Democracy and Monarchy

[french frank]

Certainly there are republics in the world with more restrictions on freedom of speech than in the UK, but that is hardly an argument in favour of retaining the institution of monarchy, is it?

No, but neither does the abolition result in freedom of speech, rights to protest &c as an ineveitable/eventual consequence of getting rid of these fabulously rich people. Somewhere there is an ideal society if only in the imagination, but as the years evolve there is social change. Yes, many nations are seemingly moving in a very worrying direction towards something I don't think we've seen before, but it's not centred on the monarchies.

[Ironically, if you go back far enough the monarchy - by virtue of its acceptance was the bastion which counterbalanced the rich and powerful. As the monarchy has in one respect lost its power, others move in to take over. Not that I'm suggesting feudalism as an alternative! Just wondering if there is a natural flux.]

[french frank]

Quite so. No skills or qualifications necessary. How many people could have done that "job" just as well? Millions.

No way of proving how well others would have done the job, is there? And had millions turning out to 'pay their respect' to them when they died.

[Bryn]

No way of proving how well others would have done the job, is there? And had millions turning out to 'pay their respect' to them when they died.

Careful there, frenchie, let's no place her in the company of Stalin, Kim Il Sung et al.

[RichardB]

No, but neither does the abolition result in freedom of speech, rights to protest &c as an ineveitable/eventual consequence

I don't think anyone is claiming that it does. And no, of course there is no way of proving how others would have done that job, but I wouldn't say that having done that particular one for 70 years is particularly worthy of respect compared to most other occupations!

[french frank]

I don't think anyone is claiming that it does. And no, of course there is no way of proving how others would have done that job, but I wouldn't say that having done that particular one for 70 years is particularly worthy of respect compared to most other occupations!

Not many people get lumbered with the same job for 70 years, until they're 96! Some can't wait to get to retirement age if they're not in a job they're very attached to. I have heard people say they love their job and they never want to retire - they're the lucky ones.

Careful there, frenchie, let's no place her in the company of Stalin, Kim Il Sung et al.

Touché, mon brave. But that's human beings. Strange, ain't it?

[cat]

Reading this thread has helped me understand just how cheesed-off (and why) people must be . I believe in constitutional monarchy and I liked the Queen , but I didn't watch the funeral as I think the media response to her death is absurdly overdone , unwarranted and ridiculous. So I understand the reaction of those who don't share even my respect for royalty.

Not sure I get it - if people are fed up with media coverage of this event, I’m sure they can figure out some way to otherwise entertain themselves, and does no one own any recorded music or books, or subscribe to any streaming services? Reading the complaints, anyone would think listening to broadcasts was a mandatory daily activity. It’s not like a head of state dies in office every decade.

[Joseph K]

In response to depictions of public 'forelock-tugging', 'cap-doffing', 'fawning' and 'lickspittle' ("Doff your cap to Squire, boy", Give your seat to the lady, Oliver"), I felt this was missing an important nuance to the word 'respect' as if it necessarily implied any sort of social relationship, lower to upper.

You mean to say people respect the Queen as their equal? That seems to me awfully disrespectful! We are (or were) her subjects.

[french frank]

Not sure I get it

Yes, move on. Nothing to see here

You mean to say people respect the Queen as their equal? That seems to me awfully disrespectful! We are (or were) her subjects.

No, I don't mean that. I mean respect doesn't have to have anything to do with anyone's perceived 'status'.

[Joseph K]

I mean it doesn't have to have anything to do with anyone's perceived 'status'.

I think that's extremely disingenuous. The monarchy is nothing but status.

[Bryn]

You mean to say people respect the Queen as their equal? That seems to me awfully disrespectful! We are (or were) her subjects.

from https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-...ritish-subject

Who is a British subject

You became a British subject on 1 January 1983 if, until then, you were either:

a British subject without citizenship, which means you were a British subject on 31 December 1948 who did not become a citizen of the UK and Colonies, a Commonwealth country, Pakistan or Ireland
a person who had been a citizen of Ireland on 31 December 1948 and had made a claim to remain a British subject

You also became a British subject on 1 January 1983 if you were a woman who registered as a British subject on the basis of your marriage to a man in one of these categories.

[gurnemanz]

Yet again a thread that is supposed to be about Radio Three during the period of National Mourning has been skewed towards a very few people’s personal animosity to the monarchy and the alleged disappearance of free speech over the last few years. Please can we keep on topic and move these posts to the ideas and politics sub forum ?

The point is valid but I nearly always join in by clicking "What's New" and end up reacting to latest posts which may or may not be strictly on thread, rather than addressing the specific point in the title. I suspect others may do the same.

Personally, I'm not so worried about threads broadening out or going off on tangents, but acknowledge that it is probably desirable to steer them back on course at some point, especially having marked countless student essays over the years, where veering off the point is a common mark-losing and grade-reducing fault.

[oddoneout]

The point is valid but I nearly always join in by clicking "What's New" and end up reacting to latest posts which may or may not be strictly on thread, rather than addressing the specific point in the title. I suspect others may do the same.

Personally, I'm not so worried about threads broadening out or going off on tangents, but acknowledge that it is probably desirable to steer them back on course at some point, especially having marked countless student essays over the years, where veering off the point is a common mark-losing and grade-reducing fault.

Where threads start to meander, if they are just rambles they may find their own way back or just peter out for lack of more relevant material anyway. Over my time reading the posts here I have found many of these deviations entertaining/informative. What can cause problems is when things get fractious and those who might wish to contribute on the thread topic feel disinclined to get embroiled, not wanting to get caught in the cross fire or have a comment just get lost in the ruckus. I find myself holding back in those situations.

[smittims]

Hi,cat, re your message yessterday, I think many of the people who are 'cheesed off' are annoyed at their usual programme being cancelled or postponed till goodness-knows when. Even I found that several TV programmes I set to record didn't turn out because of the changed schedules, and I fear I may have missed them for good.

[Serial_Apologist]

Hi,cat, re your message yessterday, I think many of the people who are 'cheesed off' are annoyed at their usual programme being cancelled or postponed till goodness-knows when. Even I found that several TV programmes I set to record didn't turn out because of the changed schedules, and I fear I may have missed them for good.

Several programmes wold appear to have been postponed, and captions in Radio Times have been amended with previously unrevealed information, making one wonder if that particular programme has been altered, making for a lot of hassle checking URLs and so on.

As regards the issue of respect accorded to persons my own view is to respect individual over occupation since, in the case of Head of State the fact that this has long been laid down, ostensibly with only minority opposition notwithstanding that the general public has never been formally consulted, and that he or she is fated by birth to carry out the duty. One could cite familial problems in The Firm as in part ascribable to circumscribed circumstances of role and upbringing; it wouldn't at all surprise me if large numbers of the estimated 250 thousand attending her coffin at Westminster Hall did so out of pity: who would choose to do such a job for life, and be required to raise offspring condemned to said perpetuity? The fact that apparently the late queen carried hers out as well if not better than previous incumbents, and with more integrity than many an elected leader, could well account for the level of respect... as for the rest - all the presumptions as to the sort of person she really was, which nobody outside the mis-described charmed circle really knows or is willing to divulge - along with all the media sycophancy, can be explained by any number of reasons; it should not surprise that her religion has often been used in this connection.

[RichardB]

Speaking of changes of programme, once the BBC has finished with its sycophantic DPRK-like treatment of the Queen's death, lying in state and funeral, perhaps they can cancel a few more programmes to make space for a discussion on the future of the monarchy now that she's gone! - given that a sizeable proportion of younger people reckon it might as well be abolished, even though this viewpoint is more or less absent from public discourse.