JHE
.
I'd quite like to believe that nobody cared, but clearly that was not the case. There was a great deal of respect and affection for her, whether you (or I) like it or not. Kidding yourself doesn't really help anyone.
60th anniversary of the coronation
- Thread starter DotCommunist
- Start date
I'd quite like to believe that nobody cared, but clearly that was not the case. There was a great deal of respect and affection for her, whether you (or I) like it or not. Kidding yourself doesn't really help anyone.
JHE
.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
nobody gave a flying, even the usual royal commenters wheeled out for the occasion didn't give a fuck. 'Clearly' is nonsense- clearly cos what, the beeb had a black armband on for the day? Nobody gave a shit. There weren't even any franklin mint commemorative plates of her playing tennis with emily pankhurst or anything like that.
JHE
.
No, the fact that you and your mates were uninterested does not indicate that nobody cared. There was no weeping and wailing because when someone of that age dies, it doesn't seem such a terrible thing, but if you had talked to people beyond your (very young and probably largely toytown revolutionary) circle, you would have found a lot of respect and affection for her. I'm not convinced she deserved it, but she certainly had it.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Yes well I imagine we don't move in the same circles because not even my sainted grandmother gave a shit.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
What was that thing last year all about, then? Do we have to have more?
SaskiaJayne
Rural Guerrilla
Welby waffling on..
What fuckin bollocks is this? Bein Queen? eeeeeasy fuckin life, I reckon.
The queen mother died?
What achievements are ''they'' claiming?
That's what I thought.
Zapp Brannigan
Built like a steakhouse, handles like a bistro
60 years on the throne is one epic shit.
JHE
.
The same thought haunts poor anguished Charles, I reckon. Even more likely than her outliving him is the possibility that she will just last long enough to shorten Charlie's reign to a couple of years doddering about before being succeeded by his more popular, better-looking and helpfully bland elder son.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
youngian
Well-Known Member
Anyone with a good knowledge of constitutional history might be able to help with this query-
The Queen refused to allow the moment of her crowning to be filmed because she has a barmy belief that she is annointed by God. This concept is also important to her reasons for not retiring.
Is this a personal belief by Elizabeth II or is the monarch being annointed by god a constitutionally recognised concept?
Also wouldn't the Protestant parliamentarians who deposed James II and placed QEII's Hannoverian fore-fathers on the throne, regard such a concept as Papist blasphemy?
The Queen refused to allow the moment of her crowning to be filmed because she has a barmy belief that she is annointed by God. This concept is also important to her reasons for not retiring.
Is this a personal belief by Elizabeth II or is the monarch being annointed by god a constitutionally recognised concept?
Also wouldn't the Protestant parliamentarians who deposed James II and placed QEII's Hannoverian fore-fathers on the throne, regard such a concept as Papist blasphemy?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
thats big beef there yongian. will get back to you anon
UhOhSeven
Your mum
As far as I know, this is not the case, in particulars or generalities.
What certainly was not allowed to be broadcast is the period during the coronation ceremony in which the Queen and her bishops retreat under a sort of ceremonial canopy within the Abbey for ritual anointment with oils -- this is when the bishops 'elect' the Monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and is the bit that is usually taken as signifying the Monarch's link to God. (It's an echo of the ancient 'elected Monarch' ceremony).
The 'annointment' is the one referred to above and has been carried out on every Monarch since time immemorial -- it's not described in any law or regulation, although it ties in with the Monarch's duties as described by the Coronation Oath Act (1689) -- this is the one that will give Charles so much trouble in a few years.
As for the Queen's personal beliefs:
The Queen takes her position as Supreme Governor very seriously, but whether she believes that she personally was picked by God is another matter and, I think, unknown.
She doesn't necessarily believe in a lifelong reign for religious reasons, although that might play a personal part, but certainly more because it's what Monarchs do -- no-one wants to be a bolter like Ed VIII. It's a tradition that can't be broken. Edward VIII was a constitutional disaster and the very antithesis of a Royal role model. Not even George III was allowed to step down while insane -- the establishment put forward the Prince Regent to rule, but he wasn't made King.
Idris2002
cavalcade of hubris
I think that would fall under the "treason never prospers, for if it prospers, none dare call it treason" rule.
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
Indeed. It is quite incredible. As far as I could see their reports on Israel / Palestine were breaking OFCOM regulations up until the full story became obvious (though other sources) to the man in the street.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
It's at that point that I start to worry about your 'analysis'.
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
they do, but the French still pay for Versailles, and a President and a Prime Minister - quite how they are better off because of it is something of a mystery...
Similar threads
