Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
nimnarb wrote:For me, the stars of the show,(wrong word, really) were the 8 Pall Bearers. Think they used the same blokes each time and what with the responsibility that they carried on their shoulders,(what a great pun), they were just simply superb.
And also a shout-out for the Met Office for arranging lots of dry weather for the duration
--kiloran
Yes I found myself keeping thinking this too!
Would have made a right mess of that Royal Standard draping the coffin had it been slashing with rain all day, not to mention the thousands of fine, fine uniforms.
pje16 wrote:
Totally agreed, at that age it is hard to even understand a death.
It is probably being done for show
Nonsense, I had a grandparent die when I was 9 and I knew what it was about. Was my understanding of death as nuanced as when another one died in my 20s? Probably not, but I still felt it.
But yes, it does make a difference that he will be king, we've had this unique few years where we've had (under current plans) four generations of monarchs alive at the same time and today's footage will be dug out and shown on holo-TV for his silver jubilee in 2100 or whenever. And in a time of change, it's not the worse thing to be emphasising the continuity implicit in the succession.
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Four Canadian Mounties on horseback at the front of the late Queens funeral procession.
They are paying a great honour not just to Queen Elizabeth but the Commonwealth.
To the queen of Canada, ahead of the Commonwealth. I must admit, all those Union flags on the Mall rather jarred for me, they could have perhaps alternated them with the flags of the other countries that she was head of state of. One can't do that and then get upset when those other countries want to become republics, it just seems bad politics.
Also - they could have at least had the horses behind the coffin, or fitted them with nappies, I couldn't help thinking of all those shiny boots having to walk through what the horses left behind...
pje16 wrote:
Totally agreed, at that age it is hard to even understand a death.
It is probably being done for show
Nonsense, I had a grandparent die when I was 9 and I knew what it was about. Was my understanding of death as nuanced as when another one died in my 20s? Probably not, but I still felt it.
But yes, it does make a difference that he will be king, we've had this unique few years where we've had (under current plans) four generations of monarchs alive at the same time and today's footage will be dug out and shown on holo-TV for his silver jubilee in 2100 or whenever. And in a time of change, it's not the worse thing to be emphasising the continuity implicit in the succession.
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Four Canadian Mounties on horseback at the front of the late Queens funeral procession.
They are paying a great honour not just to Queen Elizabeth but the Commonwealth.
To the queen of Canada, ahead of the Commonwealth. I must admit, all those Union flags on the Mall rather jarred for me, they could have perhaps alternated them with the flags of the other countries that she was head of state of. One can't do that and then get upset when those other countries want to become republics, it just seems bad politics.
Also - they could have at least had the horses behind the coffin, or fitted them with nappies, I couldn't help thinking of all those shiny boots having to walk through what the horses left behind...
You may have understood it, but not all will
Stop being rude
I'm not in the habit of talking nonsense
XFool wrote:…. In my opinion, by far the best speaker was Bishop Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury.
I agree. I’m not at all religious but it was a very well crafted speech. That narrative arc ending the discussion of the queen’s faith and how anyone sharing that faith would believe that “we will meet again” was a very clever rhetorical device. (Calling it a “device” is not meant disparagingly, perhaps I should have stopped at “clever”; “effective” and “impactful’ would also describe it quite well imo.)
nimnarb wrote:For me, the stars of the show,(wrong word, really) were the 8 Pall Bearers. Think they used the same blokes each time and what with the responsibility that they carried on their shoulders,(what a great pun), they were just simply superb.
Quite so - especially remembering that the coffin is lead-lined!
XFool wrote:…. In my opinion, by far the best speaker was Bishop Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury.
I agree. I’m not at all religious but it was a very well crafted speech. That narrative arc ending the discussion of the queen’s faith and how anyone sharing that faith would believe that “we will meet again” was a very clever rhetorical device. (Calling it a “device” is not meant disparagingly, perhaps I should have stopped at “clever”; “effective” and “impactful’ would also describe it quite well imo.)
- Julian
Yes I agree: Welby was excellent, escpecially in his final remarks giving a guide for living a good life.
