Think I'll psyche myself up and close out with a comment that I know will be dreadfully unpopular but it's how I feel and so I'm just going to say it -
Thought Nicholas Witchell made a good fist of it today.
Yep, just in from an evening in a pub full of whippersnappers not giving a feck, slightly and surprisingly shocking to me, and watched his tribute. Witchell’s apotheosis for sure, hitting the right notes In the right order, just dreading watching it repeated ad nauseum.
Tributes in the Commons could get pretty repetitive pretty fast, since they're going into Saturday as well apparently. Hopefully they have a lot their own royal anecdotes to impart.
Who will be the brave soul to go against the grain and talk about so much respect of course, but perhaps time to talk about a republic? I believe a few did in 36.
Nah. Like anything I have no issue with people talking about what they like but there is a basic principle of common decency that I adhere to and making such political statements when the old girl is not even in the ground yet seems to me to be the height of bad manners. I suspect that would alienate far more people than it would persuade.
At least the competition for Worst Possible Tweet has already been won. So no need for anyone else to try
Incredibly she’s a senior Professor at a major American uni. She’s now deleted the tweet after getting the worst ratio in history
What an extraordinarily deranged tweet. Laughably demented. If someone said such a thing in a pub you would back away from them (unless you were Casino Royale in which case you would break a pool cue on her head).
She then doubled down and said several more appalling things - not just about the queen but about anyone who argued with her first vile tweet
It definitely came across as a mental issue rather than a considered ideology
Nah. People have brought up all the horrible things the Brits have done through the ages. It is their right to do so. Here are we wishing that Bad Vlad impales himself on a vodka luge and people are just pointing out that the Brits have done their share of invading also.
That’s very different from wishing “an excruciating death” on a dying 96 year old woman who has lived a life of endless duty and has never invaded anyone
What this wretched professor said is grotesquely offensive - and was surely meant as such
It’s her right to say it, and it’s the right of anyone sane to call her out for vileness, and it’s her employers’ right to sack her if they want. Her career must be in peril
Her university has put out a mealy-mouthed statement about it:
Some of those look distinctly 2/3 mast to me. Oh sure, foreshortening you say, but I say it is deliberate disrespect!
You’re going to regret this. I can bore for hours and I refer you to the College of Arms as well as the Town and Country Planning (Control of advertising) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended)which (obviously) covers flags.
“Half-mast means the flag is flown two-thirds of the way up the flagpole with at least the height of the flag between the top of the flag and the top of the flag pole”.
I have been around a long time and all my life I was brought up to respect Elizabeth II. Which I always did.
In the pub tonight, they were showing the football then flashed over to Sky News for 5 mins. Then back to the football. No one seemed interested.
A different world 😡😡😡
One of the reasons anger is one of the emotions I'm feeling tonight.
Wait, you’re angry? That really makes no sense.
It does, it's one of the seven stages of grief.
I can't explain. Maybe because she'd always been Queen, and I'd taken it for granted, and I'm angry now she's left us. Maybe because it was all so sudden today and because I think it's unfair. Maybe because I've heard too many, "I'm not a royalist but.." this evening, which has irritated me. Maybe because I'm afraid of what happens now. I don't know. I just feel angry.
I'm not trying to make points, or score them here, it's just how I feel right
It is your right to feel how you feel. Ponder that she was a 96-yr old woman who lived a full, largely happy, fulfilling, and dutiful life. She didn't end it hooked up to machines unable to live unaided but doing her thing almost up to the very end.
It was a life well lived.
And also remember that she presided, in loose terms, over a democracy wherein dissent even against the monarchy she headed, is a well-earned right and celebrated as an integral part of our society.
Nothing to be angry about perhaps not even too upset.
Oh, of course, it's not logical to feel angry, but I do.
I felt shock and denial earlier, and then anger because I think I felt I'd somehow been lied to and misled. And I wasn't prepared for it. Then I didn't like how not everyone was respecting it in the way I felt they should, and then I felt scared. And now I'm worried. Listless.
Lots of emotions. I've also smiled looking at the Paddington clip again this evening, felt a strong sense of gratitude for her, and then gone back to feeling depressed again. Then a bit of anger again some more, and then numbness - and some denial some more.
It's disorientating and confusing. Others will be secretly feeling them, I'm sure, and not sharing this.
Said UCLA prof may well go far, having achieved this kind of publicity for such a short string of words, straight into the consciousness of many many people who'd never heard of her before, by the sound of it.
To not be interested in Elizabeth II is to not be interested in the history of the last 70 years, and only a very stupid person would publicly announce that they believed such a thing.
