The Queen's Jubilee

[Anna]

I'm slightly bemused by those who rant about the coverage qua celebration of the monarch(y) (why watch?) as distinct from those who wanted to watch the celebration and found it a let-down.

I think the majority of us have been complaining of feeling very let down and disappointed at the BBC coverage and I guess, by watching the coverage, we are saying that we have nothing against the monarchy, or perhaps we are just very keen on looking at boats!

Gillian Reynolds on Today said, 'I want someone with an interest in the subject and who is informed' and that just about sums it up. Of course, as frenchie in her wisdom suggested upthread, if the rain (which had been forecast for days before) prevented clear coverage they could have intercut with archive footage of, say, the boats at Dunkirk; the bells being cast at Whitechapel; the history of the various wharves; the docks and the barges on the Thames .... the list is endless.

Also, there have been complaints from the overseas stations that took the BBC footage plus, not one single commentator had researched, and therefor could not identify, a single Commonwealth flag on the little boats. Bit of an insult to those taking part I think (no matter what your views about the Commonwealth are) Edit: Evidently one of the presents on Radio 5L said, after the St. Pauls service ' Well, that was a bit stuffy wasn't it'

[Nick Armstrong]

No just dented it!

You want locking up!!

[cloughie]

Evidently one of the presents on Radio 5L said, after the St. Pauls service ' Well, that was a bit stuffy wasn't it'

...and was their musical judgement so good that they said most of the Palace concert was poor!

[JohnSkelton]

A critical perspective on the Jubilee which is worth reading, IMO http://notesbrokensociety.wordpress....6/recessional/

On the matter of the Jubilee stewards http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/0...es-struck-off/

[Lateralthinking1]

A critical perspective on the Jubilee which is worth reading, IMO http://notesbrokensociety.wordpress....6/recessional/

On the matter of the Jubilee stewards http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/0...es-struck-off/

A warm welcome back John. This thread began with a question about whether the celebrations had started early. The inference was that the Government was looking to divert attention but also that such a thing was easy to see through.

As one of the unemployed, my views have changed along the lines of Vivienne Westwood. I wasn't wholly against the Royal Family in 1977 but rather doubtful. Now I'm in favour. While theoretically, the monarch has a crucial constitutional role, in practice Monarchy and Government in this century have separated.

The Monarchy is now spiritually huge and, in practical terms, pretty powerless. Government has become miniscule by comparison and yet is too powerful. The size of modern Monarchy is in its ability to provide apolitical continuity and cohesion. Government is both tiny and too powerful because it is now so far removed from democratic principle.

A modern version of the status quo is welcomed in the first. It is closer to celebrity than the military now for better or worse. It is also closer to however one perceives god, above politics rather than allied. A backward becoming consensus in the other is catastrophic because it was there that radical, forward looking, reform was absolutely essential. There is Mammon in grey suits.

I see no evidence for Elizabeth being responsible for the power of the three major political parties. It is they that have us in a stranglehold. Furthermore, there has never in our lifetimes been a correlation between the existence of Monarchy and economic hardship. The stifling of protest by the disabled, the loss of jobs and wage slaves being forced to sleep in the rain - that is all Government. This Government and the legacy it inherited from the last Government.

[MrGongGong]

The Monarchy is now huge and essentially powerless.

As long as charlie is agreement that is !
They are only "apolitical" if you think that politics is about "parties" ....... just because we have a dreadful unrepresentative and immoral government doesn't really let the royals off the hook though !
Maybe when these obscenely rich people stop taking our money and start paying the tax that they should on their earnings like the rest of us then ................. no much chance of that though

[Pegleg]

A slight digression from the debate, although folk are free to pick holes in this if the feel so inclined. The DM has just published some spectacular photos taken from the BBMF Lancaster of yesterday's fly past.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2155406/Astonishing-bomb-aimers-view-Jubilee-celebrations-Britains-airworthy-Lancaster-flies-Buckingham-Palace-Mall.html

[Nick Armstrong]

A slight digression from the debate, although folk are free to pick holes in this if the feel so inclined. The DM has just published some spectacular photos taken from the BBMF Lancaster of yesterday's fly past.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lace-Mall.html

I live due West of the flightpath - it was wonderful to have the windows at home rattled a treat by all those low-flying Merlin engines a few seconds later... plus the low, throaty roar that sounds like nothing else!

[Serial_Apologist]

A critical perspective on the Jubilee which is worth reading, IMO http://notesbrokensociety.wordpress....6/recessional/

On the matter of the Jubilee stewards http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/0...es-struck-off/

Just wanna second Lat1's welcome John - while disagreeing with his monarchism, naturally. Good to see you back.

[Quarky]

A critical perspective on the Jubilee which is worth reading, IMO http://notesbrokensociety.wordpress....6/recessional/

On the matter of the Jubilee stewards http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/0...es-struck-off/

Attempting an objective view of this all, I feel that ancient history is a factor which is ignored at one's peril. Forget what has happened over the past two or three hundred years, and look back to the formation of the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms after the Romans left round about 400 AD, and the Anglo-Saxons moved in, by one means or another, and organised themselves into kingdoms. This morning I picked a book off my book shelf I haven't looked at for ages:

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Origins_of_Anglo_Saxon_kingdoms.html?id=DkBnAAAAMAAJ

So in other words there has always been a kingdom of one sort or another. This fact is very much in the minds of the majority of the population, and many important people, particularly in the Armed Forces. A very potent factor in my view!

[Serial_Apologist]

Attempting an objective view of this all, I feel that ancient history is a factor which is ignored at one's peril. Forget what has happened over the past two or three hundred years, and look back to the formation of the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms after the Romans left round about 400 AD, and the Anglo-Saxons moved in, by one means or another, and organised themselves into kingdoms. This morning I picked a book off my book shelf I haven't looked at for ages:

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Origins_of_Anglo_Saxon_kingdoms.html?id=DkBnAAAAMAAJ

So in other words there has always been a kingdom of one sort or another. This fact is very much in the minds of the majority of the population, and many important people, particularly in the Armed Forces. A very potent factor in my view!

I agree Oddball - I think no one noticed my earlier post:

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?5399-The-Queen-s-Jubilee&p=171046#post171046

[Quarky]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention S_A. I hadn't noticed your earlier post. The root of nationalism in the UK in my book.

For my part I am content to reside in the ancient territory of the Mimmse, part of Middelseaxan, with the Hicce to the north, and St. Albans itself directly adjacent, which I believe remained an enclave of the Britons for a long period of time.

[amateur51]

Another misjudged attempt at "humour"?

Thanks for that insight from you extensive experience, Panny

[amateur51]

I remain as insulted as the two veterans on HMS Belfast who names Fearne Cotton mixed up and hadn't the slightest clue how to interview in any meaningful way.

One of those two gents aforementioned was on the Today programme this morning saying how he hadn't minded one bit that he'd been called 'Jim' instead of 'John' (or vice versa) by Fearne Cotton; it's an easy mistake to make, she didn't do it on purpose and she's a very nice young lady.

What a lovely gent. He sounds a lot more reasonable and forgiving than some posters on here

[Mr Pee]

One of those two gents aforementioned was on the Today programme this morning saying how he hadn't minded one bit that he'd been called 'Jim' instead of 'John' (or vice versa) by Fearne Cotton; it's an easy mistake to make, she didn't do it on purpose and she's a very nice young lady.

Do you know her well?