a lot about a disconnect between the media uber pro-royal wall to wall mourn-fest and the realities of real public opinion from ... err ... real people.

[Sriram]

Where were you watching Sriram and on which broadcaster - I'd be interested to know whether different broadcasters in differing parts of the world took a different approach to the coverage.

BBC in UK was as expected - the big names all there - Huw Edwards lead in the morning then passing onto the elder statement of them all, David Dimbleby, later on.
I think he's pretty fit but suspect he'd be exhausted by the end. Funerals, particularly when you are one of the people near the top of the tree, are exhausting in my experience and this was a very very long one. 
Rather fewer than I imagine many expected - crowds, even in the best spots, seemed only three or so deep.

Very few people seemed to have attended the big screen screenings around the country. I was at one, the only for a considerable distance - perhaps 100 or so people there. When they ran round the county to equivalent screenings in Edinburgh, Cardiff etc, etc they seemed pretty sparely populated. Even Hyde Park was quiet - nothing like the huge crowd that was there in 1997 for Diana (I know I was there).

So I suspect most people were saddened by the Queen's death and thought she did a good job, but after 10 days of astonishingly one sided mourn-fest, almost expecting/requiring people to be distraught, perhaps people had just had enough by Monday. I don't think anyone predicted that the viewing figures would place it just 3rd in the 2020s and just crept into the top ten for most viewed events in the UK overall.   
I never claimed it was.

However it will be diminished - once we get back to a semblance of normality I think we will find that the respect and affection for Charles will be way lower than for the Queen, and that will impact the overall support for the monarchy, much of which was actually for the Queen as monarch, rather than for the monarchy er se.

I was watching BBC. We get it 24 hours. Even CNN was showing the funeral I noticed, though I don't know whether they showed it full time.

[ProfessorDavey]

I was watching BBC. We get it 24 hours.

Same as me and most people in the UK it seems.

I thought the coverage of the funeral by the BBC was very good - where the BBC failed over the past two weeks, in my opinion, was their endlessly asking the most uber-royals (e.g. people in the queue or people turning up for a glimpse of Charles in Belfast or Cardiff etc) the same old questions and getting the same old answers. Unsurprisingly if you continually ask people prepared to wait in line for 12 hours to file past the coffin (unlike over 99% of the UK population) then you'll get endless sycophantic pro-royal comments. Sure they all felt the Queen was a saint and Charles and William are just brilliant - what do you expect. Ask more generally across the population and you'd have got a more balanced view about the monarchy. But the media, and particularly the BBC haven't been interested in balance over the past two weeks.

The coverage was good because most of it was simply left to the viewer, with very little commentary. And where there was commentary it was largely factual, rather than opinion.

One slight gripe - the music - on a couple of occasions the information about the piece and composer wasn't complete.

[ProfessorDavey]

No. The Beeb declined to offer AD.

Really? That is astonishing. I would have thought that a public service broadcaster would be obliged to support those with additional needs to be able to follow a state event.

[Aruntraveller]

The point remains that there was a hyperbolic expectation that this was going to be the most watched event in UK history - it wasn't, indeed it wasn't even close.

Dirty Den and Angie beat that figure.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dirty Den and Angie beat that figure.

Indeed.

When you add regular tv programmes to events (news/sports) then the funeral was the 13th most watched programme in the UK. And you have to note that the funeral was on multiple channels, which tends to bolster viewing figures. And you also have to take into account the size of the population now compared to, say 1966 (world cup) or 1969 (moon landings) and the availability of tv coverage to the nation.

So if I am getting this right 58% of the UK population watched the 1966 world cup, the same proportion who didn't watch the funeral.

[Gordon]

I wonder how much public money was spent on the funeral and all the associated pantomime activities - I suspect we won't ever be told.

[ProfessorDavey]

I wonder how much public money was spent on the funeral and all the associated pantomime activities - I suspect we won't ever be told.

A huge amount - some estimates are flying around, but I don't think we will know for sure and I don't believe official costs for other big royal events (weddings, funerals etc) have been released.

And there were some 'jaw dropping' - 'why do they need to do that elements' - so on the London news afterwards they were interviewing technicians who were reinstalling traffic lights that had literally been removed. Yup removed, not just turned off, but completely removed. And this wasn't for security reasons as all similar street furniture had been opened, checked and sealed, but presumably because they might obscure a view for a fraction of a second - despite the fact that the huge numbers of flagpoles installed also obscured the view for a fraction of a second.

Important for the world to think that the capital city of the UK is devoid of any traffic lights.

[Steve H]

And there were some 'jaw dropping' - 'why do they need to do that elements' - so on the London news afterwards they were interviewing technicians who were reinstalling traffic lights that had literally been removed. Yup removed, not just turned off, but completely removed. And this wasn't for security reasons as all similar street furniture had been opened, checked and sealed, but presumably because they might obscure a view for a fraction of a second - despite the fact that the huge numbers of flagpoles installed also obscured the view for a fraction of a second.

Important for the world to think that the capital city of the UK is devoid of any traffic lights.

Possibly to stop people climbing them, falling off and breaking their necks.

[ProfessorDavey]

Possibly to stop people climbing them, falling off and breaking their necks.

