• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged UK Queen dead? Dying?/Liz Mountbatten's death

In the most unsuprising news, Pesident Biden has accepted the formal invitation to attend the funeral.
 
dudalb said:
Probably best known to a lot of people as the main title theme in "A Clockwork Orange".
Click to expand...


Is it really? The music I associate with that film is obviously the Beethoven 9th, and I hadn't remembered the Purcell was in it. Of course, I think that when I saw the film in around 1973 or thereabouts, I wasn't familiar with the Purcell.

I wasn't involved in a concert that included the music until, I think, 1988.
 
Last edited:
The footage from the Proclamation in Cardiff in Wales was fun. The procession was led by the gand of the Welsh Guard, with the regiment's mascot, a Goat, in the lead.
 
CNN pretty much broadcast the entire trip from Balmoral to Edinborough with aerial shots.
Don Lemon was constanly commenting on how beautiful the scenary was. Indeed. It might be the best free publicity for the Scottish Tourist Industry in a while.
 
Rolfe said:
Radio 3 has been churning out stuff like Purcell's "Funeral Sentences" (on the death of Queen Mary) all afternoon and since it's actually decent music I let it run and tried not to listen to the continuity spiel. Then I heard the ghastly strains of "Thy choicest gifts in store..." and that was enough. Off switch hit.
Click to expand...

Has "I vow to thee my country" featured yet? I'll bet it does, quite prominently.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Sue Ellen's her real given name, the number of senior Tories who don't use their real names is really quite amazing.
Click to expand...


You mean, just like members of the (Labour) shadow cabinet such as Nick Thomas-Symonds (real given name: Nicklaus); Jim McMahon (real given name: James); Jo Stevens (real given name: Joanna); Jenny Chapman (real given name: Jennifer); Wes Streeting (real given name: Wesley); Ed Miliband (real given name: Edward).... and so on..... The number of senior Labour party members who don't use their real names is really quite amazing, isn't it?!

(Or are you claiming that Braverman using a shortened familiar verson of "Sue-Ellen" to be known as "Suella" is somehow any different from any of the above Labour shadow cabinet members using a shortened familiar version of their real given names?)

Anyhow, Suella Braverman is indeed a Silk. And to go back to the original question, she - along with all others - changed her post-nominal from QC to KC the instant the crown transferred from QIIE to KIIIC.
 
Darat said:
I know from (apparently accurate) leaks in the past it was the assumption that everything bar essentials would shutdown until the funeral, there’d be no jollies. I think the folk in charge of the event probably didn’t account for the speed of which we consume everything ‘these days’. I think for most people it is a day or two of being told you are to feel sad and experience grief and a couple of days of telly coverage and then back to normal until the holiday sorry funeral. Don’t think there is any public expectation that there is a need for everything to come to a stop until she finally makes her mind up as to where she is settling.
Click to expand...


There isn't any longer such a desire, but there certainly used to be - even up to as recently as 20 years ago or so.

The Royal Household has spent the past seven decades holding fairly regular reviews of all the permutations regarding QE's death (including plans contingent upon where and in what circumstances she might die, and what the public would consider to be appropriate actions - both for the Royal Family itself and for the public). Ever since the debacle and major misjudgement of the public mood in the aftermath of Diana's death, those reviews became bi-yearly, and over the past decade things have been assessed annually. The Palace conducts market research and focus-group polling to try to gauge the right tone.

And the most recent review (conducted about 3 months after Philip's death last year) came to several conclusions, notably: 1) the Monarchy (via Parliament) should not be seen to be being proscriptive in its dealings with the public - the public and the media should effectively be left to mourn as it sees fit; 2) the public wants to see unity from among the immediate members of the RF, and the public wants to see those members out and about in the time in-between death and funeral; 3) the media should not be told what it can and cannot publish/broadcast - and indeed, the public will expect most media to operate on a more-or-less "normal" basis between death and funeral (this is prob the most major change over the past several decades: if QE had died in, say, 1980, all TV and radio stations would have "gone dark" for several hours, except for regular announcements of the news of her death, together with appropriately sombre music; and between death and funeral the TV/radio schedules and newspapers would be required to pull anything that might be considered frivolous or humorous); 4) the public wants a no-hold-barred state funeral with maximum pageantry, but wants normal life to resume entirely on the following day.

