UK The Queen

[Gethelred]

This thread is actively moderated, let's behave like adults, shall we?

For conversation on an Australian Republic:

Who wants a Republic?

I am just curious in the figure as it has been over 10 years since we had a referendum for it. Personally, I think we should become a Republic.

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Gough]

Why would Charles be worried about this? It's clearly largely fictional, a fact backed up by John Major.

Major has publically said a scene that is said to include a conversation between him and Prince Charles, as he was then, about the Queen abdicating, was "a barrel-load of malicious nonsense".

Even Netflix has said the series is "fictional dramatisation".

You and I both know that and I did say fictionalised but what will worry him is the people who will see The Crown as a history lesson and I don't see that reminding everyone of Diana right now is ideal timing. My point was more the contrast between him and his mother when they first got the job and how much more difficult his situation as opposed to the young Elizabeth will make it for him.

 

[Roylion]

You and I both know that and I did say fictionalised but what will worry him is the people who will see The Crown as a history lesson and I don't see that reminding everyone of Diana right now is ideal timing.

But it won't make any difference to anything really.

My point was more the contrast between him and his mother when they first got the job and how much more difficult his situation as opposed to the young Elizabeth will make it for him.

As you said Elizabeth was 26, took the throne in 1952, seven years after the end of World War II at at time when the war and the royal family's role in the war, including being bombed, subject to rationing and where Buckingham Palace was unheated and boarded up was lauded by the British public. The royal family were widely regarded as symbols of national resistance. Elizabeth herself had served in the armed forces as a driver and mechanic and her uncle the Duke of Kent had been killed on active service.

Regardless of all that, 'The Crown' will still make absolutely no difference to the workings and function of the monarchy under Charles III. He'll be the King until his death and will then pass the Crown onto King William V.

 

[peetoo]

So, anyone wanting to give a fair appraisal how King Charles is going?

 

[peetoo]

But it won't make any difference to anything really.



As you said Elizabeth was 26, took the throne in 1952, seven years after the end of World War II at at time when the war and the royal family's role in the war, including being bombed, subject to rationing and where Buckingham Palace was unheated and boarded up was lauded by the British public. The royal family were widely regarded as symbols of national resistance. Elizabeth herself had served in the armed forces as a driver and mechanic and her uncle the Duke of Kent had been killed on active service.

Regardless of all that, 'The Crown' will still make absolutely no difference to the workings and function of the monarchy under Charles III. He'll be the King until his death and will then pass the Crown onto King William V.

‘The Crown’ was quite sympathetic really. What was all the doom and gloom about?

 

[peetoo]

New prince and princess of wales bood on US tour?

See where it ends

King Charles 3, Your move

 

[FurTheWin]

So, anyone wanting to give a fair appraisal how King Charles is going?

He wanted to go to a climate conference and was told he wasn't allowed to.

 

[Roylion]

He wanted to go to a climate conference and was told he wasn't allowed to.

About the start of October the King was advised by Liz Truss not to attend and the Palace agreed, taking the view that going to Egypt wasn't appropriate for Charles' first overseas tour as King.

Therese Coffey, the new environment minister has since said (on October 27th) that:

"The government doesn’t have a view on whether the king should go or not, it’s a matter for the king.”

 

[FurTheWin]

About the start of October the King was advised by Liz Truss not to attend and the Palace agreed, taking the view that going to Egypt wasn't appropriate for Charles' first overseas tour as King.

Therese Coffey, the new environment minister has since said (on October 27th) that:

"The government doesn’t have a view on whether the king should go or not, it’s a matter for the king.”

Thanks Roy, if I need a copy of the "nothing to see here" press release or the thoughts of a talentless bigot like Thérèse, I'll know who to ask.

 

[Roylion]

Thanks Roy, if I need a copy of the "nothing to see here" press release or the thoughts of a talentless bigot like Thérèse, I'll know who to ask.

Yep. In the interests of accuracy, always happy to provide. There's plenty of misinformation out there and unfortunately some people love sensationalism and exaggeration.