No that doesn't seem to be the case - they were removed so that traffic lights weren't in shot for cameras, filming etc:

https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/peta-credlin/traffic-lights-being-removed-around-westminster-for-perfect-shots-of-the-queen/video/ef7d7ce2bb02f746f1aead82194ba2e1?utm_source=headtopics&utm_medium=news&utm_campaign=2022-09-15

Sure there is a risk of people climbing up and tall object, but it was only traffic lights that were removed - other tall objects, such as flagpoles weren't removed and, of course, plenty were added.

It is, clearly, grossly disrespectful to the monarch if there is a traffic light at the edge of a photograph of her coffin.

[Udayana]

No that doesn't seem to be the case - they were removed so that traffic lights weren't in shot for cameras, filming etc:

...

It is, clearly, grossly disrespectful to the monarch if there is a traffic light at the edge of a photograph of her coffin.

Apparently she never had to take a driving test and her motorcades could ignore all traffic lights anyway ..  so the films will at least show the world from her perspective!

[SweetPea]

Going back to the queues, I now feel rather a hypocrite as I remember queuing for 4hrs in 1972 to see the Tutankhamun exhibition at the British Museum. At the time I thought the wait was worth every minute and looking back, still do now. Not sure I would have stood for 16hrs though or walked 5 miles.

[Harrowby Hall]

 

No. The Beeb declined to offer AD.
Radio covered some of the event, but they concentrated on the music...and the commentators uttered inane banalities over the music they didn't like.

This was not my experience. During the funeral I went to the "Accessibilty"section in my LG tv's "Settings" function and was surprised to hear a female voice describing the the onscreen setting and activity. I had intended to turn on the subtitles for the hard of hearing.

[ProfessorDavey]

Going back to the queues, I now feel rather a hypocrite as I remember queuing for 4hrs in 1972 to see the Tutankhamun exhibition at the British Museum. At the time I thought the wait was worth every minute and looking back, still do now. Not sure I would have stood for 16hrs though or walked 5 miles.

I guess there weren't any alternatives back in 1972 - if you wanted to go into the exhibition you had to queue.

But that isn't the case nowadays - there are very well established mechanisms to manage large numbers of people wanting to attend a time limited event (or even a non time limited one). This involves issuing timed entry tickets. Now it would have been perfectly possible for those organising the lying in state to arrange entry in this manner, and I can't imagine that they didn't think of this, but chose not to. Timed tickets would, of course, be free but would ensure that people wouldn't have to wait for hours.

Now one argument against is that some people might be put off as they don't have access to a computer to order a timed ticket. Well I'd argue that there aren't many people who do not have friends or family who would be able to sort this for them if they couldn't do it themselves. Further, I imagine there were huge numbers of people for whom the length of the wait would have been a massive disincentive or even a deal breaker in their decision whether or not to attend.

Others might argue that timed entry tickets simply wouldn't be able to cope with the expected footfall and rate of entry of people. This is non-sense.

I visited the Louvre a few weeks ago, which claims to be the most visited museum in the world with just under 10 million visitors per year. When you calculate the rate of entry per hour (the Louvre isn't open 24 hours a day and not at all on Tuesdays) then the numbers entering per hour are comfortably greater than the numbers entering per hour for the lying in state.

We visited in peak tourist season, on a Sunday and mid morning entry, so probably about as busy as it gets. Were there huge queues - nope. With our timed tickets from joining the queue we were were into the museum, including bags and people through airport style scanners in, I'd say 15 minutes max. And you don't need a timed ticket (although I think most people get them) - you can just pitch up. But because of the timed ticketing the queue for people without tickets wasn't long at all - no way in the world that those people would have been waiting hours to get in.

Point being that the lying in state organisers made decisions that made queuing for hours needed, when there a completely robust alternative that would have prevented the queues.

[Steve H]

Odd fact: Prince William and Queen Camilla are both directly descended from Charles II, but King Charles isn't. William is descended from Charles II on his mother's side.

[Harrowby Hall]

Odd fact Prince William and Queen Camilla are both directly descended fro Charles II, but King Charles isn't. William is descended from Charles II on his mother's side.

So direct descent is not possible  through the female line, then? Are you a remaining believer that the female role in reproduction is to act as an incubator for male seed?

[Steve H]

So direct descent is not possible  through the female line, then? Are you a remaining believer that the female role in reproduction is to act as an incubator for male seed?

What on earth are you on about? I said that William is descended from Charles II on his mother's side!

[Steve H]

Charles' ancestry, back to Alfred the Great. As you can see, his direct line of ancestors skirts round most of the Stuarts.

[Anchorman]

Charles' ancestry, back to Alfred the Great. As you can see, his direct line of ancestors skirts round most of the Stuarts.

 

Since Bruce was descended from the Aetheling's sister, Margaret, when he fought the Plantagenet at Bannockburn in 1314, technically HE was the legitimate claimant to the English throne, the Plantagenet having gained it through his ancestor, William the Bastard's usurpation.
History, eh?
Talking of which, through his Ceann Mhor (Canmore) line, Bruce could trace his lineage back to Constantin II Mac Aed, king of Alba.
Through the Bowes-Lyon strand, there is a tentative trace from the present king to Fergus Mhor macErc, first king of Dalriada, who settled on the Argyle coast from Antrim.