Oh, thanks!

I set the DVR to record the BBC’s segments, which were broken up into 2 segments on Direct TV. The first started at 2 am and ran until 5. The second picked up at 5 and ran until 10 am I think. I fast forwarded thru a couple of hours of the first segment and watched most of the procession to Windsor and an early part of the second segment at St George’s so far. The pageantry, solemnity and music was just beautiful. I doubt i will stay glued to all of it but did enjoy portions.

I really admire how Prince George and Princess Charlotte were on their best behavior and looked so cute.

edited to add, gardengal, the BBC channel was similar to PBS. The announcers only chimed in to explain who was walking in at a particular time. For example, the Bidens were held up from being seated for several minutes by the procession of the Victoria’s Cross recipient attendees. Most of their commentary was at the beginning at 0200 before anything really started.

I watched chunks of it on the BBC. So much history and tradition there, from the uniforms to the sailors pulling the gun carriage, to Westminster Abbey itself. Those pall bearers were on active service in Iraq a few days ago, and brought back specifically for the funeral. They do indeed deserve a pint or five.

Forgive me for being indelicate, or perhaps even morbid, but do you suppose the Queen was dressed in regalia to some degree. What is protocol I wonder.

I'm curious how past monarchs may have been put to rest, i.e. Henry VIII? Jane Seymour?

One talking head said she had her wedding band on and pearl earrings. I am going to go with she would want to be understated in death. I have to say to those pooh poohing the coverage--it is history anyway you cut it. It's pageantry is amazing. This makes more sense than the adulation Americans give to entertainers, the Oscars, etc.

I watched the 2nd part in Windsor Castle. Everything appeared to be executed to perfection. I’m glad now the Queen and everyone can rest after several exhausting days.

This makes more sense than the adulation Americans give to entertainers, the Oscars, etc.

Really? At least the Americans earned their place in the limelight.

I did watch part of it this morning. The bagpiper at the very end was very moving.

@Zalco/bring back Sophie!,

So you think Her Late Majesty did nothing in her lifetime?

So you think Her Late Majesty did nothing in her lifetime?

What she did, she was privileged to do by virtue of her birth. I think that should be perfectly clear in the definition of royalty, no?

I think the admiration for a monarch or an actor or any ”celebrity” is fine. Why can’t it be? One makes as much sense as any other. People should like what they like.

I admire QEll for her service to her country. She did a good job. She worked hard and earned the admiration that she got. It doesn’t matter to me how she got there. I liked her and I think that I will like King Charles.

eta A lot of folks work very hard and never enjoy the limelight nor want it.

I taped it on CBS and watched it later. There wasn't commentary.

I watched it for its historical significance. A funeral in an abbey over a thousand years old and being being buried in a chapel on the grounds of another centuries old castle. I appreciated all the work that went into pulling this off, how choreographed everything looked. Funerals aren't my thing either but witnessing this once in a lifetime history was amazing to me.

A friend text me this evening saying she'd just finished watching it. She said this:

"Wow, Queen Elizabeth was super cool, she even had her own wand." 😆

Gave me a chuckle. My friend knew the history behind the scepter.

Sephia, that wand (wand of the office of the Lord Chamberlain) gets broken and buried with her.

What she did, she was privileged to do by virtue of her birth. I think that should be perfectly clear in the definition of royalty, no?

She could have done nothing and still been in the position she was in. Instead, she went to thousands of events, cutting ribbons, opening fetes, entertaining people who were given awards, schmoozing politicians she would probably much rather have not had anything to do with and more. She didn't have to do these things but she felt it was her duty to give back to her people. In addition, she joined the Auxiliary Territorial Service and trained as a mechanic as soon as she was old enough as part of her wartime service. Prior to that she worked in the Windsor vegetable allotment to encourage others in the Dig for Victory campaign. These were also things she didn't have to do, but she did anyway.

What contribution to the betterment of anyone (besides themselves) have people like the Kardashians made?

It's very interesting to hear the generational almost genetic opinions of Americans. For the most part early settlers came to escape the 'tyranny' of royal governance. That's fine but the revelation that those feelings are sooo ingrained many cannot appreciate what THOUSANDS in other countries do hold dear is quite shocking really. The idea that our entertainment royalty 'earned' their spots is HILARIOUS. Right time/place or sleeping with the right powerful men is really more accurate if one bothers to actually investigate. Talent is really not a rare commodity. SIGH

@colleenoz and yet she did absolutely NOTHING to stop residential schools in Canada. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. I don't care about all those "appearances and schmoozing" she did. She didn't stop indigenous children from being stolen from their parents (read about the 60's sweep), and having their culture stripped away from them. Some were lucky enough, if you want to call it that, to go back home. Most of whom turned to drugs and alcohol to numb their pain from the abuse they got from the "church" who stripped their culture away. She could have said something. She said nothing. To the day she died, she never took responsibility nor did she apologize.

Deb_Ab the Queen does not pass or make laws in Canada. The blame falls on the Canadian government in power at the time and the subsequent governments that allowed it to continue (and blame the Church, of course)

Arcy, a point of information, I am Canadian. Second, many people in countries whose currency is adorned by a picture of the British sovereign wish to out an end to that relationship, including a considerable number of Britons.

Deb, both QEll and King Charles have acknowledged the atrocities that occurred in the residential schools. Reconciliation is an ongoing process.

Ralph Steinhauer accepted the role of Lieutenant Governor in Alberta in 1974 and worked endlessly to right the injustices. (My FIL farmed with him)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Steinhauer

Colleen, you are absolutely right, she could have played her hand differently and still enjoyed all the perquisites of her position. That is exactly my point. Work was not necessary.

Do I admire her for how she conducted her life? The answer to that question used to be an unmitigated, Yes. Then I watched a mother shield her s&xual predator son from an investigation into his alleged wrong-doing. I watched the privilege she was born to allowing her and her family to rise above the law and my opinion shifted from, Yes, I admire her, to, It's complicated. Watching royalty take full advantage of the privilege of birth in order to evade the law made the concept of what a royal family is clear.

Say what you will of the Kardashians, they are not on the government dole. They enjoy no legal or tax protections beyond those available to anyone who can afford excellent counsel. What they have they have earned by dint if hard work, by understanding what their audience want and providing it.

When King Harald of Norway celebrated his 80th birthday a few years ago, he gathered all his Gotha cousins for a lavish celebration (available to view on YT.) He asked them to please consider very seriously, What is the point of royalty? What is their job? What do they bring to the table in the 21stC?

The last few years have made it perfectly clear to me what the answer to those questions is in the UK, as I watched the Weinstein scandal continue to unfold, and then the Markle Marketing Machine machine go into high gear -- wait until Harry and Megan are done with their family. There will be no shred of dignity left on the table in exchange for Netflix and Spotify and whomever's money. King Harald's question will be answered in lurid detail.

At the end of the day, the Kardashians and the Hanover/Windsors are the same. They are entertainers. I cannot fathom bending my knee to such.

PS I tried looking up King Harald's excellent birthday speech, delivered in English in 2017, no sign of it. Lots of gorgeous photos from the event and small snippets of speeches in Norweigian, but nothing about the role of royalty today in English.

I am a bit perplexed at how the abuses which happened at those schools, and were perpetuated by Canadaians on the ground there, and local as well as federal government officials, have become the problem of everyone remotely involved with Canada. Canadians still have a massive problem with how they treat their indigenous population. Who will people look to blame for that? The King, the Pope? The Man in the Moon is next, no doubt.

Zalco, they happened. You can’t unring a bell.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in 2008, apologised on behalf of the Canadian people but an apology is only as good as the actions that follow it. I have seen changes of how the indigenous people are treated in Alberta. It has been very slow but it is a step in the right direction. Less finger pointing and more action is required.

We’re working on it.

Canadian memorial service for QEll for those that are interested:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/national-commemorative-ceremony-live-1.6585991

"Today, our system might appear anachronistic to some — I understand that — but to others, who constitute, in my judgment, the overwhelming majority of Canadians, the role of the monarchy and in particular the irreplaceable role played by Her Majesty for 70 years was absolutely indispensable,"

I guess it just can’t be explained.

