Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[News] Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Passes Away - 08/09/2022



Cheeky Monkey

Well-known member
Jul 17, 2003
23,884
To queue overnight or longer to glimpse the coffin lying in state while not even stopping to look at it, having to keep moving through after all that waiting is quite something. Respect to the endurance of those people
 




Weststander

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
69,372
Withdean area
We need a report from someone with first hand experience.

Anyone been inside or currently queing?

Been queuing for 30 hours and counting, I’m starving.

5D4AAADE-60F5-4A93-9D52-CDD30DD543F9.png
 


Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
To queue overnight or longer to glimpse the coffin lying in state while not even stopping to look at it, having to keep moving through after all that waiting is quite something. Respect to the endurance of those people

People are allowed to bow their heads or salute, for a moment, so it isn’t exactly a conveyor belt.

The honour guard changes are remarkably well coordinated.
 












DavidinSouthampton

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 3, 2012
17,359
Pros and cons to each argument. Biggest flaw in republicans argument is democracy. The purest fallacy. I mean, how’s the first past the post working out for you at the moment and the last 20 years?!! Least we’ve a green in Charles, if he’s there to nag the conscience of all the bean counting politicians and electorate then that’s only a good thing. As a species we will still be bleating on about money to the last man, as the waves drown us or the fire engulfs us.

I disagree. The biggest strength in the Republican argument is democracy.

While one can only respect the Queen and the job she’s done over the last 70 years, and hoping that Charles will do the same for however long, they are not elected. But if one has to have an undemocratic head of state, we could do an awful lot worse.

I think the arguments around “better than a President Johnson…. Or a President Corbyn” are fatuous. I haven’t liked any of the PM’s who have been in post for the last 10 years plus, but at least they (or their) parties were elected. And if people don’t like them, they can be removed at the next election.
 






Cheshire Cat

The most curious thing..
I disagree. The biggest strength in the Republican argument is democracy.

While one can only respect the Queen and the job she’s done over the last 70 years, and hoping that Charles will do the same for however long, they are not elected. But if one has to have an undemocratic head of state, we could do an awful lot worse.

I think the arguments around “better than a President Johnson…. Or a President Corbyn” are fatuous. I haven’t liked any of the PM’s who have been in post for the last 10 years plus, but at least they (or their) parties were elected. And if people don’t like them, they can be removed at the next election.
But royalty don't actually DO anything.... except open the odd bridge or supermarket.
 






A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
20,585
Deepest, darkest Sussex
[tweet]1570067806028464128[/tweet]
 


DavidinSouthampton

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 3, 2012
17,359
I know, so what’s the point?

An elected President might actually be more useful
 






GT49er

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 1, 2009
49,192
Gloucester
I know, so what’s the point?

An elected President might actually be more useful

In what way? Give them executive powers and it's a different ball game - and maybe not a good one (see under Trump, Putin, Pinochet et al). Don't give them executive powers, but just a ceremonial role,and you have royalty without the tradition, experience and status. And wthout the tourists.............
 






Beach Hut

Brighton Bhuna Boy
Jul 5, 2003
72,327
Living In a Box
I was in the Mall today, momentous
 








Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here