The Minute's Silence thread got me thinking - esp. Kats rationale that "we are still a monarchy at present".

We-ell yes, technically correct Kats, but obviously some people believe that we still live in an oligarchy where old buffers who aspire to putting in an appearance on the New Years Honours List get to tell forelock-tuggers and general riff raff what to think and how to act.

Can I suggest that that is the root of the dissent on here (and elsewhere) surrounding Margaret's death. Maybe when Noel Coward was at the peak of his luvviness they could get away with informing the populace how they should be behaving. Now though, maybe the majority of Britons believe that respect is something that must be earned - not ordered by self-serving brown-nosers and monarchists.

Chr&st knows - Britain needs to move into the 21st century at some stage. Perhaps events like that are a wider signal that people are starting to wake up to themselves ??

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2002

Answers

"Good on yer cobber!"

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2002

I'm not sure what you're getting at there LT. A healthy disrespect for authority, the monarchy et al, was well under way from the early 1960's when TV programmes like TW3 broke the mould and challenged the status quo. You're argument expressed above was fought and won 40 years ago. Makes you sound like an old buffer, regurgitating it here. :-)

obviously some people believe that we still live in an oligarchy where old buffers who aspire to putting in an appearance on the New Years Honours List get to tell forelock-tuggers and general riff raff what to think and how to act.

I've no idea what you're talking about. Have you? :-) Who are these old buffers and forelock tuggers? I see many people with a respect for the tradition of the monarchy and a personal regard for the Queen but I don't recognise them by your outrageously ageist slur as "old buffers" and I can't ever recall seeing anyone tug a forelock. As for these people telling the general riff raff what to think and how to act well - a good many people from all walks of life, monarchists or not, have opinions on that.

No-one on the Minute's Silence thread (and why start a new one?) argued FOR the Monarchy as such. There were a few disrespectful opinions expressed about the deceased, and only when these cheap and nasty swipes were challenged did some try and argue that it was more the FA sycophancy they were against and that this woman was an irrelevance in the modern day.

Had they stuck to that line from the beginning, and avoided the unnecessary disrepect of the dead (who cannot defend themselves) then they would have had a good argument. As it was, several comments on there were in poor taste and completely undermined any arguments against having a minute's silence.

the majority of Britons believe that respect is something that must be earned

And I daresay a good many will believe that the Queen has certainly earned that respect by her unstinting dedication to her role. Those who want rid of the Monarchy (and I have no strong view one way or the other) should be advancing constructive arguments for a republic, not slagging off individuals who happen, by accident of birth to be fulfilling the roles at present.

A Minute's Silence? I guess we could have done without it nowadays, with Margaret a fringe figure for many years, although she was quite a star in the 50's I understand. However, given that we had a minute's silence, I'm very pleased it was so well observed in Toon, and across the land it does a little to unite the nation behind an important element of our constitution.

Or perhaps the general riff raff were tugging their forlocks at the old buffers too much.

Whaddever that means. :-)

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2002

You're up (and at 'em!) early this morning jonno!?

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2002

Rust never sleeps Bud. :-)

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2002

I'm neither a monarchist or a republican, though if someone had to push me off the fence I would just fall off onto the side of the monarchy. The only reason would be to separate the power from the glory - an American style Pres who does both jobs struggles with both at times.

However, I do think Margaret was an irrelevance, a good time girl, someone who refused to give up the perks for love. She said she gave up love for Townsend out of a duty for her country, but then spent the next 30 or 40 years doing anything but 'duty'. No, I didn't respect her any more than I'd respect the son or daughter of a billionaire who spent their life swanning about. Just cos she's a royal doesn't make her exempt from my scorn, in fact it makes it worse because she was waffling on about duty.

I disagree fundamentally with the issue that just cos someone's dead they're automatically wonderful. She chose her lifestyle, loved every minute of it (I imagine just as I would have done!), and died having, it appears, paid for her lifestyle with her health. Her choice.

No doubt a lovely woman, great company at a party, but don't expect me or anyone to 'respect' a figure like that with a minute's silence. Wrong wrong wrong.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2002

My feeling is that the Monarchy is in its death-throes. I'm not just talking about the circumstantial evidence of hardly any applications for street parties for the Jubilee as society has changed and street community is no longer part of the country's fabric. However, I detect no real appetite for the job among the younger members of the Royal Family and the Queen herself has admitted that her happiest moment was when, for an hour, on VE day, she was allowed out of the palace to walk in the crowds and, unrecognised, she wasn't royalty for an hour. Equally, the Charles and Diana thing damaged the entire credibility of the Monarchy. It's not unlike the issue of the Euro where the debate so often descends to our relationship with the French rather than on the advantages of Economic and Monetary Union. With the Monarchy, we (ie. The English) talk of the Queen being a marvellous woman and about how the American tourist money can't be sniffed at as they love the whole royal thing. The Queen has almost no real (as opposed to symbolic) constitutional functions and the debate is surely whether we as a nation can survive without the symbolic head of state and if so, whether there should be a reduced role or a role at all for the Monarchy.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2002

The most telling argument for ditching the monarchy, is that I and my ilk have absolutely no chance of ever becoming monarch.

