I look at the funeral service as being a celebration of the deceased’s life. That’s what I wanted for my wife’s funeral service and it worked with nods of approval and smiles all round. The actual cremation or burial is the realisation that we will never meet again on Earth if at all, and the time for tears among the family only. I received about 20 requests for copies of my eulogy of my wife’s funeral, and wrote a eulogy of my own impending funeral some 7 years ago, but the only problem is that the longer one lives the shorter of enough people to hear it.
A Geordie relative of a friend of mine decided that he would have a wake of his own funeral whilst he was still alive. I may be eccentric but not that eccentric. Any normal nonagenarian person without issue, as possibly might happen in my case if I’m lucky or unlucky enough will soon be forgotten. But the Queen has not only a dynasty but millions throughout the World who will remember her as the longest service monarch this country has produced. Although I’m not particularly a royalist, I’m not an antiroyalist either and I would rather have a monarch than a dictator or a president any time. No country does ceremonial events as well as Britain, and we are the envy of the World in that regard
As for cancelling sports events, I think it’s the right and proper thing to do. Let’s reflect on a a period of mourning until after the funeral of her majesty,
In some ways,like your friend, the Queen has already had her living memorial three months ago with the Platinum Jubilee where her life was celebrated in every detail in the media almost akin to an obituary - plus she got to witness all the events, ceremonies and parades to mark the occasion in her honour. It did seem then like the country was paying tribute to her lifetime service knowing that her time was coming to an end as she was starting to appear like a frail old lady unable to continue to keep up with her demanding role.
What bearing on Boro’s promotion chances will the postponement of the next three fixtures have? Every club will be in the same position having to reschedule their fixtures and could that be to Boro’s advantage as their new recruits become more aware of Chris Wilder’s style of play? Perhaps we could envisage it as a prolonged pre-season and right the mistakes that have happened in the last 8 matches. It used to be a regular occurrence when we played 42 matches a season to cram up to 10 matches into the first two months of the season when the season started in mid August. For the first time ever this season started in July. We now play 46 matches and have the disadvantage of a month’s autumn break for the World Cup, but could some rearranged matches be played during the World Cup? Boro won’t have too many of their players involved especially in the latter stages so there might be some leverage there. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see!
In some ways,like your friend, the Queen has already had her living memorial three months ago with the Platinum Jubilee where her life was celebrated in every detail in the media almost akin to an obituary - plus she got to witness all the events, ceremonies and parades to mark the occasion in her honour. It did seem then like the country was paying tribute to her lifetime service knowing that her time was coming to an end as she was starting to appear like a frail old lady unable to continue to keep up with her demanding role.
Very true! Death happens to everyone, and although very sad once one reaches the nineties can be a relief to the deceased no matter how much palliative care one receives. According to the adverts some people don’t want a funeral at all.
I regularly watch Songs of Praise because of the stories, but also because of the hymns which I love to join in. I even enjoy those of the Afro/Caribbean fraternity who can’t wait to be reunited with Jesus Christ even though they seem healthy at the moment. Logic tells me that there is no afterlife, but nobody is in a position to confirm that or otherwise.
Perhaps we all have lived before in another form, hence deja-vu.
I don't think any of Boro's fixtures after this weekend will be postponed as I believe games will resume again. The FA are only looking at the possibility of postponing fixtures that may be impacted by the need to police the state funeral - which will be mainly games based in the London area. After the midweek match against Cardiff, Boro's game next weekend at the Riverside against Rotherham is also an evening kick-off at 19:45.
With the international break following next weekend it would essentially mean no games until October, which would be a four-week break from league football if the FA decide to postpone all games until after the Queen's funeral - so not really practical to have such a long break.
I suppose you could label me as a royalist, I was 11 months old when Elizabeth came to the throne (she has been a constant throughout my life, with my parents passing away many years ago). I served in the army for 29 years and when you took “the queens shilling” and swore allegiance to the queen and country it wasn’t just for the time you served but for life. People are asking/pondering the question, is it time for change ! but ask yourself, during her 70+ years as queen, how much has the world changed since 1952 and hasn’t the royalty evolved during that time. Do the “people” need royalty anymore, I would suggest looking at the reception the king got on returning to London yesterday and see how many millions will attend, not only the queen state funeral but King Charles III coronation.