Think I'll psyche myself up and close out with a comment that I know will be dreadfully unpopular but it's how I feel and so I'm just going to say it -
Thought Nicholas Witchell made a good fist of it today.
Yep, just in from an evening in a pub full of whippersnappers not giving a feck, slightly and surprisingly shocking to me, and watched his tribute. Witchell’s apotheosis for sure, hitting the right notes In the right order, just dreading watching it repeated ad nauseum.
Tributes in the Commons could get pretty repetitive pretty fast, since they're going into Saturday as well apparently. Hopefully they have a lot their own royal anecdotes to impart.
Who will be the brave soul to go against the grain and talk about so much respect of course, but perhaps time to talk about a republic? I believe a few did in 36.
I have been around a long time and all my life I was brought up to respect Elizabeth II. Which I always did.
In the pub tonight, they were showing the football then flashed over to Sky News for 5 mins. Then back to the football. No one seemed interested.
A different world 😡😡😡
One of the reasons anger is one of the emotions I'm feeling tonight.
Wait, you’re angry? That really makes no sense.
It does, it's one of the seven stages of grief.
I can't explain. Maybe because she'd always been Queen, and I'd taken it for granted, and I'm angry now she's left us. Maybe because it was all so sudden today and because I think it's unfair. Maybe because I've heard too many, "I'm not a royalist but.." this evening, which has irritated me. Maybe because I'm afraid of what happens now. I don't know. I just feel angry.
I'm not trying to make points, or score them here, it's just how I feel right
It is your right to feel how you feel. Ponder that she was a 96-yr old woman who lived a full, largely happy, fulfilling, and dutiful life. She didn't end it hooked up to machines unable to live unaided but doing her thing almost up to the very end.
It was a life well lived.
And also remember that she presided, in loose terms, over a democracy wherein dissent even against the monarchy she headed, is a well-earned right and celebrated as an integral part of our society.
Nothing to be angry about perhaps not even too upset.
Oh, of course, it's not logical to feel angry, but I do.
I felt shock and denial earlier, and then anger because I think I felt I'd somehow been lied to and misled. And I wasn't prepared for it. Then I didn't like how not everyone was respecting it in the way I felt they should, and then I felt scared. And now I'm worried. Listless.
Lots of emotions. I've also smiled looking at the Paddington clip again this evening, felt a strong sense of gratitude for her, and then gone back to feeling depressed again. Then a bit of anger again some more, and then numbness - and some denial some more.
It's disorientating and confusing. Others will be secretly feeling them, I'm sure, and not sharing this.
I understand it's normal.
I think it's great that you are sharing them and thereby I hope working them through.
Some of those look distinctly 2/3 mast to me. Oh sure, foreshortening you say, but I say it is deliberate disrespect!
I thought half mast was not actually half way down the pole but instead at least one flag width below the top? So you could fit an invisible flag of death above. 2/3 is about right.
Some of those look distinctly 2/3 mast to me. Oh sure, foreshortening you say, but I say it is deliberate disrespect!
You’re going to regret this. I can bore for hours and I refer you to the College of Arms as well as the Town and Country Planning (Control of advertising) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended)which (obviously) covers flags.
“Half-mast means the flag is flown two-thirds of the way up the flagpole with at least the height of the flag between the top of the flag and the top of the flag pole”.
I have been around a long time and all my life I was brought up to respect Elizabeth II. Which I always did.
In the pub tonight, they were showing the football then flashed over to Sky News for 5 mins. Then back to the football. No one seemed interested.
A different world 😡😡😡
One of the reasons anger is one of the emotions I'm feeling tonight.
Wait, you’re angry? That really makes no sense.
It does, it's one of the seven stages of grief.
I can't explain. Maybe because she'd always been Queen, and I'd taken it for granted, and I'm angry now she's left us. Maybe because it was all so sudden today and because I think it's unfair. Maybe because I've heard too many, "I'm not a royalist but.." this evening, which has irritated me. Maybe because I'm afraid of what happens now. I don't know. I just feel angry.
I'm not trying to make points, or score them here, it's just how I feel right
It is your right to feel how you feel. Ponder that she was a 96-yr old woman who lived a full, largely happy, fulfilling, and dutiful life. She didn't end it hooked up to machines unable to live unaided but doing her thing almost up to the very end.
It was a life well lived.
And also remember that she presided, in loose terms, over a democracy wherein dissent even against the monarchy she headed, is a well-earned right and celebrated as an integral part of our society.
Nothing to be angry about perhaps not even too upset.
Oh, of course, it's not logical to feel angry, but I do.
