Queen Elizabeth II

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Careful bro, it was an accident...

Just had a knock on the door.

Be right back….

 

[Blue and true]

I wasn’t being facetious towards you, but rather pointing out the inequities of the political system to which we are subject - and given every government in the last half century has garnered less than half the popular vote, the process of binning off isn’t as straightforward or democratic as you suggest.

Deliberately facetious is a tautology btw. *

Edit: * it’s probably a pleonasm tbf.

It's a flawed system, but at the very least, it's democratic. If the vast majority of the electorate were Labour leaning in their ideals, then Labour would be in power. It's as simple as that. It may seem illusory, but it's a form of democracy.

Nobody in this country has given our new "King" a mandate to rule as head of state. That isn't right; and it can't be sugarcoated with flimsy adjectives like "continuity" and "tradition".

 

[PPT]

Social media brings out the worst in a few people. The attention seekers looking to offend and thus gain a reaction. They can hide behind the anonymity of the Internet, but wouldn't dare show their face or express these sentiments in public in real life. Its a great pity.

The biggest problem with social media that it gives some people a voice who shouldn't have one.

 

[Gabriel]

 

[BlueHammer85]

I find it quite staggering how little respect some people have for the Queen and what she did over the course of her reign. In my humble opinion I am quite happy to go with the mourning period for arguably our grestest ever Monarch.

The eyes of the world are on the UK and the pomp and ceramony that go with this sad time.

Society has been decimated over the last 50 years with a lack of respect for traditions, values and doing the right thing. We wonder where things have gone wrong and then watch on as people belittle the history that is being played out before us.

It’s solely because of social media - it gives a general feeling that society is broken and you will always have controversial opinions, many say stuff just for clicks.
If you had no social media/forums and just watched the coverage and see the millions paying their respects then you’d have a different perspective

 

[kaz7]

It's a flawed system, but at the very least, it's democratic. If the vast majority of the electorate were Labour leaning in their ideals, then Labour would be in power. It's as simple as that. It may seem illusory, but it's a form of democracy.

Nobody in this country has given our new "King" a mandate to rule as head of state. That isn't right; and it can't be sugarcoated with flimsy adjectives like "continuity" and "tradition".

The king doesnt need a mandate , you should research why not

 

[blueish swede]

My point always was that the country just isn't in mourning. It isn't. It's a false narrative. A small percentage maybe are, but I absolutely categorically do not believe that anything more than a tiny percentage of this country has had their mood or day to day life affected or shifted for more than ten minutes. I've got no doubt some of you are still glued to the coverage, welling up over montages, but I genuinely believe they're few and far between. The fact that the vast majority were pissed that football was cancelled is a pretty good indicator to me, plus once again, absolutely loads of (admittedly anecdotal) social interactions where the queen could have come up in conversation loads, but didn't. I can't prove it, like you can't the other way, but I believe it.

Ultimately, a very old lady died. No one is shocked by this, so what more is there to say for most people after the initial 'that's sad' stuff on Thursday/Friday? Nothing. Hence why the topic of conversation is no longer an interesting one and why maybe it isn't being brought up...as there is just not really much else to say other than these type of 'the monarchy is good/bad' convos.

Maybe you're confusing mourning with grieving.

 

[Blue and true]

The king doesnt need a mandate , you should research why not

Exactly. He's doesn't need a mandate, it's just "given" to him. You've just made my point for me.

 

[frothy]

Yes. The security services will be a damn sight better at detecting danger than frothy from the BlueMoon forum.

You didn't see it so how can you comment on it? get the impression your one of those people that think they are always right and everybody else is thick

 

[balotellishaircut]

We study those monarchs because they actually ruled countries and decided history. They were Head of state and PM and generals all in one. You cannot study the history of Britain in the 15th century without it revolving around Henry VIII not least because the Royal courts were the only people keeping notes of what was happening.

That's a method of categorising history that's been outgrown a long time ago. No one studies George VI, they study WW2 and Churchill.

When people study history from 1952-2022 they won't be studying QE2's reign, they'll study Thatcher, Blair, The Falklands the rise of islamic extremism and the gulf wars.

I think you mean the 16th century as regards to Henry VIII and people recording his role as king.