What is the alternative to the UK being led by the royalty, a Donald Trump/Boris Johnson and as far as Elizabeth not giving opinions or intervening on important issues, history tells us that the reigning monarch should/does not interfere with politics, otherwise we would not have the houses of commons and lords, that is why during his speech yesterday Charles stated that his role has dramatically changed and will not be outspoken as he was as Prince of Wales.
In my opinion the monarchy (especially the Queen/King) bring a lot of investment and trade into the UK and many individuals wish they had Kings/Queens (with a long history of monarchy) in their country. Yes there has been mistakes in the past, wars, slavery, invading other countries in the name of the King/Queen but the past cannot be undone, it’s how the world evolves and how should we treat Germany now because of 1939-45, we all move on.
Apologies for going on a bit, but it is only my personal opinion.
God save the King.
Well said Exmil.
I am in the Royalist camp and agree that not all has been perfect but they have and are evolving and as a nation we are far better off with a Royal Family than without one. 😎
I’m
Although only a National Serviceman I was proud to be on parade in April 1958 at the 40th Anniversary of the RAF. I’m all for keeping up with TRADITION, and in that regard although not a royalist welcome having a monarchy instead of a presidental figurehead.
I suppose you could label me as a royalist, I was 11 months old when Elizabeth came to the throne (she has been a constant throughout my life, with my parents passing away many years ago). I served in the army for 29 years and when you took “the queens shilling” and swore allegiance to the queen and country it wasn’t just for the time you served but for life. People are asking/pondering the question, is it time for change ! but ask yourself, during her 70+ years as queen, how much has the world changed since 1952 and hasn’t the royalty evolved during that time. Do the “people” need royalty anymore, I would suggest looking at the reception the king got on returning to London yesterday and see how many millions will attend, not only the queen state funeral but King Charles III coronation.
What is the alternative to the UK being led by the royalty, a Donald Trump/Boris Johnson and as far as Elizabeth not giving opinions or intervening on important issues, history tells us that the reigning monarch should/does not interfere with politics, otherwise we would not have the houses of commons and lords, that is why during his speech yesterday Charles stated that his role has dramatically changed and will not be outspoken as he was as Prince of Wales.
In my opinion the monarchy (especially the Queen/King) bring a lot of investment and trade into the UK and many individuals wish they had Kings/Queens (with a long history of monarchy) in their country. Yes there has been mistakes in the past, wars, slavery, invading other countries in the name of the King/Queen but the past cannot be undone, it’s how the world evolves and how should we treat Germany now because of 1939-45, we all move on.
Apologies for going on a bit, but it is only my personal opinion.
God save the King.
Respectfully, I don’t think I could disagree more. Much of what’s wrong with this country seems to me to stem from a hierarchal class system with the Royal family at the top.
People, even in the 21st century, are expected to be deferential to other people simply because they were born to different parents.
The sight of our Prime Minister curtsying to an unelected head of state seems so anachronistic as to be laughable. You’ve cited Trump or Johnson as alternatives which to me is a false dichotomy. Why not David Attenborough or Martin Lewis to name just two respected people off the top of my head? How would you have felt if Andrew had been born before Charles and was now King? Would you have been happy to swear allegiance to him?
I think we’ve all been spoiled to have had the Queen as head of state for all our lives. I’m happy to accept that she served us well, albeit at a cost, but we were lucky to have her. Would her sister have done as good a job?
As for revenue the Royal family earn us, I’m sure we could earn more by opening up their many palaces to tourists. Have you seen how many people flock to Versailles?
For some reason part of my response to Ex-Mil went missing. What I originally wrote was that I heartily agree with him in his brilliant blog at 12.50pm especially on the matter of TRADITION and the revenue that Military events such as Trooping the Colour, Royal Tournaments, etc bring to this country. In the words of Carol Bayer Sager “Nobody does it better”.