I felt shock and denial earlier, and then anger because I think I felt I'd somehow been lied to and misled. And I wasn't prepared for it. Then I didn't like how not everyone was respecting it in the way I felt they should, and then I felt scared. And now I'm worried. Listless.
Lots of emotions. I've also smiled looking at the Paddington clip again this evening, felt a strong sense of gratitude for her, and then gone back to feeling depressed again. Then a bit of anger again some more, and then numbness - and some denial some more.
It's disorientating and confusing. Others will be secretly feeling them, I'm sure, and not sharing this.
I understand it's normal.
I think it's great that you are sharing them and thereby I hope working them through.
Yes, he should be invited to the funeral, although I wouldn’t expect him to come.
I'd imagine (though don't know) that invitations to these sorts of occassions simply don't work like that.
My guess is that the ambassador would be asked "who do you anticipate attending to represent your country on this occassion?" And that only if the answer is considered inappropriate would there be further discussion.
That would avoid diplomatic embarrassment for the country inviting (either by inviting an inappropriate person or being turned down) and the country being invited (by turning it down).
In this case, it's clear Putin wouldn't want to attend, and Russia are very likely to name a relatively anonymous individual, or send condolences but no representative. That way no invitation would be issued to him, and no refusal received.
It would similarly be the case if a head of state was unable to attend for some other reason (whether illness or, frankly, priorities) - it wouldn't be the case that Cyril Ramaphosa (say) had declined an invitation to attend, merely that South Africa was represented by its Foreign Minister.
At least the competition for Worst Possible Tweet has already been won. So no need for anyone else to try
Incredibly she’s a senior Professor at a major American uni. She’s now deleted the tweet after getting the worst ratio in history
What an extraordinarily deranged tweet. Laughably demented. If someone said such a thing in a pub you would back away from them (unless you were Casino Royale in which case you would break a pool cue on her head).
She then doubled down and said several more appalling things - not just about the queen but about anyone who argued with her first vile tweet
It definitely came across as a mental issue rather than a considered ideology
I read up on her biography to try to understand what motivated it. Her father was a wealthy Igbo who had multiple houses and met her Trinidadian mother while they were both at university in England. They moved to Nigeria but her mother struggled to settle there and her father had multiple mistresses so eventually her mother moved to the US with the kids. The professor seems to hold the Queen personally responsible for the Nigerian Civil War in the 1960s.
To be fair, the actions of the Wilson government during the Biafran war were pretty deplorable.
Not sure if this is posted but every US flag pretty much anywhere in the world is going to fly at half-mast until the Queen is laid to rest.
Remarkable. The US President ordering all flags on public buildings throughout America and on its embassies around the world to be flown at half mast until the Queen’s funeral in ten days time.
That really is something special. Biden has shown himself to be a real class act today on all fronts. Ad I say that as someone who is not a fan of his usually
Think I'll psyche myself up and close out with a comment that I know will be dreadfully unpopular but it's how I feel and so I'm just going to say it -
Thought Nicholas Witchell made a good fist of it today.
Yep, just in from an evening in a pub full of whippersnappers not giving a feck, slightly and surprisingly shocking to me, and watched his tribute. Witchell’s apotheosis for sure, hitting the right notes In the right order, just dreading watching it repeated ad nauseum.
Tributes in the Commons could get pretty repetitive pretty fast, since they're going into Saturday as well apparently. Hopefully they have a lot their own royal anecdotes to impart.
Who will be the brave soul to go against the grain and talk about so much respect of course, but perhaps time to talk about a republic? I believe a few did in 36.
Nah. Like anything I have no issue with people talking about what they like but there is a basic principle of common decency that I adhere to and making such political statements when the old girl is not even in the ground yet seems to me to be the height of bad manners. I suspect that would alienate far more people than it would persuade.
650 MPs, surely there's at least one of them who is tone deaf and would seize the moment?
Not sure if this is posted but every US flag pretty much anywhere in the world is going to fly at half-mast until the Queen is laid to rest.
Remarkable. The US President ordering all flags on public buildings throughout America and on its embassies around the world to be flown at half mast until the Queen’s funeral in ten days time.
That really is something special. Biden has shown himself to be a real class act today on all fronts. Ad I say that as someone who is not a fan of his usually
Ian Dunt @IanDunt · 3h She always felt like something we could all agree on. Everyone seemed to admire her, no matter their other divisions. It feels a much lonelier country without her in it.
What a surreal day . Very hard to believe . I wonder will we ever know what the Queen was suffering from as she went downhill very quickly since the Jubilee .