For all its faults - and for all the fundamental structural faults related to our system of constitutional monarchy - at least the mandarins in charge of making these decisions have learned by now to be extremely pragmatic and responsive. Those mandarins are well aware that the monarchy has been pretty unimpeachable while QE has been on the throne, but that her death and the accession of KC might give the republican movement momentum. And therefore, they know to be extremely careful about giving the public what it says it wants wrt all matters around QE's death and funeral. 50 years ago, that sort of approach would have been more-or-less unthinkable: the monarchy laid down the diktat of what people must and must not do, how long they must officially mourn, what they could and could not consume by way of media, and so on.


(Much of the above info comes via two friends of mine, one of whom used to work in Charles' comms team, and the other of whom works for a national newspaper)
 
Trebuchet said:
How long before Chuck tries to reassert royal authority over something?
Click to expand...


Never. No chance. He may be rather dim and ill-informed, and he may have stepped beyond his remit as Prince of Wales (though most politicians viewed his meddling as nothing more than an ill-judged attempt to give himself some degree of relevance and "usefulness" as he waited for so long in the wings)....

...but as Monarch, he will never, ever, go a step outside his remit (let alone try to assert Royal Authority). He - and his multitude of advisers, both personal and constitutional - know all too well the bargain that the Monarch has struck with government ever since the Glorious Revolution and other relevant legislation in the 18th and 19th Centuries.
 
GlennB said:
The UK's Monarch is 'Head of State' in name only. S/he has no actual power to do a single damn thing that affects the country's future in any significant way. A 'Head of State' US President is an entirely different beast.
Click to expand...


Oh no, you're quite wrong. The monarch does indeed have the power to revoke any government bills and stop them coming into law. And the monarch also has the power to rule directly.

But....

....in practice, the monarch never does any of those things, nor would ever dare to even try doing such things. The nature of our constitutional monarchy, and the protocols through which parliament effectively "permits" the monarch to reign, mean that there would be a huge constitutional crisis if the monarch of the day ever stepped out of line: parliament would have the right to remove the monarch as head of state (and if the monarch refused to do so, there would be something approaching a civil war).

The phrase often heard wrt to the practical limitation of powers of the monarch is: "the monarch reigns, but does not rule". But as I said, that's only on account of statute and protocol - as head of state, the monarch could go rogue if he/she so wished (but, as I also said, nobody ever would nor will).

One final minor irony about all this is that the role of ministers, and the role of the Privy Council, is technically to advise the monarch of the day on matters such as what legislation to pass into law, the "state of the nation", and the way the monarchy is perceived by those over whom the monarch reigns. The monarch, having taken such counsel and advice, then enacts the legislation that has been approved by both houses of parliament (no bill becomes law until it's signed by the monarch). But in practice, those roles are often totally reversed: the monarch provides feedback, advice and constructive counsel to the government and parliament (within certain strict parameters).
 
Rolfe said:
I thought we were talking about what Radio 3 was saturating the airwaves with. Jupiter isn't one of the things I've heard in the past few days. Although I've heard Banks of Green Willow several times and I wasn't aware of the connection till now.
Click to expand...


Ah yeah, sorry. I'd wrongly thought this was with respect to what might be played/sung at her funeral.
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh no, you're quite wrong. The monarch does indeed have the power to revoke any government bills and stop them coming into law. And the monarch also has the power to rule directly.

But....

....in practice, the monarch never does any of those things, nor would ever dare to even try doing such things.
Click to expand...

In what way was I wrong, then? When a theoretical power could never be exercised it isn't an actual power, is it?
 
The Atheist said:
You must live in some weird place where employers don't pay people for statutory holidays.

In NZ and Australia (and UK), the employer pays the wages of people who get the day off, which will be the vast majority of workers.
Those who do work get a day off in lieu of the statutory day, so every employer will be paying their entire staff for that day. With 2.8M wage earners in NZ, it's an astronomical amount.

It's a massive and unnecessary cost on employers to satisfy the whim of some clowns in parliament.

A temp agency I work with is going to pay out $160,000 in wages, of which not a single cent is recoverable. A month's profit gone, for no purpose whatsoever. It also comes on the back of NZ workers being gifted an extra statutory holiday from this year as well.
It's not even ridiculous, it's obscene.
Click to expand...

lionking said:
Lost production is very costly, plus those who work on public holidays earn 25-50% more.
Click to expand...

angrysoba said:
Sounds to me like a lot of workers are going to get extra pay. On balance, I would say that's a good thing.
Click to expand...

The Atheist said:
Very few workers will get extra pay.
Click to expand...

The highlighted seem to contradict each other.