I recall in the 50s watching the Coldstream Guards playing and marching up and down Ayresome Park before a match against Blackpool to the music of Kenneth Alford who was a bandmaster in the British Army. Some of his marches were ‘The Standard of St George’, ‘The Thin Red Line’ and ‘On the Quarter Deck’ plus a rendition of Handel’s ‘Scipio’ which is usually a slow march and often difficult to perform.
It was a performance akin to attending an FA Cup Final. How they manage to keep in line carrying large instruments and reading the music beggars belief but makes one proud to be British.
p
Well as there is no football. I have to say that I am on exmil's side in this interesting conversation.
Yes I do agree that there needs to be change in many aspects of the "running" of our country. However I believe that generally the Royal Family are good value for what they deliver for the nation.
Yes there needs to be a "slimmed down" version and not so many "hangers on" I also believe that Charles will take that onboard and deliver what is needed in the modern world as difficult as it is at this moment.
On the same line, I also believe that the make up on the Politics side should be dramatically changed. The House of Lords in its current format is archaic and out of sync in 2022. Both Parties have done nothing to change this unelected house, so that it represents what the people at least vote for and is not filled by "friends" of the PM whoever he or she may be.
For me, that is the biggest change that is required, far more important than the Royal Family.
There may be no football today, and as well as Ollie Robinson and Stuart Broad have bowled to perhaps set up England for a possible 3 day win against South Africa weather permitting, I must say that Salford Red Devils RLFC have filled the void with an outstanding 28-0 away win against Huddersfield Giants this afternoon. They have followed the other Manchester side from the Etihad in how to dismantle the opposition to reach the last 4 in Super League’s playoffs. I wouldn’t bet against them reaching the Grand Final either after this performance and although Martin Bellamy might disagree with me I hope that they wallop both St Helens and Wigan Warriors on the way.
@ken You’re right, I don’t agree (although if Saints get there I’d like Salford to win).
One of the best things about this Forum is that we can disagree about things, whether Rugby League or Royalty, without falling out with each other and we can debate in an adult and courteous way. That’s a rare and lovely thing these days. Long may it continue.
I’d love to know what you’d all think about Prince Andrew as our king. It’s only a twist of fate that Charles was born first, so would Andrew have been prevented from taking his divine right to rule or might we never have heard of his accusers if he’d been heir to the throne? It’s hypothetical but could easily have happened.
It is indeed not a simple task in deciding who and how a head of state would be appointed in place of the current established system of the next in line to the throne stepping into the role.
You certainly wouldn't want a President Trump or even a President Johnson (though I suspect my mother would be his champion) - nevertheless, I think we should be wary of assuming a President has to be in the mould of a US one.
Germany has a president as head of state but I suspect 99% of the British public will never have heard of him, Frank-Walter Steinmeier is his name and he has been the German president for over 5 years now. His role is very much similar to that of the King or Queen of the UK and is required to act in a non-political manner and is entrusted in ensuring the law and constitution is upheld, as well as rubber-stamping political and judicial appointments.
The German president is not directly elected by the people but is instead elected in a secret ballot of the German National Parliament (Bundestag) members and a proportional number of each Regional Parliament members, which convenes every five years. a president can stand for a maximum of two terms (ten years) and will renounce any party membership on being elected. Probably a bit like the Speaker of the House of Commons does and is expected to act above party politics - think Bernard Weatherill, Betty Boothroyd or Lindsay Hoyle - but try not to think of John Bercow.
You really need someone who is well versed in a country's constitution and has a wide knowledge of national and foreign affairs, which is why most German Presidents tend to have been politicians which have served in high office. Though perhaps the German proportional representation system ensure the elected members who vote for the President reflect the views of the people more than British Parliament's FPTP, which gives parties large majorities for receiving just over a third of the popular vote.
In that respect, Prince Charles was probably better qualified than anyone to become head of state as he's been trained, tutored and experienced for the last 50 years. He also appears to be a decent bloke given his somewhat sheltered and privileged upbringing and seems able to communicate easily with ordinary people. I dare say he'll make a good job of being head of state - though at 73 time is not on his side for it being a long-term appointment.
