Her Majesty, the Queen RIP

Well, what a day it was. Moving, magnificent, and as perfectly executed in all its aspects as humans can manage. From the buildings through the rituals to the people involved, a thousand and more years of history on display. A fitting tribute and farewell to one of the greatest women this world has seen. It was hard not to just break down; there was an awful lot of grit in my eyes today. Worst, I suppose, was when the symbols of state were removed from the coffin; that was it, the second Elizabethan age was truly over. The piper playing the Lament at the end, fading into the distance as if a soul ascending, was just superb.

Our Armed Forces did us proud, and perhaps one shouldn't single out any one component for special praise. But still, the Bearer Party deserve it. What a job they had to do, and how well they did do it.

A poster Cold_Collation posted this on Arrse the other day; I couldn't have said it better myself:

"Tomorrow, a lady is laid to rest. Many will say she served her country for 70 years. She didn't. She served it for over 96 and I am bloody proud to have been one of her subjects. I have no objection to being called such; her sense of duty and, indeed, her steadfastness, far outstrip mine.

The ignorant and malevolent will try to paint her as imperialist and colonialist, ignoring the realities of what she - and her husband and consort - achieved across their lives.

We are living in an ugly time, with identarian political agitators determined to define us wholly by skin tone, sexuality or religion. That is, was, not MY Queen's wish and those who trade on 'my' truth, not the truth, are chaff, mere dust on the wind.

I remain unashamed of this country, and of being of this country. We far outstrip others in terms of equity and equality. Everyone here has the opportunity to be an equal and the person who led that, personified that, makes her final journey tomorrow.

I'll put my heels together and drop my head. Because a greatness has passed.

God speed you Ma'am. You were the best of things and shall continue to be so."

RCB

 

so do I as there is only 5.4bn tv viewers in total

 

I think it's sad you're using a photo of a funeral procession to try and point score, you always cease to amaze Tony

 

Aren't there 7.9bn people in the world?

That figure probably includes people like me who chose to work yesterday whilst the other half watched it and the kids were on Roblox, so it probably counted all our household as watchers when it was nothing of the sort.

There is no way over 65% of the entire world watched the funeral. Billions will not care, have been asleep, have no access to TV, be under the age of 10 and been doing something else.

There is no way that figure stands up at all.

 

Very well put. Top post mate

 

Without wanting to be overtly argumentative, and fully respecting your obvious affection for the late Queen, I nevertheless have a couple of issues.

Firstly, the implication that those who don't support the Monarchy are ashamed of this country. I think there's a big difference between recognising and acknowledging the many wrongs that we did in our imperial past (balanced by the many good things we have given the world) and being ashamed of this country. It's possible to have a nuanced view of the past, which we can't change and bear no responsibility for, without being totally jingoistic or totally critical.

Secondly, you'll have to explain to me how a woman (however personally admirable in many ways) who unelected, and through none of her own endeavour - by pure accident of birth - succeeded into enormous wealth, privilege and power, can possibly personify the opportunity to be an equal. Surely the very existence of a hereditary monarch personifies the exact opposite?

 

Admiration for the Queen, yes, but there is another, more important element behind that: a deep-rooted respect for the institution of the monarchy and its 1000+ years of history, rituals, and traditions, of which we, the subjects, are a part. It binds us together as a nation. Of course it helps greatly when the reigning monarch is admirable in his or her own right. I cannot imagine feeling the same way about, say, Edward VIII, and I am certainly glad that Charles, not Andrew, was the eldest son. One would still respect the position -- rather like in saluting, where one really is showing respect to the position and not the person holding the position -- but that would be all.

I will not presume to put words in Cold_Collation's mouth, but can take a stab at interpretation and commentary.

There are people around in -- I'd say -- all of our Western/European-based countries who behave as if we should be ashamed of the past and present of our countries, whether they explicitly say so or not. (Witness the Canadian Prime MInister, who is indeed good at apologising but somewhat lacking in more important leadership qualities.) I think CC's "unashamed" comment follows on naturally from the preceding paragraphs criticising these types of people. I don't see it as meaning one cannot ever be critical of elements of one's country, or that being critical automatically makes one ashamed of one's country. But one's criticisms should be reasoned and moderate. Indeed we cannot change the past, and indeed we have no responsibility for what our ancestors did. That they could have done things differently is not in doubt -- but that is said with the benefit of hindsight.

It's late. To be continued.

RCB

 

Once again another great post @River_City_Bantam.

 

Long day of meat-pie and plum jam making... Now, where was I? Agreeing with you that we cannot change the past nor can we bear responsibility for what our ancestors did. People act by the standards of their times, and it is wrong, I think, to judge them by the standards of any other time but their own. But enough on that point.

Equality. I agree that the wording here is open to criticism, but equally I can see ways in which the wording is appropriate.

First off: define equality. I don't ask that from mere flippancy, or a desire only to play with words. Just try and define what makes person A equal to person B -- how could you go about doing this? There are several of us on here who could be described as male, born in England, and competent enough musically to perform/have performed in front of audiences. So far I suppose we could all be said to be equal, but then again we don't necessarily play exactly the same instruments, nor exactly the same styles of music, nor exactly the same proportion of originals to covers, and so on. We will diverge even more, I presume, if we start comparing our educational qualifications, or jobs, or athletic abilities... And none of us can ever be equal to any female, if for no other reason than that we cannot give birth.