Apparently NZ and Australian workers are going to be paid obscene amounts of money by their poor bosses, in some cases to have the day off, and then when asked why it is not a good thing for those workers to get paid, apparently they are not.

This is QDS!

Look, I get it. I am a small R republican myself, at least in principle. It makes little sense to have a family of people better than the rest of us born to lead a country.

But if you want to advocate man of the people republicanism, perhaps start with good principled reasons why there should be no monarchy rather than:

1.) Ebeneezer Scrooge will be out of pocket paying the plebs much needed money to pay their heating bills.
2.) The Queen's dead body is obstructing me from my antique woodwind instrument.
 
Vixen said:
Watching the calvacade zooming towards Edinburgh at a fair speed, brought back memories of Diana's death. It was August Bank Holiday weekend and I was staying at my in-laws in Sutton Coldfield. My son was first to hear the news as he was getting up in the early hours to feed the dachshunds, who had managed to trick this young child into believing they were being starved. M's mother and father were quite early risers, too. I came down saw the Sunday papers saying Diana was in hospital after a car crash. My kid said, Diana died. I said, 'No, she's in hospital' . Chorus: 'No she's dead!'

It was a real shock. I literally did not believe it.

Driving back down the M1, there is always a bit of a traffic jam on approaching London after any weekend of people returning in time for work next day. This time the traffic came to a standstill quite far out and there was little to no traffic in the opposite direction. We soon discovered why: everybody had stopped to 'rubber neck', including ourselves, I have to admit. The hearse carrying Diana's body northwards (towards Althorpe, Northants, [?] I presume) presently went past, the coffin covered by a black cloth. We had heard that Prince Charles had gone to Paris to bring her body home. It was a profound moment, when we realised the enormous historical moment in time of that weekend.

(The flower-throwing stuff was some days later at the funeral.)
Click to expand...


Nope.

The August Bank Holiday weekend in 1997 was the weekend of Saturday 23rd August - Monday 25th August.

Diana's death was the following weekend: she died in the early hours of Sunday 31st August.

And her funeral was a week later, on Saturday 6th September.

So what you say you experienced could not in fact have been accurate.

For myself, I was in Singapore on business on that last weekend in August (and I missed the wedding of a good friend on Saturday 30th as a result). On Sunday 31st, I woke up at around 08:30am local time (which was 01:30 UK time and 02:30 France time) and put on CNN in my hotel room just to have on in the background while I had some breakfast. I then actually saw the entire story unfold from its very first sketchy breaking details through to the announcement of her death (which I think was announced at around 05:00 UK time - around midday in Singapore). I phoned my parents at around 03:30 UK time, because I thought they would be interested in watching the escalating drama (they were).

I flew back into Heathrow on the day of the funeral (Saturday 6th September). I got a car from LHR to my apartment in NW London, and there were barely any cars on the road - though granted, it was around 06:30 I think.


ETA: You're also wrong about what did and did not happen on Sunday 31st August or Monday 1st September (and remember, this was not the bank holiday weekend - that was the previous weekend). Charles did indeed fly out to Paris and accompanied Diana's body back on Sunday 31st August. But the aircraft flew into RAF Northolt (in NW London for those unfamiliar), and her body was taken from there to a mortuary in Hammersmith (West London) for an autopsy. From there, her body was taken to St James' Palace (Central London) and then to Kensington Palace (Central London), before being taken to Westminster Abbey for the funeral.

The only time Diana's body travelled up the M1 was on the afternoon of Saturday 6th September, when it was taken up to Althorp for burial. That was six days after her death and her repatriation to UK. And two weeks after the bank holiday weekend.....
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
The highlighted seem to contradict each other.

Apparently NZ and Australian workers are going to be paid obscene amounts of money by their poor bosses, in some cases to have the day off, and then when asked why it is not a good thing for those workers to get paid, apparently they are not.

This is QDS!

Look, I get it. I am a small R republican myself, at least in principle. It makes little sense to have a family of people better than the rest of us born to lead a country.

But if you want to advocate man of the people republicanism, perhaps start with good principled reasons why there should be no monarchy rather than:

1.) Ebeneezer Scrooge will be out of pocket paying the plebs much needed money to pay their heating bills.
2.) The Queen's dead body is obstructing me from my antique woodwind instrument.
Click to expand...

I was only speaking for Australian workers. State public holidays are gazetted and pay rules (Awards) then kick in. I made a mistake in my earlier post. In most if not every award, the public holiday rate is double time, or a 100% loading.