Liz Truss, by contrast, though she did a really good reading under the circumstances, showed the difference between "people like us" and trained professional actors or speakers. Don't take this as implying anything but admiration of her faultless and clear delivery , but just noting that actors can make words "come alive" in a way that she couldn't.
What a day: I am exhausted and drained of emotion just watching.
XFool wrote:…. In my opinion, by far the best speaker was Bishop Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury.
I agree. I’m not at all religious but it was a very well crafted speech. That narrative arc ending the discussion of the queen’s faith and how anyone sharing that faith would believe that “we will meet again” was a very clever rhetorical device. (Calling it a “device” is not meant disparagingly, perhaps I should have stopped at “clever”; “effective” and “impactful’ would also describe it quite well imo.)
- Julian
I think Justin Welby somewhat misinterpreted what the Queen said. He quoted her as "we WILL meet again", suggesting that after death we will meet in heaven, What the Queen said was in the context of the restrictions on us due to covid. "We will be with our friends again. We will be with our families again. We will MEET, again".
Subtly different, in my view.
doolally
ps Patricia Janet Scotland, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, PC, KC, is a British diplomat, barrister and politician, serving as the sixth secretary-general of the Commonwealth of Nations. Much scandal - according to Private Eye - has been attached to her tenure at CoN. However, her elocution is elegant and impeccable but then she was born in Dominica, British Leeward Islands - not educated at some terrible school in Leeds as per Truss who came up the hard way. Scotland clearly has the ability to understand punctuation, an ability yet to be picked up by Truss.
doolally wrote:I think Justin Welby somewhat misinterpreted what the Queen said. He quoted her as "we WILL meet again", suggesting that after death we will meet in heaven, What the Queen said was in the context of the restrictions on us due to covid. "We will be with our friends again. We will be with our families again. We will MEET, again".
Subtly different, in my view.
"misinterpreted" or reinterpreted and reemphasised? Subtly different.
Julian wrote:
I agree. I’m not at all religious but it was a very well crafted speech. That narrative arc ending the discussion of the queen’s faith and how anyone sharing that faith would believe that “we will meet again” was a very clever rhetorical device. (Calling it a “device” is not meant disparagingly, perhaps I should have stopped at “clever”; “effective” and “impactful’ would also describe it quite well imo.)
- Julian
I think Justin Welby somewhat misinterpreted what the Queen said. He quoted her as "we WILL meet again", suggesting that after death we will meet in heaven, What the Queen said was in the context of the restrictions on us due to covid. "We will be with our friends again. We will be with our families again. We will MEET, again".
Subtly different, in my view.
doolally
Welby was re-purposing what she said, that's true - but in the context of the service and knowing the Queen's beliefes better than we do, I believe it was an acceptable liberty to take.
Why are so many people picking on Individual speakers
you try getting up in front of 4.1bn people and even saying your name
isn't this detracting from what was a marvellous and magnificently arranged memorial to our greatest monarch.
pje16 wrote:Why are so many people picking on Individual speakers
you try getting up in front of 4.1bn people and even saying your name
isn't this detracting from what was a marvellous and magnificently arranged memorial to our greatest monarch.
I am sorry if I have contributed to any detraction from yesterday's events but I found Baroness Scotland's diction and delivery so pedantic and slow. I am pleased to say Quentin Letts, in today's Times, agrees with me. He also agrees with my comments on Truss's delivery.
I've been out of the loop, kept "radio silence" for a while so I've missed joining in with the many comments here about yesterday's events.
Just my 10p worth to pick up on some comments:
Baroness Scotland: I found nothing false in her delivery: I couldn't say anything struck me as posing, just thoughtful. Erring a little on the deliberately slow side for me, but better that than rushing it through nerves.
(Referring to this lady, I heard her story about being invited to tea at Ascot - or was it after Ascot - by the Queen. The monarch, reportedly said that she did it because Barones Scotland looked as though she could do with cheering up.)
Mounties: a wonderful touch, putting them and the police (one of the unsung hero groupings in all of this) at the head of the procession. The Queen had a great love of Canada, and it made a dashing start - especially appropriate as one of the horses was given by the Queen.
Royal Household: the fact that members of the Royal household were given prominent places in the Abbey and in the procession was another personal touch. She was rewarding those people who were closest to her. How impressive, the staff lining the route past Buckingham Palace too. Pride of place to say good bye the their boss. (Downton Abbey fans: eat your heart out).
Final escort in Windsor: how fitting that her personal soldiers were the last to see her to safety, when all others had dropped back in the ceremony. The troop which never has need to toast the Queen because their loyality is never in doubt.
Windsor long mile: I was astonished at the turnout here and actually, all along the 22 miles from London. I hadn't expected crowds along that mile twenty deep - it seemed like there might have been as many people there as in London. And likewise the amazing number of flowers on the upper part of the long drive, not to mention the throwing of flowers along the route by the public, akin to what happens when a prima ballerina has her final stage appearance - a stage strewn with flowers thrown from the audience.
Commentary: I echo the frustration of the commentators not knowing who some of the guests were, but I didn't let it spoil the occasion. I doubt anyone else would have done much better, though I would have expected a couple of researchers identifying people and whispering in the ear of Huw Edwards. However, it was announced that the commentary would be minimalist so as to not spoil the solemnity of the occasion, and I accepted that as what we would receive.
Music: can they not find more than three funeral marches? And don't tell us it was Beethoven's funeral march when it's accepted now that is isn't by him. The Russian Orthodox Kontakion for the departed: this was new to me until Saturday when I was in the choir seats as it was sung at Chichester cathedral. Sitting there next to the choir, was a most moving experience, as it was yesterday. It was used at the funeral of the Duke of Edinburgh, I've since discovered, so we have a subtle interlacing of history: a link with her husband, a link with the Russian connection in her family: a link with the Greek side of Philip's family.
Organisation: hat's off to the people who thought through all the details and put on an incredibly complex event. Details like how to get 10 sailors abreast through an arch only wide enough for six, while making it look as though nothing much had happened. Ditto: those incredible young men, the coffin bearers, who marched out of step to avoid the coffin swaying. Their task was perhaps the most daunting and with far greater risk than just stumbling over a few words in an oration. It was carried out perfectly and with great smoothness . I hope they were well looked after between stints, and that they receive some special award.
And someone observed that though the Grenadiers were sometimes of different heights, their white belts were all at the same height above the ground. I'm not sure if this is true, but I pass it on!
It was nice to see the Earl Marshall, who is responsible for overseeing these events particularly with regard to protocols. He's a background figure, the Duke of Norfolk, and does not often come into the spotlight as he did yesterday. While I'm thinking of it, I just love the subtle touches and references: the symbolism of flowers in the bouquet, the jewelry which Kate and Megham wore, the breaking of the "wand", the camp colours being interred with the coffin, the appearance of the corgies and Emma the highland pony - all these things great and small add to the weight of an occasion and are carefully put together by deep knowledge of those around the Royals and the Queen herself. It was a perfect blend of the State and the personal.
Children: it never occurred to me that it might be wrong to have George and Charlotte there. It's not as though they were walking the Mall behind their mother's cortege as William and Harry had to. It was right that they should be part of it, at their great grandmother's funeral. I felt a bit sorry for them having to endure some of it which must have been monumentally boring. Even the procession was limited for them: they could hardly see a thing except the crowds. But it was a suitable glimpse of the public life ahead, and they will look back on it fondly, I should think, as one of their biggest occasions - probably the biggest. Had they been excluded, they would have regretted it for ever more.
On a personal note, I feel tired and emotional. It's been a momentous and profound week - never far from tears, and quite exhausting. Mourning the Queen was something special, something personal to many of us, as it brings into focus one's own mortality, one's own family etc. - all those things which have been repeated endlessly. I feel drained, and all I had to do was watch (and queue!). King Charles is only two years younger than I, and how he coped with what he has had to do, I've no idea. I just hope he managed to grab a cuppa somewhere during the day. Perhaps Camilla had a flask tucked away in the car?
Let us hope that the Monarchy is safe for another generation: it is in good hands with King Charles.
Half of me is still in mourning and feeling raw: gradually, this week we will get back to the rough and tumble of daily life.
pje16 wrote:Why are so many people picking on Individual speakers
you try getting up in front of 4.1bn people and even saying your name
isn't this detracting from what was a marvellous and magnificently arranged memorial to our greatest monarch.
I am sorry if I have contributed to any detraction from yesterday's events but I found Baroness Scotland's diction and delivery so pedantic and slow. I am pleased to say Quentin Letts, in today's Times, agrees with me. He also agrees with my comments on Truss's delivery.
Dod
Some would disagree:
After opening prayers and hymns, Lady Scotland read the first lesson, taken from Corinthians. She spoke superbly, so much so that even those of no faith could half believe that faith might triumph over death. That there was an afterlife. Liz Truss predictably murdered the second lesson from St John. Speaking aloud is not her strong point and she has yet to realise that punctuation is there to help you make sense of the text.
Crace Guardian - but then you pay your subscription and you get what you pay for with Letts.
Anyway, I liked the bit from Westminster 1 to Westminster 2. And it should have ended there.
*Family flowers only. Donations to RNLI (or charity of your choice) can be made if desired*
Now back to the real world.
No, it does not matter and I agree with you re the amazing amount of money that must have gone on flowers. Much better to have gone to a charity but then people are human and flowers seem like something tangible I suppose.
Anyway, I liked the bit from Westminster 1 to Westminster 2. And it should have ended there.
*Family flowers only. Donations to RNLI (or charity of your choice) can be made if desired*
Now back to the real world.
No, it does not matter and I agree with you re the amazing amount of money that must have gone on flowers. Much better to have gone to a charity but then people are human and flowers seem like something tangible I suppose.
Dod
Perhaps a windfall tax (Florist Profits Levy) might realise some money for charities?
doolally
Anyway, I liked the bit from Westminster 1 to Westminster 2. And it should have ended there.
*Family flowers only. Donations to RNLI (or charity of your choice) can be made if desired*
Now back to the real world.
One of the TV presenters talked about how on some occasions the crowds would clap as the Queens coffin went by. Which does seem strange in a way. The British consensus seems to be one of solemnity as coffins drive by. The presenter went on to suggest that we have no way of saying thank you or expressing ourselves as the coffin passes by. But we want to be part of it. So we clap and in doing so we have expressed our feelings.
When my Mum died in December last year I was unable to organise anything for her funeral because of covid. In March we had a "Celebration of Life" service for Mum. We focused on her life and remembered the good times. At times it felt as if she was in the room laughing and sharing fond memories with us. I wanted to focus on those who were coming.
I'd like to suggest the RNLI and many of our British charities are in good shape. The British are a very charitable people. Of course we can always do more. Perhaps that's a discussion for another day? Certainly a worthy topic.
But for a brief moment in time we had to stop and say thank you to a Great Britain. She's earned it. Every last petal.
Flowers also seem a waste of money, but on this occasion and on similar occasions, they are not. It's an expression on one's feelings. I wasn't to sure about a thousand years of tradition being reduced to a model of Paddington Bear and a pot of marmalade, but - whatever. People mourn or celebrate in their own way and every positive gesture is welcome.
We can always think of worthier ways of spending money. Indeed, I am slightly surprised my children (especially my daughter) who are anti-monarch, anti-class system, anti- anyone with more money than them, and very left wing, haven't yet posted on the family Whatsapp group about what a waste of money it all was*.
Going down the route of comparing any expediture with how many more nurses we could employ, or how many homes for homeless we could build has a compulsive but flawed logic. We would end up with a grey and dead world inhabited by people who hate life and with no sparkle whatever - exept that allowed by a particular cadre at the top - and whatever riches were left would remain with them to the exculsion of the populous.
*I posted a picture of the Great Queue, and one of my near relatives came back with a sarky reply to the effect that it's a pity I don't post pictures of the queues of homeless people.
I hope my kids grow up one day but at 40-50 they should surely be veering to the right by now, so it's quite worrying.