Sorry to to interject with a niggle (don’t be fucking stupid, the usual suspects are at it already - ed), but isn’t Huw Edwards’ tie a very dark navy rather than black? UK passport blue even..
The Soviet Ambassador attended the funeral of George VI. The Korean War was happening at the same time.
I think the WW2 link might lead the Russians to want to send someone more senior than you might expect.
But isn't Gardenwalker's point that they didn't for George VI, where the same applied to an even greater extent? They sent the Ambassador to the UK - it's not the tea-lady, but nor is it someone at the heart of the Kremlin.
Sorry to to interject with a niggle (don’t be fucking stupid, the usual suspects are at it already - ed), but isn’t Huw Edwards’ tie a very dark navy rather than black? UK passport blue even..
Also, if you look closely, he was wearing… pinstripe.
Hartlepool: Foggy Furze - Labour gain from Independent
Party 2022 B votes 2022 B share since 2022 since 2021 "top" since 2021 "average" Labour 443 43.9% +4.3% +24.1% +23.8% Conservative 391 38.8% +14.2% +9.0% +6.2% Independent Stallard 126 12.5% from nowhere from nowhere from nowhere Liberal Democrat 49 4.9% -0.3% from nowhere from nowhere Previous Independents -30.7% -30.2% -28.6% Veterans & People -14.4% -12.3% Reform -3.8% -4.2% For Britain -2.1% -2.3% Total Votes 1,009 63% 30% 33%
What a surreal day . Very hard to believe . I wonder will we ever know what the Queen was suffering from as she went downhill very quickly since the Jubilee .
Probably the death of her husband was one of the reasons.
Extraordinary, really. Flags at half-mast outside all US delegations, and all EU delegations worldwide. What that shows is that between those two poles of influence and natural allies, a bridge between the two, is where Britain really belongs.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
What a surreal day . Very hard to believe . I wonder will we ever know what the Queen was suffering from as she went downhill very quickly since the Jubilee .
It was clear at the time of the Jubilee that things were worse than they were letting on.
I tend to resist these kind of simplistic cause and effect narratives, but it does look to me (whatever the medical diagnosis) - like she’s been going downhill seriously since Phillip died. Perhaps related, perhaps not.
Her doctors and close family will know the full story. As you say, I doubt we’ll ever find out.
What a surreal day . Very hard to believe . I wonder will we ever know what the Queen was suffering from as she went downhill very quickly since the Jubilee .
Probably the death of her husband was one of the reasons.
Agreed but she looked like she’d lost a lot of weight since the Jubilee . There was something else going on .
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
spiked @spikedonline · 1h RIP Queen Elizabeth II. In our fragmented and identitarian age, she gave millions of people a sense of connection – to nation and to one another. Even for us republicans, there is much to admire in her long and stoical reign,
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
What a surreal day . Very hard to believe . I wonder will we ever know what the Queen was suffering from as she went downhill very quickly since the Jubilee .
We had this discussion on here the other day. She was 96. No doubt she'd collected some ailments along the way as people do. But at some point, it very often isn't about one thing. The timings vary a bit, but at some point at around that sort of stage, the odds against you start getting exponentially worse - it's just biology, and there's little the best care can do beyond providing a little comfort.
On republicans, they will surely wait until Charles fucks up (which is inevitable) to pounce. If they do it now it will set them back for a long time.
Many republicans have spent several decades expecting the mere fact of Charles being King to make the case for a Republic for them. They are less capable of pouncing than a toothless, arthritic lion.
I expect the first anguished column in the Guardian from a bewildered republican before the end of next year.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
Extraordinary, really. Flags at half-mast outside all US delegations, and all EU delegations worldwide. What that shows is that between those two poles of influence and natural allies, a bridge between the two, is where Britain really belongs.
I think you may be taking it as confirmation of an existing opinion. My own belief is that we should have warm relationships with both organisations, but be ruled by neither, and I believe my view was shared by HMQ, though she would never have expressed it publicly.
I appreciate, and to some extent share, the sadness expressed by most posters tonight. Interestingly, though, I've talked to all four of my children tonight, all in their early thirties. I was surprised both by how unmoved they were, and more tellingly, by their lack of interest. They just don't see HMQ as relevant to their lives; they think she's done well to get to 96, and that the reaction to her death is a bit over the top. They weren't derogatory about her in the slightest - just not interested. I do wonder if it's a bit of a generational thing - I guess most PB posters are somewhat older.
It reminds me of someone at school who said he wasn't interested in the news and never watched or listened to it. I asked him why. He said something like: "Because it doesn't have anything to do with me personally". I thought he was an idiot for saying such a thing, and still think so now.
