On This Day

[Stillhomewardbound]

From the diary of Sir Henry 'Chips' Channon:


6 February, 1952

An unbelieveable day began normally. That is, all my telephones buzzed, and I arranged my luncheon party, read my letters, chatted to Princess Olga on the house phone - and then soon after ten she walked into my room, followed by her son, Alexander. They looked gloomy, and she said simply: 'You may as well know at once, the King is dead', and then bursting into tears, added 'Poor Bertie'. Philip Hay had rung her a few minutes before, to break the news; the world did not yet know. It seems the Monarch was called at 7.15 this morning as usual by his valet, who found him dead. Doubtless coronory thrombosis. The Royal demise was kept secret for a few frantic hours whilst messages were sent to Princess Elizabeth in Kenya, and to Queen Mary. Later brief announcements were made over the wireless and I heard the mid-day one. .... I rang the House of Commons to ask what was happening to be told that 'Her Majesty's wishes are not yet known'. Le roi est mort, vive la reine.

[salymap]

I'm probably one of few on the boards who remember the day. We didn't have TV then but must have seen the pictures in the papers. Black clothes were presumably hurried onto the Queen's plane when it landed, she left the plane to be met by her veiled sister and mother and various dignitaries.

I worked in London by then and several of us went to the Lying in State at Westminster Hall a few days later.

I know the Royals get a lot of stick from these boards, how many of us would really want that job? Not me certainly.
Well done Queen Elizabeth.

[BBMmk2]

I am an ardent Royalist. I don't give a monkeys to the people who think we do not need a Monarch these days. Maybe I am biased,(or partisan even!!), rather, but they do a lot of work behind the scenes and because they have no right or reply, people seem to take advantage of this and imo, this is not right at all!!

[decantor]

I remember the day too. I was playing marbles with a friend in the drive - it was not at all cold. A girl we knew wandered up and announced - in hushed tones, bless her - that the King was dead. "Don't be silly," I replied without looking up, "the King wouldn't just die like that." Five minutes later, my mum put me right. We were a naval family, and the King had often worn 'our' uniform. We felt close. It came as quite a shock.

Good to see some folks on this board waving a flag for the Royals. Not only has HM done a terrific job, well deserving of the derided "privilege", but I fear the alternative - elected officials have hardly distinguished themselves in recent years, and the thought of some ex-politician or X-Factor star as Head of State curls the toes. Vivat Regina!

[Mary Chambers]

I remember it very clearly. I was told by another girl at school. She was crying. I didn't cry, but I was shocked - how could the King be dead? He'd always been there, and anyway, he was the King!

[Stillhomewardbound]

Even a non-royalist would have to acknowledge the history of transition. All the more so given that it was the commencement of what has proved to be a most consistent reign, and one entirely with incident. The attempted kidnap of Princess Anne, the very public divorce of Margaret and AAJ, the slaughter of Mountbatten, the miserably failed marriages of Andrew & Charles, the death of the disenfranchised Diana and the subsequent ballyhoo. Astonishing events, and yet through it all she has kept her poise, dignity and reverence for the office she occupies.

To be without power is senseless, but to hold it in the palm of one's hand, as Elizaabeth held the orb at the coronation, and to be its supine guardian must take a special courage and HMQ has carried out the job to perfection.

Yes, I am a socialist and a republican in my way, but daily, I shudder at the notion of a President Major - Blair - Brown - Cameron - Johnson - May, or even a Prescott.

No, let her continue with God's speed.

[salymap]

Well said Shb.

[ahinton]

Yes, there can be no doubt that Her Majesty the Queen's achievement over the past six decades is remarkable; she'll reach the age of 86 soon and, as someone recently said, she's not exactly short of access to the best possible healthcare and so will probably still be doing the job in 20 years from now (by which time Charles will be almost the age that she is now). In an interview on yesterday's Today programme on Radio 4, the author Sarah Bradford was asked if she thought that the Queen had enjoyed her rôle - surely an impossible question to answer. I'm neither an ardent royalist nor an anti-monarchist and I strongly suspect that the views of many on the subject in Britain today will have been fundamentally influenced by the fact of the present incumbent; Shb may indeed "shudder at the notion of a President Major - Blair - Brown - Cameron - Johnson - May, or even a Prescott", but then I imagine that some might do likewise at the prospect of Charles III or William V or Henry IX - and (admittedly far farther down the line of possibility) what about King Andrew I? In other words (as someone recently put it), God save our gracious Queen, but God help the rest of us - and the institution of monarchy in Britain - when she finally goes. Is there ever likely to be such unwavering commitment and energy from her successor/s? Is that a realistic prospect? The sense of duty which seems to have been one of her more notable hallmarks has meant that, whilst she is extremely wealthy, she really doesn't have much of a life outside that of the monarch - and to sustain that for 60 years into the latter half of her ninth decade with no prospect of ever feeling able to give up (she has indicated that she will never abdicate) has required immense resilience and seflessness, but the inscrutability that she has felt it incumbent upon her to maintain, to the point where most of us know next to nothing of what she really thinks about anything (politics included, notwithstanding the number of times that she's been obliged to utter the words "my government"), must be a tough call for her, just as it can seem to be a problem for the rest of us. I wonder, however, if that always guarded attitude might at last crack if the Union breaks up; it will be a very sad day for her if it happens during her term of office but, given her determination to go on for as long as she is able, that remains a very real possibility.