The government may be able to legislate around this, but with parliament not sitting….

ETA I can confirm employers will have to pay holiday rates.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09...oliday-tricky-timing-for-businesses/101428028

"If businesses want to continue working on that day, then they're obviously going to pay public holiday rates to keep people working, and many of them will have to do that," he said.

"So obviously there will be an increase in costs to business.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
In what way was I wrong, then? When a theoretical power could never be exercised it isn't an actual power, is it?
Click to expand...


But it could be exercised. It's just that there would be seismic repercussions if that were to happen.
 
If the king waves his scepter, and everyone ignores him and goes about their business, has there actually been a royal decree, or just some theatrics?
 
lionking said:
I was only speaking for Australian workers. State public holidays are gazetted and pay rules (Awards) then kick in. I made a mistake in my earlier post. In most if not every award, the public holiday rate is double time, or a 100% loading.

The government may be able to legislate around this, but with parliament not sitting….

ETA I can confirm employers will have to pay holiday rates.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09...oliday-tricky-timing-for-businesses/101428028
Click to expand...

But why begrudge workers a small one-off windfall? I would imagine most companies can afford paying their workers an extra day.
 
angrysoba said:
But why begrudge workers a small one-off windfall? I would imagine most companies can afford paying their workers an extra day.
Click to expand...

This will cost my state over $A1 billion. This money can build a very large solar array or two large hospitals. All for a one day weepfest (for a few). I know what I’d rather have.
 
angrysoba said:
The highlighted seem to contradict each other.
Click to expand...

No, you just didn't understand it. People who are required to work that day get paid extra and get another day off instead.

angrysoba said:
Apparently NZ and Australian workers are going to be paid obscene amounts of money by their poor bosses...
Click to expand...

No, it's obscene that a government can mandate employers being required to pay yet another statutory holiday, especially when they're already paying for 12 days a year. Remember, that's on top of four weeks minimum annual leave, so employees are paid not to work for 6 weeks and two days out of every 52.

angrysoba said:
But if you want to advocate man of the people republicanism, perhaps start with good principled reasons why there should be no monarchy rather than:
Click to expand...

I've been singing that song for 40 years.

angrysoba said:
1.) Ebeneezer Scrooge will be out of pocket paying the plebs much needed money to pay their heating bills.
Click to expand...

Poison the well much?

The wide majority of employers are not Ebeneezer Scrooge, but are actually people trying to earn a living themselves.

angrysoba said:
But why begrudge workers a small one-off windfall? I would imagine most companies can afford paying their workers an extra day.
Click to expand...

Except it's no windfall - people just get their normal pay packet. It's a day off and only the minority of workers who will work on the day earn extra.

It means 100% loss of production for a day, for no financial benefit to the employee - just a day they don't have to work.
 
Craig4 said:
That's what happens when a watery tart distributing swords is your basis of government.
Click to expand...

Seems more like what happens when our antipodean cousins can't decide whether to crap or get off the pot, and then come crying about the discomfort they're experiencing in their lower bowels.

lionking, stop whinging. Own the choices your celebrated liberal democracy has made.
 
theprestige said:
lionking, stop whinging. Own the choices your celebrated liberal democracy has made.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, very funny. Coming from someone who never stops whinging about liberals.

By the way, I am a very strong Labor (Australian sort of democrat/liberal) supporter. This does not mean I support all Labor decisions. Just most.
 
Matthew Best said:
I will be working as normal, I won't get an extra day off, nor will I get paid any extra, thanks to these rules:

https://inews.co.uk/news/day-off-qu...y-monday-19-september-rules-explained-1849250

Can't Australian companies do this if they want to?
Click to expand...

No. Completely different rules. Most employees are covered by industrial Awards which have minimum wage and condition standards. This includes hours, leave and other entitlements. If companies enter into collective agreements with staff (which are legal) they have to as a minimum reach the Award standards in toto. This means it is possible to trade off wages, for example, for extra leave. But minimum standards are exactly that.

Bear in mind that Australia was the first country to legislate the 8 hour working day, and workers rights are very much part of our DNA.
 
Thus businesses in the colonies take a compulsory hit while optional in mother country.
Wow, this tail really wags the dog.
 
lionking said:
Oh yes, very funny. Coming from someone who never stops whinging about liberals.

By the way, I am a very strong Labor (Australian sort of democrat/liberal) supporter. This does not mean I support all Labor decisions. Just most.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe start a new party - the Republican Party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom