No comment. It would probably be hypocritical.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

Answers

Just found out when I tuned into 5 Live expecting to hear 505(or 606, or whatever the Saturday call-in show is called). Now watching BBC America which has switched over to BBC World News. Had to laugh at the reporter's attempt to get the Queen Mum's niece to give up every little detail of what went on this afternoon. She just refused to answer. Good on her!

I'm a bit sad, as I always admired her strength and stubbornness. Also loved the way she always seemed to have a smile on her face in public like the kindly old grandma you wished you had. Guess I harbored some small hope she'd just outlive her miserable descendants out of pure spite. ;-)

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

I feel very sad for the Queen, as I would for anyone who has lost a younger sister and her Mother in the space of a few weeks.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

RIP Ma'am. You were born into a life of priviledge that many today disagree with - a view I personally do not subscribe to. That was not your fault and you carried out your public duties, representing your country across the world. My deepest sympathies to The Queen who, as Galaxy pointed out, has had significant personal tradgedy in the past few months.

Gawd Bless you, Ma'am.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

I'm a republican by conviction but my objections are primarily to the instution rather than the individuals involved. In an other era Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon would have been as pillorized by the tabloids as her descendents (wreckless spend-thrift/gambler, ultra-conservative in her politics, a loather of Germany -lost her brother in WW1). But she DID play a role of no little significance during WW2, that 'look the East End in the eye' comment was arguably the monarchy's finest moment, for that she earned, and deserved, respect.

RIP.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

sorry, not me, sadness no greater than for any other old age person who dies

she has milked the country for nigh on 70 years, estimated to be £13m overdrawn on her account with the royal bankers who were too scared to say "stop", continued to buy racehorses depsite all that

hopefully as with one of those east end people she helped 50 years ago by talking to and smiling at, she'll have a quiet family funeral with her nearest and dearest and no need to spend millions on a 'state' funeral.

Gordon Brown should have a few more bob to pay her fellow pensioners now she has stopped demanding ner money.

Di goen, QM gone, hopefully royalty will end soon. If anyone suggests it is the correct thing to have, then just contemplate Charles and sons dying in a plane crash on the way home tomorrow. Step forward Prince Andrew heir to the throne, cos that's the way it would be. It's like suggetsing Euan Blair should be first in line to the Prime Minister.

Nothing personal ma'am, just what you represent, not you in particular

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

Only £13m? The country probably owes her that for being an inspirational leader. I pesonally don't have faith in a monarchy but that's a small price for what she has given this nation. Compare the £13m with what the leeches of the finance world take home every year.. and what do they give back

RIP

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

BBC TV in the UK went for near blanket coverage, which is what they have to do. But included in the rolling 24-hour news approach, was a fascinating documentary about her life - part two is on tomorrow night - which revealed, as you would expect, a lot about her life that many wouldn't have known before. Keywords from those who knew her really well included "wonderful" and "zest for life".

Whatever you think of the royal family, she was - very obviously - a very special person.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

Indeed Geordie - as I posted recently, the Chairman of AOL recently cashed in $107m in stock options and that was just his annual rake- off. Who would you rather have round for tea?

God bless her for her lifelong devotion to her country: may she rest in peace - spared from the mean-spirited who now populate this tabloid nation.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

sorry, but apart from showing a good face really what has she done ?

She appeared for Xmas, appeared at her birthday, but on Radio 5 tonight they had to go back to war time recordings to get her actually speaking. I can't have a go at her cos I don't know her as a person, but her role (smiling and waving from her Bentley) is totally incongruous with even 20th century Britain.

Saying she had a zest for life, and everyone saying this shows what a good gal she was is very shallow. The same was said about Margaret.

If she epitomises what it means to be British then I really don't understand. To get pleasure from a woman who is very old and waves nicely, and be prepared to pay millions for the pleasure seems strange to me.

I have a choice whether I buy shares in AOL, or use their software, we have little or no choice whether we pay millions for a set of wasters who call themselves royalty. ref Edward giving up working to help with the jubilee celebrations but asking QE2 to pay him £130k a year to do it, and her having the dosh so to do.

Queen may actually have a job that needs done, rest, leeches all.

-- Anonymous, March 30, 2002

I've got some very good "Spitting Image" videos (c. 1984), any bidders?

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

Our present Queen has never put a foot wrong in 50 years of service to this country, and her sense of duty and responsibility must be due in no small part to her sadly departed mother. The Queen deserves the moral support of the nation at this time of great loss for her, losing a sister and a mother in the space of a few weeks. No amount of power, prestige or money can insulate a person from that sort of emotional hurt.

The Queen Mother herself has to be admired for her extraordinary longevity, and the way she continued to play an active role in royal functions almost to the very end. She endeared herself to millions by her dignity, charm and the warmth of her personality. The role she played during World War II, a time of great peril to our freedoms and the future of this nation, was very significant, and she was a huge inspiration to the people of my mother and grandmother's generations as I learned from talking to them.

She will be fondly remembered.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

While respecting the feelings and beliefs of others on here, I do not think the economic factor comes into it. How many tourist dollars and Yen come into the UK each year for someone to look at the Royalty or their houses?

My late father despised her over something that happened during the war (WW2) never said what just that was when he started not liking her, no one else just her.

For me sympathy to her family, although never met her this response is because through her work or public entity you become more aware of them. If Mrs Smith doon the road popped her clogs my reaction would be the same. (Not a relation to DSS)

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

"sorry, but apart from showing a good face really what has she done ?"