However, I'm just against the notion of head of state being a hereditary position and actually having a 'royal' family extended or otherwise, along with all the Princes, Lords and other archaic titles. For me having a King or Queen as head of state just perpetuates the class system and undeserved privilege and influence for those born into the right families.
Surely a modern country should be able to devise a system of governance that doesn't use as its template a medieval power grab by a small number of families that were allied to the Royals of their day - with many of those still trace their lineages back hundreds of years of being part of the aristocracy.
There's also the valid point made by Martin that what if Prince Andrew had been the heir and would people have been just as happy to see him made king as they are with Charles. Indeed, we don't have to go too far back to see how Edward VIII, the one who thankfully abdicated, who was a supporter of Oswald Mosely and by most accounts a Nazi sympathiser and admirer of Hitler. It was perhaps only luck and thanks to Wallis Simpson that his brother and Queen's father, George VI, ended up as king. At the time many of the English aristocracy were pro-Hitler and anti-semitic and in favour of doing deal with Nazi Germany.
So there are risks in having the head of state being someone's role by birthright and it being a job for life too. Still, just how you shift to system of electing a suitable head of state is not an easy task - particularly in an age where elections are increasingly and easily manipulated in a digital media age through a combination of a deluge non-verifiable information masquerading as truth and individually conflicting customised messages that promise different things to different people.
We seem to be stuck between the worst of two worlds at the moment where you can't rely on democracy to get the most suitable people into power while there is an increasingly nostalgic view of a past where they actually had little say in how power was wielded. Whoever is in power should remain accountable and trusting unelected elites to do the right thing is surely not a direction that should make anyone feel comfortable.
I suppose we're back to those undefinable feelings of faith and trust as it appears impossible for many these days to know anything for sure - that's despite (in spite of?) having more information at our fingertips than at any other time in history. It's the illusion of choice in a world that can't decide what is best!
I probably should also add my apologies for going on a bit...
One thing you never need to do is apologise for your posts being too long as they are always worth reading.
OFB
Funnily enough we were having lunch today with one of my granddaughters and her boyfriend who are both teachers and of course we were discussing the royal family and recent events.
They were impressed when my wife said she had shaken hands and talked with Princess Diana when she had visited Teesside and our young niece had given the Princess a posy.
Mrs OFB then looked at me and said “are you going to tell them whom you’ve met from the royal family then?”
I looked down at the table and muttered “I once had lunch with Prince Andrew!”
The conversation quickly changed to another subject…..
OFB
I’d love to know what you’d all think about Prince Andrew as our king. It’s only a twist of fate that Charles was born first, so would Andrew have been prevented from taking his divine right to rule or might we never have heard of his accusers if he’d been heir to the throne? It’s hypothetical but could easily have happened.
The thing is, we will never get to know.
Had he been the heir and not the ultimately discarded spare then his life and his experiences would have been very different and the man may well have developed differently. We will simply never know and so as a detracting argument for the monarchy it is weak.
Maybe the answer lies in diminishing the extent of the Royal family as part of the establishment. That is what we are being led to believe is likely to happen under Charles.
I fervently believe it would be wrong to have a politically motivated individual as head of state. It has to be someone who is able to act for the very most part regardless of their individual beliefs and opinions.
It was very interesting to read Werder on the German system for president. That is not a system that could be contemplated here where there is a wholly imperfect two party FPTP system in place, rather than a true democracy.
I disagree with the priorities someone referred to above, about reforming the upper chamber and the inherited monarchy. The first and most important thing to reform is the electoral system itself, which has to be truly proportional if our government is ever to reflect the true will and sentiment of the population it serves. Unless and until this comes to pass, I think that on balance my inclination is we are better off with the status quo. However if we are ever mature enough as a nation to have confidence in true proportional representation and government, then the notion of a president perhaps along the German lines might have more appeal.
@ken You’re right, I don’t agree (although if Saints get there I’d like Salford to win).
One of the best things about this Forum is that we can disagree about things, whether Rugby League or Royalty, without falling out with each other and we can debate in an adult and courteous way. That’s a rare and lovely thing these days. Long may it continue.
Spot on.