I can’t understand many Americans who still give praise to the former pres*dent nor the position of FLOTU S (most are lovely women) of any pres*dent. They only have that position by marriage. But it is there.

Vive la difference!

eta Just wanted to add that I admire many first ladies and the work they do.

From Wiki:

Polls since the 1990s have shown the proportion favouring a republic as ranging from 13% to 29%. Recent 2022 polls indicate the figure rests at around one quarter of the population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom

It will be interesting to see how things go under King Charles.

I think Jmm hit the nail on the head:

“I expect we will move on, here in Australia, from the monarchy in due course. But give us the time to remember and mourn the person who brought the monarchy to the people she loved.”

And Canada, too.

"Sephia, that wand (wand of the office of the Lord Chamberlain) gets broken and buried with her."

The scepter from 1661 with a 530.2 Cullinan diamond gets broken and buried with her? That's what I'm referring to.

I don't think so. Research I found indicates it's been a part of every coronation since 1661. I doubt anyone's going break the scepter and bury it.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a41234101/british-crown-jewels-sovereign-sceptre-orb-queen-elizabeth-funeral/

Ah. When you said wand, I thought you were talking about the wand of the Lord Chamberlain.

The scepter is all together different.

The wand was broken and put on her coffin during the ceremony.

No, my friend who texted me joking about the queen's "wand" included a pic of the orb and scepter. You couldn't have known that though. My friend joked about the "fancy diamond encrusted" wand. She had another comment about the orb and fortune telling. It was more funny than I'm portraying it now. It's kinda like trying to explain a joke that's falling flat.

She sounds like a fun friend😀

”The tradition of breaking the wand of office signifies the end of the Lord Chamberlain's service to the Queen. The Lord Chamberlain kept tradition by breaking his wand of office on Queen Elizabeth's coffin during the committal service at St George's Chapel in Windsor on Monday.”

"Say what you will of the Kardashians, they are not on the government dole. They enjoy no legal or tax protections beyond those available to anyone who can afford excellent counsel."

There's a bit of a misunderstanding here, I suspect. Most parliamentary democracies, whether they are constitutional monarchies or republics, separate the role of the head of government from that of the head of state. The latter is a largely ceremonial role but it is nonetheless a real one. The President of Germany, like the Governor General of Canada or the King of England, hosts foreign heads of state, swears in new governments, may chair international meetings held in his or her country, and of course deals with the million and one visits, presentations, and awards ceremonies which are part of the role. The head of state may not have the responsibility of the head of government, but he usually has just as full a calendar of duties to perform on behalf of the state.

In all those parliamentary democracies, the costs associated with the job of head of state are paid for by the taxpayer. That includes the cost of running the household, wining and dining all those visiting heads of state, maintaining a staff to organize and manages schedules, media releases and security, and paying for travel, and so on. It's not unlike the costs of maintaining Embassies in foreign countries to represent the nation's interests: no one regards the Ambassador of the US or Canada as being on the "government dole" because their costs of doing business are subsidized by the state on whose behalf they act.

In the UK, the costs of performing the role of Head of State are paid for out of the Sovereign Grant, an allowance granted by Parliament to the monarch to run the entire shebang. That Grant covers the cost of doing business. It includes allowances and security for the "working royals" while they are undertaking activities on behalf of the State (I understand Princess Anne inspects sewers as part of her role). It does not cover expenses of non-working royals (which is what Harry and Meghan still seem unable to grasp), nor should it. It's a grant by Parliament, fully audited every year.

And let's also be clear that the Sovereign Grant comes from the monies paid by the British monarch to Parliament from the profits of the Crown Estates. It is taxpayer money, but it came from the monarch in the first place. The monarch also pay taxes on income and capital gains, and has done so since the early 90s.

So, I'm not sure what legal or tax protections the monarch enjoys beyond those available to the Kardashians. I have no doubt Queen Elizabeth paid more tax than at least one former US President.

@WittyNickNameHere ;) The Queen was not permitted to interfere in how the countries of which she was head of state saw fit to govern themselves. The actions of the various Canadian governments vis a vis their dealings with the Canadian First Nations people is solely down to the Canadian governments and those who elected them. Her Majesty was not even allowed to have a voiced opinion about any politcal matter.