The latest media frenzy over the impending Sussex documentary is just the latest example of how the royal family is over-analysed by an rabid media, always searching relentlessly for the next great narrative to devour, with minor incidents (such as Charles being 'ordered' not to attend the climate summit in Egypt) magnified into front page stories coupled with overblown analysis of the latest implications for the country and/or the Commonwealth. Media commentary on all matters royal such as the "institution has been damaged like never before" (I'd like a dollar everytime I've read that over the years) is mostly overblown sensationalism.

Social media adds further to the hyperbole and over-reaction.

As an example, take the media frenzy over the decision of Harry and Meaghan to withdraw from royal life at the start of 2020. There were comparisons to the abdication crisis in 1936, when King Edward VIII gave up the throne to be with an American divorcee, melodramatic quotes from Palace 'sources' who supposedly spoke about the Queen being stabbed in the back or breathless media commentary that the cessation of royal duties by the Sussexes somehow meant that there's was some sort of existential threat to the British monarchy.

The commentary by the media over a couple of moderately senior royals, who were most unlikely to ascend to the throne anyway, withdrawing from royal life were overblown, over analysed and hyperbolic.

Amusing to read on occasions but most of it is not really to be taken seriously. Stories of this nature sells papers and generates clicks.

 

[peetoo]

Yep. In the interests of accuracy, always happy to provide. There's plenty of misinformation out there and unfortunately some people love sensationalism and exaggeration.

The latest media frenzy over the impending Sussex documentary is just the latest example of how the royal family is over-analysed by an rabid media, always searching relentlessly for the next great narrative to devour, with minor incidents (such as Charles being 'ordered' not to attend the climate summit in Egypt) magnified into front page stories coupled with overblown analysis of the latest implications for the country and/or the Commonwealth. Media commentary on all matters royal such as the "institution has been damaged like never before" (I'd like a dollar everytime I've read that over the years) is mostly overblown sensationalism.

Social media adds further to the hyperbole and over-reaction.

As an example, take the media frenzy over the decision of Harry and Meaghan to withdraw from royal life at the start of 2020. There were comparisons to the abdication crisis in 1936, when King Edward VIII gave up the throne to be with an American divorcee, melodramatic quotes from Palace 'sources' who supposedly spoke about the Queen being stabbed in the back or breathless media commentary that the cessation of royal duties by the Sussexes somehow meant that there's was some sort of existential threat to the British monarchy.

The commentary by the media over a couple of moderately senior royals, who were most unlikely to ascend to the throne anyway, withdrawing from royal life were overblown, over analysed and hyperbolic.

Amusing to read on occasions but most of it is not really to be taken seriously. Stories of this nature sells papers and generates clicks.

Agreed. Totally mis managed, and now the wales’ are getting bood on the US visit. It’s just crazy.
News.com.au x comments frequently, but it’s filed under ‘celebrity’ even the solemn death of a monarch and the rise of the heir

 

[Present Not Past]

Yep. In the interests of accuracy, always happy to provide. There's plenty of misinformation out there and unfortunately some people love sensationalism and exaggeration.

The latest media frenzy over the impending Sussex documentary is just the latest example of how the royal family is over-analysed by an rabid media, always searching relentlessly for the next great narrative to devour, with minor incidents (such as Charles being 'ordered' not to attend the climate summit in Egypt) magnified into front page stories coupled with overblown analysis of the latest implications for the country and/or the Commonwealth. Media commentary on all matters royal such as the "institution has been damaged like never before" (I'd like a dollar everytime I've read that over the years) is mostly overblown sensationalism.

Social media adds further to the hyperbole and over-reaction.

As an example, take the media frenzy over the decision of Harry and Meaghan to withdraw from royal life at the start of 2020. There were comparisons to the abdication crisis in 1936, when King Edward VIII gave up the throne to be with an American divorcee, melodramatic quotes from Palace 'sources' who supposedly spoke about the Queen being stabbed in the back or breathless media commentary that the cessation of royal duties by the Sussexes somehow meant that there's was some sort of existential threat to the British monarchy.

The commentary by the media over a couple of moderately senior royals, who were most unlikely to ascend to the throne anyway, withdrawing from royal life were overblown, over analysed and hyperbolic.