Strangely I had just been watching the DVD of ‘House of Cards’, the 1990 BBC TV series and the second 4 episodes of this excellent trilogy was entitled ‘To Play the King’ where Francis Urquart (played by Ian Richardson) having risen from Chief Whip of the Conservative Party to Prime Minister by devious means then became in a battle of power with the newly crowned King (played by Michael Kitchen) who was a Socialist wanting to reform the Country.
It was written after the period of Margaret Thatcher’s tenure, and obviously a far-fetched record based on the book written by Michael Dobbs. Now this is a story of what might have happened if the King dabbled into politics too much. The final 4 part trilogy ‘The Final Cut’ ended with the Prime Minister being assassinated on the instruction of his wife at the erection of a statue to commemorate Margaret Thatcher’s retirement.
As I say all far-fetched but nevertheless compulsive viewing at the time.
What I’d like to mention is that I worked in Local Government all my life and as did all my fellow officers remain non-political, but my experience at Langbaurgh Borough Council was that some councillors (by all means not all) found that difficult to comprehend and was partly due in my case resulting in depression through which I took retirement on ill-health grounds at the age of 52 when offered. Perhaps I was too outspoken for my own good, but no regrets as I’d always supported my staff against attacks from those who wanted to usurp financial regulations.
I’ve tried to be more diplomatic since my retirement, so wish to apologise if I’ve upset any fellow diasborians.
These days politics in real life has become probably more far-fetched than fiction so who knows what could happen. Michael Dobbs did of course write many speeches for Margret Thatcher and was her advisor before later becoming Conservative Party Chief of Staff, then eventually the Conservative Peer, Lord Dobbs. He actually disowned the BBC's version of the Final Cut because of the Margret Thatcher funeral scene as it was deemed in bad taste given she was still alive.
Just a brief word on football, given the state funeral will now be held on Monday 19 September, which will also be a Bank Holiday, I would see no reason to postpone next weekend's fixtures - especially those on Saturday.
@werdermouth. The only consideration about cancelling next weeks games is around security issues at grounds and availability of Police to be present.
I understand that the Met Police will require reinforcements from across the country to bolster their numbers given the large number of people expected to be in the capital over next weekend/Monday; this will involve officers having enough time to travel to London and be briefed on their responsibilities.
Not sure if this will mean wholesale cancellation of the league programme or if matches will be able to go ahead on a case by case basis subject to adequate security being in place. No doubt we will learn more shortly. 😎
Yes I mentioned that was the reason for possible postponements next weekend in an earlier post and it's probably more likely for a games based in the London area. Whether they need to draft Police from Teesside remains to be seen but I suspect they'll be more likely to use resources closer to London and they are probably only likely to be held in reserve if needed - plus not sure if they would be planning to spend more than a day down in London as where would they all be accommodated.
The other factor is that Boro v Rotherham is only likely to be a low-risk Category A game that usually only requires 50 police on the ground so it's probably not one of the games that takes up too much resource - Cleveland Police is quoted of having around 1,270 police officers so there should be enough to spare. To put that in context, the Metropolitan Police have about 32,500 officers and Greater Manchester about 7,000.
Just to add something reported this morning on the policing of football games, including next weekend...
A Metropolitan police statement at the weekend said: “Whether matches go ahead is a matter for the football authorities. If fixtures do take place, the Met will work with the relevant partners and ensure that appropriate policing plans are in place.”
So the police don't seem to have a problem and that was in response to questions about London-based Premier League games next weekend. notably Chelsea v Liverpool. Although, Police in Scotland have delayed Ranger's European match against Napoli by 24 hours and banned away supporters as it was deemed a high-risk Category game that would stretch resources.
Powmill Naemore
I’ve only just seen your reference to attendances at Versailles. You’re quite right, I couldn’t believe the vast queue to gain entrance to the Palace so my wife and I decided to just explore the gardens. On our first holiday abroad in 1969 our guide arranged for a 7.30 breakfast to avoid the long queues at Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna and it was well worth the early start as we managed to enter without waiting, similarly the Winter Palace in Leningrad, now St Petersburg.