[MrGongGong]

Yes, I am a socialist and a republican in my way, but daily, I shudder at the notion of a President Major - Blair - Brown - Cameron - Johnson - May, or even a Prescott.

This is such a weak argument

Why on earth does THAT always have to be presented as the alternative ???

There are other ways of doing things

What's wrong with having a representative that exemplifies what we do well ?

President : Robert Wnston, Johnathan Miller, for example .........

[BBMmk2]

Well said MrGG!! Wholeheartedly agree!! Great briotian wouldn't be the country that it is without the heriditary mornachy!!(Pity not the Plantagents still! :))

I say three cheers for the Queen!!

[decantor]

This is such a weak argument. Why on earth does THAT always have to be presented as the alternative ??? There are other ways of doing things. What's wrong with having a representative that exemplifies what we do well ? President : Robert Wnston, Johnathan Miller, for example .........

MrGG, despite BBM's celebratory agreement, your own proposal also has significant weaknesses.

Your suggested worthies, or their equivalent, would have to abandon their own specialist interests and accept political neutrality during their tenure of the Presidency; and they would take on much travelling, much pressing of flesh, endless occasions requiring anodyne speeches and being nice to all and sundry. Are you sure those of quality and imagination would want such a job?

Would the President be appointed to ensure worthiness? If so, appointed by whom? And wouldn't the appointment, bestowing privileges and constitutional powers, give rise to a great deal of contention - contention that would undermine respect and credibility?

So presumably the President would be elected. From a list? A vetted list - vetted by whom? Or an open list, where the nature of vox pop is such that worthies of the sort you recommend may not attract the required level of support. Whatever the outcome, such an election could divide the country rather than unite it: opinion about the Royals may divide the country as it is, but at least we currently have the bedrock of inevitability, of a matter predetermined and not warranting any bitter in-fighting.

Much else would be changed fundamentally: eg RA, RE, RAF, RN, HMS, huge tracts of tradition and charitable patronage. These may just be details, but they run into the thousands, and there is a devil in each of them. Furthermore, does the President of Ireland attract the same worldwide interest as our Royals? There is even an international advantage in the mystique of inheritance, and it serves the Commonwealth as well as the nation. Would you really dump all this just to reclaim a few ramshackle palaces and preen democratic feathers?

[MrGongGong]

Your suggested worthies, or their equivalent, would have to abandon their own specialist interests and accept political neutrality during their tenure of the Presidency; and they would take on much travelling, much pressing of flesh, endless occasions requiring anodyne speeches and being nice to all and sundry. Are you sure those of quality and imagination would want such a job?

So lets carry on being represented by the mediocre and dysfunctional then ?
what a sad lack of ambition some people have !!

I'm not convinced by the "Lydon" argument either

Furthermore, does the President of Ireland attract the same worldwide interest as our Royals? There is even an international advantage in the mystique of inheritance, and it serves the Commonwealth as well as the nation.

"God save the queen
'Cause tourists are money"

Taking two possible candidates who have "quality and imagination" (surely this IS what we want ?) who I have met
Robert Winston and the Queen

I know which one I would choose to be an articulate advocate for our REAL values !!!!

personally I have no animosity to the Royal Family, they seem more than a little sad to me but i'm not looking forward to the endless toadying Witchellfest that the BBC is bound deliver this year which coupled with the bloody olympics makes me search the Thompson & Morgan Catalogue for a small hemlock specimen !

[decantor]

personally I have no animosity to the Royal Family, they seem more than a little sad to me but i'm not looking forward to the endless toadying Witchellfest that the BBC is bound deliver this year which coupled with the bloody olympics makes me search the Thompson & Morgan Catalogue for a small hemlock specimen !

Your response was very selective, MrGG, and did not address the difficult issues, but on your final points (above) we are in total agreement. Nil carburundum illegitimis.

[MrGongGong]

Your response was very selective, MrGG, and did not address the difficult issues, but on your final points (above) we are in total agreement. Nil carburundum illegitimis.

Surely "difficult issues" shouldn't be a barrier to desiring inspirational representation ?

I was only really musing on how we seem to be prepared to accept mediocrity when we could have something much better !
When they built the medieval cathedrals (for example )I would imagine that the idea of "difficulty" was something to be embraced and overcome rather than something to make one give up

[decantor]

Surely "difficult issues" shouldn't be a barrier to desiring inspirational representation ?

I was only really musing on how we seem to be prepared to accept mediocrity when we could have something much better !
When they built the medieval cathedrals (for example )I would imagine that the idea of "difficulty" was something to be embraced and overcome rather than something to make one give up

I would say that the quality of being "inspirational" is too often double-edged - remember the adage about 'meat' and 'poison'. But in any case inspiration should come primarily from the executive - an orchestra looks to its conductor, not its GM or Patron to deliver its music. Ironically, a fair slice of the planet does seem to find HM inspirational, or at least intriguing - the cynics are chiefly in UK and Australia.

What you describe as "mediocrity", others will call "dutiful and dignified neutrality". And as for those difficulties - well, we need to look carefully at the balance-sheet between the problems and the perceived potential benefits. We have a long-standing cathedral in place, one serving its purpose well: how can we be sure of gain if we demolish it and start anew?