Amusing to read on occasions but most of it is not really to be taken seriously. Stories of this nature sells papers and generates clicks.

Queen Elizabeth was a person of substance, I agree.
However, there's no one left in that family anymore who can command any respect from the public.
Harry is now just cashing in off the back of his family name.
Like any two bit celebrity does these days.

 

[spinynorman]

 

[Gough]

Imagine Charles tries to get his leg over with Camilla tonight for a bit of a pre coronation roll in the hay and comes over all Billy Sneddon.

 

[Chief]

The hotel room would be nicer.

 

[Roylion]

Imagine Charles tries to get his leg over with Camilla tonight for a bit of a pre coronation roll in the hay and comes over all Billy Sneddon.

Then we'll have another royal funeral and coronation in six-nine months time that tens of millions will watch and will dominate the news cycle for at least the next calendar year.

Long live King William V and Queen Catherine.

 

[Gough]

Then we'll have another royal funeral and coronation in six-nine months time that tens of millions will watch and will dominate the news cycle for at least the next calendar to come.

Long live King William V and Queen Catherine.

Genuine question, do you think this might be the last coronation?

 

[Roylion]

Genuine question, do you think this might be the last coronation?

No. Why would it be? Coronations, in one form or another, have existed since ancient times and in Britain have been performed since the early medieval period, well over 1,000 years ago.

In any case, the tourism benefits to the UK will far outweigh the costs. The British economy is forecast to see a boost of £8.01 billion over the Coronation weekend. London alone will receive a tourism boost worth over £205 million. The Centre for Economics and Business Research estimates there will be a £337 million ($420 million) boost from extra tourism and spending in pubs over the three-day weekend.

The cost of the coronation is estimated at between £50 million and £100 million and will be funded by the U.K. government and the royal estate is funding a share as well.

 

[Gough]

No. Why would it be? Coronations, in one form or another, have existed since ancient times and in Britain have been performed since the early medieval period, well over 1,000 years ago.

In any case, the tourism benefits to the UK will far outweigh the costs. The British economy is forecast to see a boost of £8.01 billion over the Coronation weekend. London alone will receive a tourism boost worth over £205 million. The Centre for Economics and Business Research estimates there will be a £337 million ($420 million) boost from extra tourism and spending in pubs over the three-day weekend.

The cost of the coronation is estimated at between £50 million and £100 million and will be funded by the U.K. government and the royal estate is funding a share as well.

It's not needed though, Charles has been King since the moment his mum drew her last breath. I wonder if by the time the William gets his turn a coronation might not be seen as somewhat archaic.

 

[spinynorman]

I always love the tourism argument, that the monarchy is a special drawing card that brings large numbers who otherwise would not care to visit London.

Because when I think of tourist wastelands, I think of Paris. Who wants to go explore the grounds of Versailles when they can mill around outside Buckingham Palace?!

 

[Roylion]

I always love the tourism argument, that the monarchy is a special drawing card that brings large numbers who otherwise would not care to visit London.

Because when I think of tourist wastelands, I think of Paris. Who wants to go explore the grounds of Versailles when they can mill around outside Buckingham Palace?!

Is there a coronation happening in Paris at Versailles?

 

[Festerz]

Is there a coronation happening in Paris at Versailles?

No but there are things the Brits could learn from there.

 

[Roylion]

No but there are things the Brits could learn from there.

Nah. I don't think so.

I teach the French Revolution incidentally to senior students. The orgy of bloodletting of the Terror was quite unnecessary.

 

[Gough]

Nah. I don't think so.

I teach the French Revolution incidentally to senior students. The orgy of bloodletting of the Terror was quite unnecessary.

You don't need someone with some sort of tenuous connection to the royal family turning up and spoiling it all. Best get the lot of them.

 

[Festerz]

I teach the French Revolution incidentally to senior students.

Why am I not surprised.

 

[Roylion]

You don't need someone with some sort of tenuous connection to the royal family turning up and spoiling it all. Best get the lot of them.

The French Revolution failed quite spectacularly at that.