I'm sure she had opinions, and no doubt was against what was being done, but she could not "have said something". I wouldn't be surprised if she had other people advocating under the radar for more equitable treatment of Canadian First Nations people, but her hands were tied as far as doing anything herself went.

There is much discussion now as to whether King Charles will break the rule that the royals must be apolitical and continue to speak out on climate change. It could be argued that climate change is not a political issue, but some view it as one.

Well then my point about a monarchy in this day in age was just proven: if she is not "allowed" to interfere with how a country is run, why do we "need" a monarchy? For show? To feel good about themselves for attending galas and ribbon cuttings? She had a mouth. She could have said something. What were they going to do: put her in jail? I think not. She chose to keep her mouth shut. And Charlie will do the same. The amount of money spent on that farce of a funeral would have been spent on all the people who are losing homes, can't afford food, education, you name it. I don't even want to think about the waste of money.

And then there is this. How disrespectful

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMFeEhAr8/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_throat_singing

Deb, that is known as katajjaq.

The goal is to make people laugh.

“The first to run out of breath or be unable to maintain the pace of the other singer will start to laugh or simply stop and will thus be eliminated from the game. It generally lasts between one and three minutes. The winner is the singer who beats the largest number of people.”

Deb, it was banned for over 100 years by Christian missionaries.

I think it is wonderful that it is now being performed. I’m glad it got its desired results. Charles and Camilla laughed.

Part of reconciliation is learning and listening.

"Well then my point about a monarchy in this day in age was just proven: if she is not "allowed" to interfere with how a country is run, why do we "need" a monarchy?"

Deb - of the countries considered to be the most successful democracies, the vast majority have a ceremonial "head of state" with very limited political powers, and a separate "head of government" who actually runs things.   The role of the British or Danish or Swedish  monarch or Canadian Governor General, with its strict constitutional limits, is not very different from the role of the German or Irish President. The Finnish President has a bigger political role at the moment but it is being whittled away to be more along the lines of the German system. 

It is a model that works well, certainly better than the American model is working at the moment, because it gives primacy to Parliament as a whole rather than to a single individual, while ensuring that the formal dignity of the state is represented by someone uninvolved in the often dirty business of partisan politics. At the same time, it does provide a handbrake of sorts on the untramelled exercise of power by the PM: he must still abide by the limits imposed in the Constitution. 

For your information, all the proposals on the table for a republic here in Australia envisage continuing with this model, replacing the Governor General with a President with limited powers rather than removing the position entirely.  The only real debate is going to be how the President will be selected/elected, not that there will be one.

"countries considered to be the most successful democracies"

Considered by whom or what? This is a nonsensical concept to even consider because there are many flavors of government and of democracies, all with advantages and disadvantages. No need for further "instant knowledge" as you often offer from Google searches you conduct.

"certainly better than the American model"

Cross border insults are rude but I know you don't care. Others should, of all nationalities. You never miss an opportunity to insult the US or things American, whether you know what you're talking about or not.

I won't be responding on this sub-topic further.

Haven't you subscribed to the Economist since 1978? Why so long if they're not credible?

Yes I have. I don't understand your comment.

"The percentage of the world’s population living under some sort of democracy tumbled last year to 45.7% from 49.4% a year earlier according to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2021.

Of the 167 territories surveyed, just 21 were deemed to be full democracies, representing 6.4% of the world’s population, while 53 fell into the “flawed democracies” category.