I'm no royalist Macbeth but I think the answer to your question is that she made a huge number of people feel good. If people remember me because it made them feel good when they met me I would be absolutely delighted.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

Royal costs ..... http://www.britpolitics.com/index.php? cat=10&articleid=89

Now I hear the royal benefits being mentioned as they are great tourist attractions apparently. I suppose they may well be, just don't understand what will happen now Margaret and the Queen Mum have gone. Will tourists stop coming ? How do Paris and Rome manage to get any tourists to visit them at all, with no royal family to entice them. (Or Edinburgh even ?).

All the 'royal' tourist attractions like Buckingham Palace would I presum still remain in pace, wouldn't see anyone actually knocking the place down if there was no royal family, it could become a central London Hampton Court with even more vistors allowed in, attracting even more to see that quaint old way we used to be.

It's amazing we as a country are comfortable with paying someone £7.9m per year to attract tourists, and her husband a further £30,000 per month to walk one step behind her, and £643,000 per year to her mum to look like a sweet old lady. SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY THREE THOUSAND POUNDS !!!! Hell of pension that one, just over 170 times what my mum gets as a pensioner.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

Are these your RTG colours that we hear about Macbeth? Maybe we should believe what SuperKev et al say you posted there

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

I have a lot more in common with SK than I do with the QM, I would be very saddened if he wasn't around as he entertains me, he costs me nothing, he is poud of many of the things I am, change the red genetic defect for a bacl one and we'd be the same.

The QM has nothing in common with me.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

Another 'no half measures' topic.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

my deepest sympathy to all in the uk, i just found out when i called me dad. i mean how are you all going to cope with 100+ years of queen mother footage swarming all over your tv.

i hope match of the day wasn't affected.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

clarky,

the difference between the chairman of AOL and the royal family is that one is being paid with YOUR money while the other is not.

vive la revolutione

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

I fail to see why the cost of the Royal Family precludes anyone from paying due respect to someone who has died after a lifetime of service to the nation, and insofar as I'm aware, never did a bit of harm to anyone. Any discussion about the costs of the Royal Family, or making the case for a republic is way off topic on this thread, and displays ignorance and insensitivity. Discuss those matters by all means but don't foul up a thread which discusses the passing of the QM. The QM was not responsible for the absence of a Republic and had no say at all in deciding the amount of the Civil List.

She did possess a grace and dignity way, way beyond those who would speak ill of her. And the beauty of such grace and dignity is that it comes free, any of us can aspire to it, and it was not paid for by the British taxpayer.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

george - console yourself that the Royal Family certainly aren't being paid with your money!

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

she could have looked at her nation and realised she was pretty well off as far as the average person goes (170 times the state pension which presumably is viewed as enough for anyone to live on) and she could have turned down the £600k per year she needed to 'survive' on.

She may have had grace and dignity but so did my grandma. Never saw my grandma get over £50,000 per month for her grace and dignity. The QM had a choice on whether to rip the country off for her money, my grandma had no choice. My grandma served the country well bringing up her children well, instilling a strong work ethic, never getting overdrawn at the bank, never spending hundreds of thousands on race horses her income didn't warrant.

The QM did have the choice to change things, she chose not to, she chose to take the fat cat option, but most of these fat cats have some target they have to hit, I still haven't heard from anyone what she has done over the last 50 years to warrant the equivalent of £30m worth of our money.

GB, it hasn't been as bad as you'd expect, but then I do like the off button :0)

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

Macbeth, just tuned in to this thread. I echo every one of your sentiments, and I'll bet your average East Ender is heartily sick of hearing what HRH did for them during the war, namely didn't bugger off and leave them (big deal), and had one of her palaces bombed (did she sleep in her garden for month after that, or kip down in the Underground? - I think not). My Mum is patiently waiting for a new hip, and she'll be lucky to get one in two years, if she doesn't die first. HRH has had two, and I'll bet she wasn't on a waiting list. She's been kept alive by a team of doctors for the last 15 years, which presumes they weren't needed elsewhere. Now the BBC is telling us how we should mourn her death, seeing as how she touched us all. Well. she didn't touch me, except for a few bob in taxes which I would have far rather have seen pointed at my Mum rather than the mother of the richest woman in the world. I'm sorry she's dead, but she was 101 for Christ's sake, she had a bloody good run for our money. This will stay in our memory for about as long as Princess Margaret's death. As usual the British media have totally misjudged public opinion, who by and large care that someone has died, but only for an hour or so. Sorry if this sounds callous - my opinion only, but I would take a bet I'm not far off the public opinion mark.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

What an extraordinary amount of bile and twaddle. Nobody has told anybody to mourn - no-one on this thread has mentioned mourning. No- one has made a case for retaining the monarchy. Those who have done the decent thing, which one would expect at the death of ANYONE, is to say some good things about the life that was led, and to express sympathy for the bereaved (who happens to be our head of state, and unlike all of us, had no choice about which career she would take.) Unless the deceased is a mass murderer or something similar, I believe this is the standard protocol. Manners maketh the Man.

No-one goes without hip replacements or lives on tiny pensions because of what the Queen Mother was paid. What kind of logic is that? People suffer those things because as individuals we are collectively too greedy to vote for levels of taxation that would fix those problems. If you take all the money paid to the Queen mum in a year and add it to the NHS budget, it would be a drop in the ocean and would barely make the slightest difference to the level of service. As for our taxes that we pay, I suspect it's a minute fraction which goes to the civil list. And for those of you upset about the amounts paid to the QM why do you wait till she dies before bitching about it? Why have you not been campaigning for the abolition of the monarchy which will happen quite quickly if you are so right and if indeed "As usual the British media have totally misjudged public opinion"

I've got no strong views on retention of the monarchy myself but I see no mass movement about to end it - so maybe the whiners are in a minority - or they can't be arsed to do anything except take cheap shots at a dead woman because she enjoyed priviledge which was bestowed on her at the will of the people - this is a democracy or hadn't you noticed?

The cost to any individual taxpayer is minimal. None of us suffer poverty because of the Royal Family. And it's a certainty that the poverty of spirit shown here cannot be laid at their door either.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

One less freeloader to have to tolerate.

Good riddance to the lot of them.

Hopefully, eventually.

Bunch of freeloading parasites.

The royal family are the makems of the silver spoon mob. That summation has been somewhat coloured by volatilised esters. :-{E}

No it bliddy well hasn't. Good riddance to the lot of them.

Hopefully, eventually.

Bunch of freeloading parasites.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

Jonno, Beg to differ. If the money she and her mates got and the money pile they are sitting on is so small as to make no difference, then why do they continue to take it with both hands/hang on to it like grim death (tax free). I'll have it thanks, and presumably no-one would be any worse off. I'm quite happy to turn up at the odd race meeting dressed up to the nines waving my hand in the air. And the reason we are discussing it is because she just died ie it's topical, not because we've all had a sudden unexplained urge to say exactly what we think about the biggest bunch of spongers in the country. And the Royal family aren't there because of the 'will of the people', they are there because historically they had a bigger gang of crooks supporting them than anyone else, and we haven't had a chance to challenge it since under our 'democracy'. I can't recall anyone ever asking me if I wanted to retain the monarchy, although I've made my views known many times to my elected representatives, royal deaths or no royal deaths. And I genuinely believe that the millions they are taking from us could/would have been used to the better good of society, be it a hip replacement or a heart bypass or even more research for cancer. Yes, I know money is pissed away on a million other stupid vehicles, but two wrongs don't make a right. My simple maths says that if the Royals weren't getting it, somebody else would/should. I wouldn't miss them for a second, other than maybe seeing their ill gotten gains distributed properly to those that need it. And apart from this bulletin board I can't recall a single person raising the Queen Mothers death with me in any conversation since she died, although half a dozen mentioned Dudley Moore, bless him. Although yet again we have had blanket coverage on tv/national press. Can anyone remember what day/how long ago Princess Margaret died? Was it last month, March, Feb? The British public will have forgotten already, so insignificant is the impact of the royal family on their lives. This is in no way disrespectful to the death of a human being, just fact. They add nothing whatsoever to our well being, and as for the other often mentioned chestnut, the value of the monarchy in our constitution, republican states seem well able to hold themselves together democratically.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

Save your breathe Terry. This is one of those topics on a par with religion and politics. You're either for or agin, and your point of view might be tolerated, but you have no chance of changing the views of those who don't agree.

An old lady has died who's passing, under the circumstances of 99.9% of the rest of us, would have been no more remarkable than that of a neighbour. But as a member of a priveleged clique,it's not surprising that strong feelings, with what looks like no mid ground, have been expressed, because her death has acted as a sort of focus of attention. Those for, have probably felt that way for ever, similarly those against. A sort of religious belief.

It's the event of her death that's triggered the discussion, but I don't believe expressing an opinion is disrespectful. I don't think that when I pop my clogs, the opinions of those fortunate? enough to be left behind, will make the slightest bit of difference to which cloud I have to fly to for my harp lessons.

I'll sympathise with her family for their loss of a loved one, but I won't supress the loathing I have for the institution of which she was a representative.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

Jonno, how can you object to a discussion of the monarchy on a thread about the passing of the QM? The ONLY reason this thread exists is because she was part of the monarchy so clearly the monarchy issue is relevant here. This is a discussion forum after all.

I've declined to comment on this thread thus far because we've all heard all the arguments before, but I would certainly like to take you up on your comment that "those who have done the decent thing, which one would expect at the death of ANYONE, is to say some good things about the life that was led, and to express sympathy for the bereaved".

Well I haven't said any good things about the life she led, largely because like many other posters I'm still at something of a loss to understand what good things she did. Does that mean I haven't done the decent thing? And as far as sympathies for the bereaved go, to be honest the sympathy I feel isn't worth posting as frankly it's minimal, not out of a sense of spite just out of a sense of indifference - the same sense of indifference most of us feel when we read about a stranger who died. I have a copy of Saturday's paper in front of me - 5 Palestinians & 1 Israeli killed in Ramallah..... double murder in Perth.... 13 year old girl accused of stabbing her stepfather to death in NSW...... boys drowns in flood.... 70 year old man falls 6 floors to his death.... and I'm only up to page 9. I look forward to a flood of condolences from the "decent" people among you.

Being in a minority doesn't make you a "whiner" and it doesn't make you wrong. Being a republican but not actively campaigning for a republic doesn't make you a hypocrite. And if there's a thread on a discussion forum about somebody who's ONLY relevence is her position, for which we all pay handsomely, then I reserve the right to comment whether she's dead or not.

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

What double murder in Perth, I must have slept through that one!

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2002

Is that the best alibi you can come up with????

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2002

Actually Gus it was the bikie bombing of that CIB bloke in September - story was actually about one of the alleged murders breaking the code of silence and informing on the other guilty parties.

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2002

It's amazing how things can get out of hand on here, and poster's become villified for no good reason.

I don't believe Jonno has attempted to mount a defence of the monarchy - only decency and respect for the dead.

On the other hand, some out there have used the death of an old lady to vehemently set out their own anti- monarchist agenda - and in one case crack a couple of well-worn jokes over the still-warm corpse.

By all means debate the merits of the monarchy, but please don't deny others the right to express their sympathy and respect for the passing of a centenarian, whether you personally admire her and what she stands for or not. There is a time and a place for everything.

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2002

Exactly Clarky, well said. (:o|

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2002

This is another great thread, if only for showing that we dont always get on like a house on fire on this board!

Whatever you say about the Royals, they dont half stimulate some passionate opinions from people. Personally I have no tine for them and I am sure that 95% of the population feel the same. However if/when they do become extinct we would probably miss them cos we would be able to bitch about them anymore.

Still want rid of the buggers though!

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2002

This morning I realised what it was that annoyed me about Warren Barton, he had the same role with NUFC as the QM did for the royal family, a classic wave to the crowd

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2002

You'll need to do a lot better than that.

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2002

Sometimes I don't know why I bother. Discuss the existence of the monarchy by all means. To express an opinion on that is not disrespectful. But you will find that several posts were made which WERE disrespectful of a much loved person recently deceased.

I am not pro or anti royalist. I'm on record as saying it's an anachronism in our modern democracy, and if the democratic will is to replace it, I will not be manning any barricades. No barricades would be necessary, the Queen would accept the will of the people as she has always done. So some of you have not been offered that democratic choice? Well, that's what democracy is about. If you feel strongly, and if there are so many people who agree with you (which I know damn well there aren't - 20% at the last count) then you form/join a political party or pressure group to bring about such change. And if you're so right the Monarchy will be gone quite quickly. But if all you do is voice your obviously seething resentment instead of making a constructive challenge, at times of Royal deaths (talk about kicking a man when he's down!) then [irony]you'll continue to suffer under this oppressive regime while pensioners live in penury so that royalty can wave at us from limos. [/irony]

I've been a regular user of an internet chatroom recently, and I was surprised this weekend, just how many Americans, knowing I'm British, expressed to me their sympathy for the Royal Family and commented what an admirable person the QM was. Their comments were, without exception, respectful and warm, and were not solicited in the sense that the topics under discussion were entirely unrelated. These Americans are the ones who bring tourist dollars into this country, helping us presumably to pay the civil list with probably a good deal left over for hip replacements, pensions, bombers we can aim at Iraq, and all manner of useful stuff like that. I'm not arguing for retention of the monarchy, just pointing out they're not quite the deadweight that is implied in some preceding comments.

As for the Republic that replaces this - will the President do the job voluntarily do you suppose? And the legions of staff required to support her/im? And how many hip replacements will be foregone in order to pay for the elections?

This sort of stuff would make for a far more interesting debate on here than simply taking a swipe at the deceased.

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2002

"...please don't deny others the right to express their sympathy and respect for the passing of a centenarian, whether you personally admire her and what she stands for or not...".

Who's denying the "others"? Has this thread been censored by someone (Macbeth?)? I don't think so, ' hope I'm correct?

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2002

The world was rocked today when it was revealed that Lady Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon - better known as the Queen Mother - did not die in her sleep on Saturday as was widely reported in the international news media. Instead, it seems the 101 year old widow of King George VI, inarguably the most popular member of England's storm-tossed Royal Family, has managed to pull off the Queen Mother of all April Fool's Jokes.

"She's alive," a shaken Prince Charles revealed today at a hastily assembled press conference, "that's all the information I have for you at this point." Royal guards then scooped the soon-to-be-King-of-England into an oversized mail sack, trundled him into a waiting hovercar, and zipped off in the general direction of Buckingham Palace.

Queen Elizabeth and her husband, Prince Phillip, are said to be "not amused" by the matriarch's whimsical turn. "Nobody loves a larf more than I," the Sovereign was overheard telling her gynecologist this morning, "but this is just beyond the pale. All those letters to return…and have you seen the great flowery mess in front of my house? Who do you think will be stuck cleaning that up? Mum? Not bloody likely."

Representatives for Princes William and Harry have informed the press that the boys have recovered well from the double shock of losing, then re-gaining, their grand-mum, and are already en route back to their perpetual ski and sex holiday in the Swiss Alps.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's reacted with his trade-mark forced tolerance: "Mere words are insufficient to express either the intensity of my elation, or the totality of my bamboozlement upon learning that the Queen Mum still draws breath. I am overjoyed, and yet, profoundly embarrassed. It's all rather overwhelming, really… perhaps I should lay down for a moment…"

International reaction to news of the hoax was just as vociferous, but far more varied, than reaction to news of the Queen Mum's death, itself. Some, like Russian President Vladimir Putin, pretended to be unsurprised. "We should believe old age can do what Hitler and a thousand V-2 rockets couldn't?" the snake-eyed Slav was overheard whispering to a prostitute. "Come on!" French, German and Spanish heads of state also pretended they knew all along, just as they'd pretended to be upset upon learning of her death in the first place. A representative for President Bush told the press his aides are still trying to explain exactly what had happened.

Meanwhile, unconvinced by her "I just held my breath for two days" explanation, doctors are investigating alternative explanations for the Queen Mum's apparent death and its apparent reversal. They are currently focusing on two explanations. First, that she did, in fact, die, and has returned as a zombie. And second: that her resurrection is a sign that she's been the Second Coming of Christ for all this time now, and didn't even know it. "After all," said an un-named doctor hard at work on the case, "it is Easter."

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2002

I go back to my earlier request, please someone list her acheivements over the last 50 years since her husband died, or even the last 40 of which I have been part.

She has smiled sweetly, waved elegantly, had grace (what ever that means) and has taken roughly £30 million pounds for those hard earned skills.

Her passing is sad for her family but I felt more pain for Wonkey and his dad dying, or a year ago when ITK died. Neither mertied an 8 page pull out inthe Sunday paper, not really sure why. Maybe cos they didn't milk their way to £30m in their later days.

While the state continues to pay people like her and her family vast sums of money for no reason at all I will complain. I realise others are more comfortable tipping their cap, and bowing down in front of others they view as superior beings born to govern them, I am not. I question why I am expected to do that, other meekly bow down in front of them, cos that is the right things to do.

Sorry if I am wrong, I accept others enjoy being subservient, that is their right.

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2002

Why didn't you have the guts to post under your usual handle Nora ?

I'm in no way an apologist for the royals, but even I wouldn't stoop to something as tasteless and disgusting as that 'humorous' piece you've just put up.

You should be ashamed.

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2002

For heaven`s sake can we please stop this thread now! As for the annonymous posting - well, words fails me.

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2002

Macbeth, once again you are missing the point. People were complaining at your pathetic remarks on another thread which were tasteless as is Nora's post above. No-one has said anything about the royal family and their position being a good thing.

I'm anti royalty but I wouldn't stoop to the abuse you post.

RIP Queen Mother

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2002

my objection was o the world mourning her when no one mourned by grandma's passing, a wonderful Georide mother and grand mother, went without food to rais emy mother andmy uncle, with a vehemence to her befuddled dying days hated Churchill cos of what he did to the miners in the 20s, helped her fellow mothers throughout the war, did everything the QM did, but in Winlaton Mill rather than Buckingham Palace.

I admit to laughing at many things other see as serious, my wife has been disgusted at me laughing at the Israeli army writing numbers on the arms of Palestinians they've arrested for example. If you don't laugh you cry. The comment that upset people was my suggestion she'd bben dead for year anyway, I have never seen her interviewed, never seen her speak, never seen her do anything, coming from outer space it would be difficult to prove her existence, apart form the money she takes.

Her annual salary is more tax than I'll pay in my life, so it may be fair to suggest that all the people on the bbs don't pay enough tax in their lives to cover the pension the QM has taken the over the last 35 years. How can you mourn her loss, apart from the acceptance of the status quo.

I don't rejoice in her going, I don't have a sense of glee, I just have a sense of how 19th century lots of us still are in our acceptance of those better people, so deserving of the wealth we bestow on them. Can't see how it will end as we can't even seem to have the political will to get rid of heridetary peers never mind their fat cat bosses.

Maybe I'm turning Scottish !!

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2002

Macbeth, your arguments have used the logical tricks of the charlatan in inventing opinions for your opponents and then criticising those inventions.

You speak of mourning and sadness and comparison to other deaths which is wholly unworthy. Certainly ITK was personally known to most of us and I suspect all of us were more sad at his loss, than at the loss of the QM, as we all knew that might happen any time and she was not personally known to us. That does not justify disrespect for the QM. Nobody spoke of mourning on this thread - just respect.

You have also invented the idea that those of us who show respect want to bow down before superior people. I challenge you to find in any of the posts above a single person who spoke of the Royal Family as being their superiors, or enjoying bowing before them. As I say Macbeth you behaved as a charlatan in your disrespect and you have behaved as a charlatan in mistakenly attributing views to those who have shown respect.

These arguments about Royalty and superior people etc etc I seem to recall having finished with before I was 20. We all know that they are the same human spieces that we are - surely the debate has moved on from there now. I think it has for most people with a modicum of intelligence. If you want to see an end to the Royal Family let's hear an interesting argument from you about the benfits a Republic will bring us instead of this whine about how much she got paid for waving. (I think President's wave as well I'd better warn you.)

What did she do in the last 40 years of her life? Well Macbeth, I daresay she achieved a great deal more between the ages of 61 and 101 than you or I or the great many of us ever will, should we be spared to experience any of those years. And why does it have to be just those years? Does not the whole of her life count, including her service to this nation at a time we were threatened with tyranny? As Jacko pointed out, she brought happiness to a great many people - have you seen the floral tributes and the queues to sign books of condolence? She continued to appear in public to the delight of her public, despite increasing frailty.

And you say, what did she do apart from wave nicely? Again, the logical device of the charalatan. This is the logical equivalent of the ignorant way of describing a game of football as 22 men kicking a pig's bladder about on a patch of mud.

How much she earned from the nation's coffers was decided by successive democratic governments. She did not go round demanding it from poor peasants in their fields on pain of death. Presumably, that £643000 per annum will now remain with the treasury in future. I hope you notice a substantial drop in your taxes as a result. It amounts to ONE penny PER ANNUM for every man woman and child in the country. It's interesting to note that her income was about a quarter of the salary of say, Alan Shearer, who simply kicks a pig's bladder round on a patch of mud, and has far fewer fans than the QM.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2002

One penny !!!!
That's 2.8 Aussie cents!!!

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2002

I've kept quiet on this one and don't intend to go into any great detail now about my opinion (that said, I don't go along with the 'let's put a lid on this / it's a football forum' argument since once in a while a non-footy thread comes up which provokes far more interesting and polarised opinion than the football threads, and in any case if you're not interested you don't have to click on 'em).

Anyway, I think there's a distinction to be drawn, with which Macbeth has flirted, between criticising the Royal Family, and criticising the way people react to the Royal Family. Now, Mac's kind of had a pop at both. Personally, I don't really have a problem with the Royals, but I have massive issues with the way some people react to them.

Hang around outside a hospital waiting for a glimpse of the Queen Mum and you're a loveable patriot. Hang around outside a TV studio waiting for a glimpse of Kirsty Gallacher and you're a stalker. At least that's the argument I used in court.

There is a serious point behind my flippancy but I'm not going to go into detail on the way people react to the Royals here, because then I'd start talking about how thick people overreact to the media presentation of public figures and events, and then I'd have to talk about the way people react to things like paedophilia and the Sarah Payne murder, and then I'd probably lose a lot of friends on this bbs.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2002

I dislike my normal run of life being interupted by wall to wall coverage of a Royal Family who I can't really see doing anything for me. Yes I can turn the telly off, I can stop buying newspapers but why should it have to be so thrust in yer face.

This mornings front page headlines are all about Charles and his eulogy to his beloved grandma. Great but how many grandsons would be any different ? The Daily Mail has a big pop at the BBC for not wearing black ties. We have some very strange sensibilities.

I love people suggetsing to me in any discussion the 'there is no alternative' view. Sunderland fans were like that with Peter Reid a couple of months ago. Many were the same when we had Dalglish. There is always an alternative. You may need some huge earth shatterign event to change things but it can still happen. If Bin Laden had decided Buckingham Palace was a Sept 11th target and had taken out QE2, Charles and family and Andrew (bear with me) then we'd now have a Princess Beatrice waiting to be crowned Queen when she comes of age, and Sarah as the new Queen Mum. Now that's a wild leap to take, but then so was Sept 11th.

If the royal family is the correct way to go then we should be looking to find them for other countries too, we need to get our better ways of democracy into these tin pot countries, so they should also be made to find a royal family.

Dividing any national spend by 55,000,000 makes a pretty small number, if you divide by number of days in the year you getter an even smaller number, take it down to a per minute basis and everything is nearly free. Say we spend £100bn a year (made up number) on defence then that's only 20p per person per hour, so it nearly free.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2002

Dan, as a gambling man, what's the spread odds on an unfortunate Royal hattrick for 2002?

Felt the need to view an opinion - nothing like a blood stirring / offence causing thread to start the week (I've been on hols).

Queen Mum (gawd bless 'er) spent a lifetime living very nicely, being gentile, opening hospitals, walking slowly and collected a lot of flowers. She had an eye for crap horses, gin and leaving her clothes on the floor for servants to pick up. She was also astute in realising the decline of the monarchy needed to be managed, which she did very well. The path of success in any popularity contest is simply to avoid expressing an opinion (see Big Brother winners...all vapid and vacuous), hence the Queen Mother encouraged a generally conservative (small 'c') approach. Thus by not saying anything, you can be the steady ship in the stormy sea. And as we're always in some sort of crisis (if the papers are to be believed) Betty filled a hole. Having not met her I don't know if she ever lost her temper, got pissed and farted in her sleep like the rest of us. I dare say she did.

So, sorry to hear of another's loss.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

Dan,

You're post has really engaged my imagination. I find media manipulation of the masses a frightening phenomena, and the subject you suggest of "how people react/overreact to the media presentation of public figures and events" sounds to me like a fascinating topic for discussion.

For instance, I still haven't come to terms with what happened in this normally cynical country when Diana died. Having walked past and breathed in the atmosphere and the heavy scents from the massed foral tributes lining the Mall at 1am one barmy summers evening prior to her funeral, I still have difficulty rationalising what it was all about. Was it media manipulation, or was it something deeper, related to the masses reaction to the Royal Family's teatment of The People's Princess?

Is there any way you could slide into the subject on here without thoroughly brassing off or manipulating the masses?

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

My main purpose in life as a history teacher is to let the kids see that there is always another side to any story and they should not simply believe the version pumped out to them by the media. If I persuade 25% of those I teach never to read The Sun I feel I will have done a service to mankind.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

Is it just the media, or is it more the inherent human trait of reacting en masse and behaving like a load of sheep. It could be argued religion draws upon this (I hesitate to call it a weakness) as of course does football. Is the reaction of people to Diana's death any more ridiculous than the reaction of most of us when Alan Shearer manages to kick a ball between two posts? We know we wouldn't deny ourselves the pleasure by rationalising too much and don't object generally to the media whipping up the frenzy, and we certainly wouldn't want to be told to react differently and get things into perspective. Mass hysteria can be life enhancing ;-)

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

Don't even start me on Diana Windsor...there's a fruitcake if ever there was.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

I was living in Canterbury when Diana died. We made the news the next night as they had brought in speakers to be placed in the grounds around the cathedral to allow all those who attended the service that night to hear the words of comfort. That was the news story, "Speakers outside cathedral".

In fact, only some 60-odd people turned up, the speakers were never used and nobody in East Kent seeemed to have any difficulty putting one foot in front of the other after this "cataclysmic" event. Not a lie, I'll grant you, but a fair representation of reality? Hmmmmm. Ever wondered why most people think the Charge of the Light Brigade, Dunkirk, Arnhem and Gallipoli were famous British victories?

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

Pete - I understand whay your saying, but when Shearer puts the ball between the sticks that is a fact. We see it with our own eyes, and while it results in hysteria, the hysteria isn't the product of media manipulation. It's when you get the two together that is becomes potentially so dangerous.