So we can rule out such personal abilities and capabilities as a way to a definition. I won't belabor this point any further, but the question is not an easy one.

Certainly we are not equal to the Queen in the circumstances of our births, our stations in life, our influence on the wider world. But we can be equal in terms of character. Recall that saying about rank being temporary, but class being permanent. We too can conduct ourselves with class, keep our promises, do our duties, and so on.

Then there is the point (for a Christian nation) about us all being equal in the eyes of God. The Queen left this world as we will leave it -- no crown, no other symboils of state. Some grave goods, yes, but if there is a judge and judgement, she'll have to face that like the rest of us.

Lastly, the age-old male/female battle. Can anyone say that a man would have done a better job? (One could ask that about the first Elizabeth as well. (We clearly did not learn any lessons from that.) Equality in yet another version.

Thus I don't think that CC was wholly wrong to use the term, although it perhaps wouldn't be the first term that would come to one's own mind.

RCB

For what it's worth, I don't think that person A and person B can ever be truly equal, however you define the term. They should, however, be equal in the eyes of God, and all else being equal (that word again!), they should be treated equally by the institutions of the state: for example health care, law enforcement, government services.

 

There are so many assumptions in there, and your previous reply, that I don't share, that it's almost as though we're talking a different language.

I don't have a religious bone in my body - I find it a bizarre concept on various levels and a largely pernicious influence on world events - so any talk of 'equal in the sight of God' is meaningless to me.

The monarchy, to me, is the embodiment and apotheosis of a rigged class system in which a tiny proportion of the population are born into privilege which, through various means, such as private education, family and other contacts etc, they do their darnedest to perpetuate to the next generation. This effectively rules out equality of opportunity for the majority of the population, which is the form of equality most relevant in this discussion, in my view.

I'm 66 years old and so was born only four years after the commencement of the Queen's long reign. She's been ever present throughout my life, but not in my life. Her presence as head of state has been largely meaningless to me, except as a symbol of inequality of opportunity. I have no affection or sense of allegiance to an outdated institution or a family of ordinary human beings who just happen to have been parachuted to the top of the tree at birth. I simply can't get past the injustice of a powerful role in society that is undemocratically assigned by simple birthright.

The pageantry etc is all very impressive (not to mention extortionately expensive) but I find it perplexing, and quite sad, that people get so exercised by all that pomp and froth. It's perfectly possible to love one's country without indulging in all that stuff.

Whilst I appreciate that the Queen had mostly admirable personal qualities, those qualities are heavily outweighed for me by the anachronistic institution that she represented and which, unfortunately, continues in her absence.

 

Id rather there be a person as head of state who was born into it and has a lifelong duty to cultivate the nation. A statehas 4 or so pillars of power, the political power, the judicial, the civil and the symbolic. The monarchy is largely symbolic and sists well as a head of state. Whereas in a republic the president holds the political and the symbolic power which is not so desirable. Id rather Charles or William be the head of state than a boris johnson who has campaigned and used political influence to gain that position. Entirely for his/her own gain and narcissistic drive.

However, I resent massively being the subject of a king/queen, I hate the national anthem and think it does more to drive a wedge through society than unite it. We should be citizens not subjects, the king does not rule over us they lead us and I think there should be a few more reforms to bring them into the modern age.

Reform dont revolve.

 

Do either interfere with your every day life, many people don't sing the national anthem and I cant see why being classed as a subject would.

 

Well im a republican so why would I like any person to rule over me or be their subject?

I could ask you the same thing about the EU. Why was your life affected by being a member? You have said you chose the symbolic reasons for voting leave. Its the same with me and republicanism.

 

So neither have an influence on your day to day life you just have this figmentation in your head, they aren't the government they don't make laws or make you do anything you don't want to do, as I say many people don't sing the national anthem, I've never thought of myself as a subject you do worry about trivial things.
Although the topic is with regards the death of our Queen you can't make a post without bringing the EU into it, but yes they made decisions that affected my life and every other person who lived in a country that was a member of the EU I'd have thought you know that.

 

If you dont like my replies then stop replying to me then.

 

That's not what I posted as well you know, it appears you don't like the truth.

"yes they made decisions that affected my life and every other person who lived in a country that was a member of the EU"

 

The way some people blurt on with anti-British sentiment by attacking their own monarchy should count themselves lucky they're not arrested for treason - many a state would have them locked up by now airing such blasphemy in public.

I'm all for free speech, to an extent, but the phrase give an inch.. comes to mind here.

As for the same protagonists sulking over Brexit still - get over it, it's been over 6 years now since we democratically voted for it, accept it and learn to live with it or get out of the country if you hate it that much.

 

Neither term bothers me, but 'citizen' strikes me as being colder, more impersonal, than 'subject,' which to me implies more of a personal bargain: on the one side loyalty and service when required, on the other protection and other assistance as required. My first (pre-1983) passport includes both terms: British Subject and Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

RCB