Topping the list were Norway, New Zealand and Finland, while the U.K. ranked 18th. The U.S., which was given a flawed democracy classification, fell one spot to number 26.

~~~

The world’s top 10 most democratic places:

1 Norway

2 New Zealand

3 Finland

4 Sweden

5 Iceland

6 Denmark

7 Ireland

8 Taiwan

9 Australia

10 Switzerland"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-10/these-are-the-world-s-most-and-least-democratic-countries

Now consider their governments.

Sorry for having googled that, but I don't gave a relative I can cite offhand. 😉

Fine and my response is - so what? This is based on what, signifies what, has what for consequences?

Reading superficially, this means that Norwegians and New Zealanders have things (?) that the French and Germans don't have? What's that, what does it mean?

Define your criteria and you can affect rankings. This is arbitrary and meaningless to me.

I offer no blind allegiance, not to the US nor to anywhere else, anyone, or anything. I'm not a flag waver - if anything, the exposure I've had to the world outside the US has affected my perspectives of what's here. There are plenty of problems the US has that other countries don't have. Many of which will never change. Same response - these things are known, so what?

I try to not publicly criticize other countries, it's like insulting a neighbor. It's rude.

"I don't gave a relative I can cite offhand"

Too bad for you. I have friends and relatives who are experts in many areas. You can envy me.

"Too bad for you. I have friends and relatives who are experts in many areas. You can envy me."

So do I. For this particular topic I could talk to an Ivy educated global politics professor, I just haven't had that conversation with him which is why I can't cite him offhand, which is what I said.

But really, it was kind of a joke. You repeatedly ask for evidence then dismiss anything published. Your own evidence 9 times out of 10 is you yourself or some supposed relative. Did you ever write a paper in college? I'd love to see the bibliography!

You're funny. You'd make an insteresting case study. In what, I have no idea.

The article is a subjective article, Based on a subjective analysis. EIU does lots of them, that's what it does. Tell me what this one means.

Just as an aside, a very close and longtime family friend is a history prof and department chair. An expert and prolific researcher/writer concerning one, narrow area of the world. History being history, just like politics being politics, experts rarely agree because subject matter of this kind must be interpreted to be informative and interpretations vary. There is no one answer to find, only findings and opinions to assess to pick and choose from. This is neither here nor there, you can ask your former prof and if honest, they'll tell you the same thing.

I noticed that coverage from Deutsche Welle was much different from that in the U.S. media. DW aired a lot of criticism from African countries that I did not see in American media, and it gave me the view that the British monarchy is not loved in many African countries, due to long histories of exploitation.

OTOH, I did notice appreciation for Britain when I was in Fiji, and Fiji asked to rejoin the Commonwealth after having being granted independence, as the Fijians thought that that would help them with their problems. However, most of their problems seem to have arisen from the importation of people from India to do jobs that that native Fijians were not willing to do. Native Fijians thought that a five hour work day was sufficient, as that was what they were used to, but the British were not satisfied with that and therefore imported workers who would work longer hours. The Fijians were happy with what they could accomplish in a five hour day, and I have to agree with them. Fijians have a great appreciation for leisure time, and I support this.

There is no "one size fits all" with regard to governments and work schedules.

"There is no one answer to find, only findings and opinions to assess to pick and choose from."

And if the opinion comes from the Economist you're ok with it but if it comes from jmm who we both know has referred back to the Economist for support, it's nonsensical. Got it.

Lars - the British monarchy is not loved in Africa because it represents the history of British imperialism (even though it was British business and British parliament and not the monarchy personally that was responsible for the greatest period of imperial expansion and subjugation of local cultures). There have been plenty of comments here in Australia about the impact of British imperialism on indigenous peoples as well. It's a complex issue, to say the least.

As for Fiji, the British brought in Indians as indentured labour in the 1880s so the Indo-Fijian population dates back well over a century. Indians began arriving as independent migrants around 1900. So the community has been established for a fairly long time, and indeed, at one point, Indo-Fijians were close to being a majority of the population. However, they have been and still are subject to discrimination from in many aspects of life, including politics, and have in recent years chosen to leave Fiji rather than live as second class citizens. The situation there is not just about work ethics. It's also about cultural and racial discrimination.

"And if the opinion comes from the Economist you're ok...."

Did I say that, I don't think so. The Economist is a newspaper (which is how it refers to itself) and like all others it gets some things right and some things not right. As with any source, The Economist's pieces need to be weighed and compared to what others have to say. I started reading it when it became clear to me that most US print media companies do a poor job covering what happens outside the borders. I needed to be more informed about international news and developments than most US sources could be counted on to provide. The Economist's US coverage is really quite interesting and insightful too. With pieces often quite different from what's seen in American media. I also had a subscription to Foreign Affairs magazine but dropped that when I retired.