The situation that followed Diana's death was so unusual for such a rational/cynical society like the UK, that I don't actually believe any of us have seen anything quite like it in our lifetimes - and the problem for me, having directly sampled the atmosphere, is that I still don't really understand what underpinned it.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

Softie - If I hadn't personally sampled the almost surreal atomsphere in The Mall that night, and again the following day in the general vicinity of Kensington Palace, no one would ever convince it wasn't all media hype. It may, of course, still have been "media-induced" hysteria.

I just happened to be in London on business, and made the mistake of staying at a hotel in Kensington. You literally could not get moved on Kensington High Street at any time of the day or night.

After dinner one night we decided to walk over to Buck Palace and down The Mall just "to see what was going on". It was 1am, and again the place was absolutely mobbed. It was a balmy, humid evening and an almost overwhelming scent of flowers pervaded the air. For me, the atmosphere suggested anywhere but London, possibly Buenos Aires for the funeral of Eva Peron. It was all very un-British, and very surreal.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

Isn't there a bit of a contradiction there, Clarky? Shearer scoring may be a fact that we react to, but the media film us reacting, report on the fact and our reaction to it. Diana's crash was a fact. It then becomes a chicken and egg issue. Did people over - react and the media reported this over-reaction thus beginning a self- feeding spiral of hysteria, or did the media induce the hysteria from the outset? We could ask ourselves whether what we are really saying is that the media should deliberately manipulate in order to mollify the hysteria. ie is it there job to calm people down, or report on what's going on? If the former, do they do so by censoring coverage?

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

I believe the Diana 'thing' was pop. Pure pop culture. Celebrity imaging, media manipulation (both ways), hypocrasy, sun, sex, drugs, marriage break-up, money, kids, skiing, international playboys, squaddies, rugby stars...straight out of a Jilly Cooper story. And much like Elvis snuffing it on the loo, Diana's death was sudden and dramatic and full of controversy. It was even more newsworthy than her Dynasty-style life.

Broken in half in a 100mph car crash, while not wearing a seat belt and being driven by a bloke with at least 2 bottles of wine down his neck...you couldn't write a story like it and be believed. Violent ending for the storybook princess - mind, it would have to be a top shelf storybook.

I reckon everyone who laid flowers (curiously addressed to a corpse instead of the bereaved), signed one of those book thingies (just what will ever happen to them all?) or turned out to weep and wail like Italians (apols Gosford Park) had their own reasons. But the fact the country didn't actually grind to a halt, or people didn't fast or abstain during 'mourning' says plenty. The whole hysteria mercilessly squeezed onto our papers and television was focused on a minority. The idea the country was in mourning, shock etc is a myth. I was mildly suprised that morning, since the Sunday papers 1st editions had some scathing articles about Dodi shagging her on a boat...swiftly withdrawn later. The 2nds and finals were of course stacked full of 'how Diana was my best friend' etc. Check out Private Eye's web site for the Diana Issues for the best in hypocrasy during the Di-mania

Also, whatever happened to all the donations, and the monument, and the charity, and the gardens, and commemorative day...?

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

I think you're right Bobby - pure pop culture. However mass hysteria doesn't need media manipulation to exist, it's human nature that has been used and abused for ages. I think it's unfair to blame the media for being wholly responsible each time we witness moments of madness.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

"we decided to walk over to Buck Palace and down The Mall just "to see what was going on"."

I think that explains a lot. How many others were doing the same.

Personally, I think we need a war/major death/crisis every so often to relieve our pent up emotion.

I was appalled at the reaction to Di's death and forever will remember my fateful words "they wouldn't show as much grief if Mother Teressa died"

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

Bobby - I'm sure you're right about it being a minority who really got into it, but it seemed to be a fairly substantial minority, and certainly more than could be accounted for by her celebrity fan club. I still have a feeling that in this particular instance the outpouring was more spontaneous than media-contrived - in fact I think the media was taken by surprise by the general reaction, and for once did their real job in reporting it rather than leading it.

If I'm correct, the residual question is why? Although it all now seems long gone, I still have a funny feeling that history will recount that her death, and the reaction it stirred, could well be the event that marked the beginning of the end for the monarchy in this country.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

There's nothing sinister going on I don't think. It's pure dosh. Altruism or any of the other higher motives have very little to do with the topics the media deal with. Pure business IMO.

If the likes of the Sun went to town on a particular story and, surprise, surprise, the good (genderless) yeomen of Engerland chose deliberately to boycott the sun because of the nature of the story, they'd think twice about dealing with a similar topic next time.

It's purely self inflicted. If we didn't have such a morbid fasination with this kind of crap, the media wouldn't deal with it. They feed it to us, we gobble it up, and it never seems to affect our intellectual digestion adversely. We keep coming back for more.

In fact, I reckon it says more about us than it does about the media. We get the kind of media we deserve.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

One of our neighbors went to London after Di's funeral, just to see the flowers. Can you believe that ?

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

I've never been much of a monarchist (or any sort of ist for that matter)and was sick of hearing Diana this and Diana that. I suppose I was a bit peeved at the timing since the Liverpool match was cancelled and me all ready to go.

The Queen Mum is a bit of an enigma in that everone say it's such a shame but you just know they are really saying 'I've been waiting for this to happen for ages' If anyone honestly believes it wasn't due then they haven't watched the news over the past year. Christ most people don't reach 70 and some of the people are wondering WHY!!!!

If so well loved then let's have a national day off on Tuesday and a permanent Bank Holiday (around Sept 11th would be best as we could combine the two).