In a republic, the chance, however remote, exists that I and my ilk, could become president.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2002

Thoughtful stuff Dougal. Of all of them the Queen has my immense admiration for her dignity throughout the years. Charles at least speaks his mind on things he feels strongly about, which I respect, but after those two I struggle to defend any one of them.

If we stopped the monarchy, does anyone really think we'd lose visitors to the UK? I can't believe in this day and age anyone buys into that nonsense.

No, if we ever have a debate on the future of the monarchy we need to disregard all the rubbish that is spoken and answer one question - are we better off with them or without them? I can't say in all honesty that we'd be better without them. But they need to earn respect, as has the Queen, not demand it.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2002

I feel exactly the same about this Royal death as the last one, when Princess Diana died. I don't know her, never met her, so how can I mourn for her. I couldn't and still haven't managed to work out why so many people were openly crying and mourning Princess Diana when the majority hadn't even saw her in person. Yes it's a sad situation to be in, and I'll respect the family's right to mourn the departed, but what has it got to do with me?

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2002

Can I just say that I wish I had a forelock. I'd tug the little beggar all day long.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2002

At a guess I think Loony is expressing the opinion that power is still concentrated with the Great & the Good. A meritocracy we are not (ok, occasionally someone makes good, like Branson).

However, the New Years / Birthday Honours list is drawn up by government and is often a way to pay back healthy contributions to party funds or for leading businesses down the pan...sorry, please read as 'restructuring'. A lot of the names that don't make the inside pages of the Mirror are those 'captains' of industry who use their connections to make a packet. A lot still come from the Establishment, but it's no longer the smoke filled and button-leather chairs of gentleman's clubs. More like the expensive health resort in the Cheshire :-) See Paxman's book Friends in High Places

If you want to trace the decline of the monarchy, there's plenty of history to trawl through. For me, it's the First World War when the barrier between classes was torn to pieces by the trenches, and events in Russia 1917. The British monarchy was so afraid of a popular revolution they even changed their name (wouldn't do to have the same name as cousin Willie who's butchering our boys in Flanders).

Dougie's quite correct in that the modern monarchy has little constitutional powers (although Liz still officially signs statute, opens and closes and disolves parliament, and its Her Majesty's Government and Loyal Opposition). Problems occur however when MPs swear allegiance (how can Sinn Fein, or Welsh and Scottish nationalists do that?) and that a catholic cannot inherit the throne. You may also question the role of head of state and head of church too . Can a divorcee really pretend to uphold the true virtues and sanctity of the Church of England?

Although I am hesitant in following the American example of elected head of state, things are rather different here. For a start the US President is a single member executive i.e. the President IS the Government. Our parliamentary system draws upon the legislature (MPs) and our tradition is for Parliament to have supreme authority. An elected head of state can reflect public opinion and have a political mandate without damaging this relationship. The Irish Dail manages to run its affairs quite nicely with an elected head of state and the Prime Minister continues to run the country.

My lasting feeling about monarchies is the daftness of it all. An inherited head of state is about as ridiculous as an inherited Professor of Maths. Accident of birth is no way to draw together a country that is allegedly trying to become more democratic and meritocratic.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2002

Minute's silence for what? She lived her life to the full, enjoyed immense privilege, didn't know what a real day's work was, went to swanky parties and spent years in the sun. Always sad for someone when a loved one dies. Being royal makes her death no more no less important. Meritocracy we may become but at the moment it is still the case that going to a certain school, knowing a certain person, being born into the right family are all surefire ways of doing well. The tourism argument is frankly nonsense. Million visit the palace of versailles and they all had their heads chopped off two hundred years ago. Tourists would still visit buckingham palace, the tower and windsor castle without the anachronism that is a 'royal family'. Now to really annoy someone. Britain's favourite grandma. Who says? And you want to know about forelock tuggers - there were thousands of them lining the streets last time a royal copped it, every time the queen has a birthday, some junior royal has a walkabout etc etc. All the kids are wheeled out of school, given a flag and told to smile for the cameras. Now it's time for my sedative.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2002

Barton & Mick - couldn't agree more. Tell you what though, if we could hang one of them every 5 years I bet the tourism industry would go through the roof!

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2002

Just checking who was awake :O))

Scorn wasn't directed solely at the monarchy or monarchists - more so at fawning f@rts at the F.A. and elsewhere who still believe they have some sort of relevance to our lives other than as administrators of the game we all love.

As an afterthought along the lines of the Versailles comment, one surefire way of INCREASING tourism into the UK would be to boot Their Royal Highnesses out of Buck Palace, throw the whole place open for twenty quid a peek, with another tenner for tea with the Windsors shacked up on a house boat at Little Venice.

Irreverent ? Me ?

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2002

I didn't even know that the Queen lived in Beckingham Palace. How does Posh feel about all this?

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2002