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

The media certainly sailed on the crest of obvious emotion. But they also manipulated the atmosphere and directed as much as as possible. Like the insistence that the Royal family go to London and do a walkabout, or the lowering of the Royal standard, and Harry and William walking behind the coffin in public. Perhaps more than anything else, that made me most angry. On one hand the Royals were a family with a death to cope with. On the other they were made to parade like a show to entertain the gathered masses. A black performance for the cameras. The public's appetite for that coverage, and the various Fayed inspired conspiracy theories was vomit worthy...makes me sick to think of it all. And yet the self same public were outraged at the paparazzi in Paris - these same paparazzi who fed the hunger for slime stories about their pop idol. To carry on the conceit, perhaps that public felt it was being force fed too much detail and was sickened by its creation. After all, the paparazzi work to market demands. So with the prime culprit crushed beyong recognition in the front seat of the motor, it was all the photographers fault.

You can't tell I get worked up by this, can you :-)

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

"We get the kind of media we deserve".

Amen borther, and how frighteningly true - now, just what does that say about our "green and pleasant land"?

I think that is what bothers me most PB. It doesn't matter what cr@p the gutter tabloids print, if you overhear a conversation on the bus or in the pub, people will quote the jist of that story, however outrageous, contrived or just plain untrue - as if it were the gospel handed down on tablets of stone.

That is what is so bloody scary!

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

Was the QM just Di in 60 years time. Di did try and do things (for whatever reason) to help AIDS victims, and to chenge the view on anti- -personnel mines. This was the royal family actually doing something I could understand and appreciate, rather than just waving from a passing car (which she also did) or going to Royal Ascot.

Maybe an older generation remembers the QM in the same way, as someone who did good things and made her equivalent generation feel good.

My issue is that the QM lived off her gentile image for 50 years and I had her goodness thrust as a news item on the BBC every August as she celbrated an ever larger birthday number.

Di still had some positives to her name, QMs are long long ago.

And Clarky what do youmean by passed down in stone, the bible is nonsense ...... joke !

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

I was astonished to hear on our local radio station yesterday that a local coach company is running coaches from Stoke to London for the funeral next Tuesday. They are leaving at midnight and arriving at about 4 in the morning. Just what is that all about? I find it totally bizarre.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

The lengths people go to to avoid paying their television lisence.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2002

Jacko - at least it will be a good day out, which I think most of those lining the procession route will feel.

I can understand older generations being sympathetic with Betty, especially those who lived under her reign with King George during WW2. What I really don't understand is the number of small children saying how sad it all was and what a great person the Queen Mum (gawd bless 'er (tm)) was. Most of whom couldn't tell you their own parents' first names!

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2002

but the tourist industry wil be badly hit after the funeral, as she won't be around to attract tourists any more

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2002

What the tourism industry loses the ceramic plate and commemorative mug producers will gain.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2002

The Queen Mother was not the benign, friendly, gentle person as described in her obituaries. The paragraph below is from an newspaper opinion piece by Christopher Hitchens following the death of the Queen Mother .

"It's two decades and more since we learnt of the fate of the Queen Mother's nieces, Katherine and Nerissa Bowes-Lyon who, both born somewhat retarded, were first covertly immured in a mental institution and then falsely reported - via the agency of Burke's Peerage - as having died. This is the sort of practice that one associates with the court of a demented tsar, or with the more antique barbarities of Glamis Castle, the Queen Mother's birthplace. However, there is also a sense in which such callous culling is inseparable from the hereditary principle. The breeding of a "master family" is not much different in principle from the breeding of a master race; it involves much the same combination of the ridiculous and the sinister, and is every bit as incompatible with democracy and civilisation."

An excerpt from:

"Mourning will be brief: The Queen Mother symbolised reaction and philistinism. Her death marks the end of an antidemocratic era" Christopher Hitchens Monday April 1, 2002 http://www.guardian.co.uk/queenmother/article/0,2763,677164,0 0.html

Nerissa Bowes-Lyons is said to have lived 1919-1986; Katherine Bowes-Lyons, born 1926; they were daughters of Honourable John Herbert Bowes-Lyon (1886-1930), m.1914 Honourable Fenella Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis (1889-1966) (these families tend to attract fanatical genealogists who run very detailed websites).

There's a news story from 2000 about Katherine's institutional living arrangements at http://www.angelfire.com/wy/royalflush2/2000aug13.html --here's the title and authors:

Queen's cousin in 'sub-standard' care home(Electronic Telegraph) By Chris Hastings, David Bamber and Jessica Berry

A quote from this article...

"The care arrangements for Miss Bowes Lyon, whose father was the Queen Mother's brother, have previously embarrassed the Royal Family. Until 1987 she was listed in Burke's Peerage as having died in 1961. In fact she had been in the Royal Earlswood Hospital since 1941. Her sister Nerissa, who also spent much of her life in the hospital, is buried in Redhill cemetery. They were said to have a mental age of six and were originally placed in the hospital because this was the customary way to treat people who were mentally handicapped."

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2002

so she'd kept Mum all these years?

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2002

Living as I do in the Potteries, you might understand why this is the one area of the country that got quite excited by the Queen Mum's demise. They have had the plate and mug designs ready to go for ages - just needed the date filling in apparently.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2002

Will Viz continue with their 'Queen Mum's Teeth' pottery?

I think it's likely...

http://www.viz.co.uk/hairloom/hairloom.htm is the link. You'll have to cut'n'paste coz I divvent knaa HTML....

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2002