I'd refer him to Pericles' slightly sinister quote (more recently echoed by ~Trotsky): "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."
spiked @spikedonline · 1h RIP Queen Elizabeth II. In our fragmented and identitarian age, she gave millions of people a sense of connection – to nation and to one another. Even for us republicans, there is much to admire in her long and stoical reign,
Brendan: I wonder if we can use the Queens death to bash the woke?
Extraordinary, really. Flags at half-mast outside all US delegations, and all EU delegations worldwide. What that shows is that between those two poles of influence and natural allies, a bridge between the two, is where Britain really belongs.
I think you may be taking it as confirmation of an existing opinion. My own belief is that we should have warm relationships with both organisations, but be ruled by neither, and I believe my view was shared by HMQ, though she would never have expressed it publicly.
Let's hope Ms Truss follows at least that view, rather than seeking further confrontation. Whatever else the Queen believed, as a generously well-travelled woman, it was far from the small-minded idiocy of Farage.
The Soviet Ambassador attended the funeral of George VI. The Korean War was happening at the same time.
I think the WW2 link might lead the Russians to want to send someone more senior than you might expect.
But isn't Gardenwalker's point that they didn't for George VI, where the same applied to an even greater extent? They sent the Ambassador to the UK - it's not the tea-lady, but nor is it someone at the heart of the Kremlin.
The Ambassador is exactly who I'd expect.
We’re at crossed purposes. I meant I agreed - as in they might also be respectful via the ambassador or similar and not make any noise.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
To not be interested in Elizabeth II is to not be interested in the history of the last 70 years, and only a very stupid person would publicly announce that they believed such a thing.
Her role in history was minor - rather more a global celebrity of the mid-century, in the JFK or Audrey Hepburn league, prior to the more cynical age following it. In that sense it still holds, the most famous person in the world.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
But it makes you wonder whay Maya Jasanoff would have had her do instead. Somehow prevent the unrolling of empire in the 50s and 60s? Even if it was within her gift, you would have thought this would be the sort of things that Maya Jasanoff might have viewed negatively.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
Most of use don’t think this country has done anything particularly bad on a global scale in the late Queen’s lifetime.
To not be interested in Elizabeth II is to not be interested in the history of the last 70 years, and only a very stupid person would publicly announce that they believed such a thing.
Her role in history was minor - rather more a global celebrity of the mid-century, in the JFK or Audrey Hepburn league, prior to the more cynical age following it. In that sense it still holds, the most famous person in the world.
Google now have a black ribbon on their front page - not like the ribbons that will be laid diagonally on pictures in local council offices, but a looped one in the style that's used to spread awareness of breast cancer etc.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
Most of use don’t think this country has done anything particularly bad on a global scale in the late Queen’s lifetime.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
They can’t even wait one single day. They are helpless
Reminds of when an erstwhile poster here was dragged over the coals over an article about Seamus Heaney.
Then there's the matter of tact: does it do you good to know that your article was published on the day of Seamus Heaney's funeral, a day when his family and friends were still in shock at his unexpected death? Nobody is suggesting that you don't have the right to publish whatever you want, but I'd like to know what mixture of vanity and puerile mischief put you up to it.
On republicans, they will surely wait until Charles fucks up (which is inevitable) to pounce. If they do it now it will set them back for a long time.
Many republicans have spent several decades expecting the mere fact of Charles being King to make the case for a Republic for them. They are less capable of pouncing than a toothless, arthritic lion.
I expect the first anguished column in the Guardian from a bewildered republican before the end of next year.
Why do you expect people who disagree with you to even want to "pounce"?
It's pretty clear most people don't want to abolish the monarchy. Quite a lot of republicans simply accept that reality - there's nothing disgraceful in being at peace with the fact that a view you hold is not going to prevail.
Indeed, it's fairly likely that applies to the current occupant of Number 10. I don't know - maybe she had a Damascene conversion, but it's also very possible she just realised it was a low priority and why throw away a political future over a debate she was never going to win anyway. Of course, she had to "recant" in a way someone who doesn't have a political career needn't do as so few people care. But was it genuine? Maybe, maybe not... it doesn't really matter either way as the outcome is the same.
“Today is a reminder of how hilariously disorienting Twitter can be. An endless stream of overwrought tributes to a monarch, jokes about her death & then random brand tweets like "On behalf of the entire Weber Grill family, we solemnly lay down our tongs in her majesty's memory."
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
That supposes you have to bring up the bad stuff at every moment. It isnt whitewashing the truth to maybe save the conversation for 24 hours.
Thats not even deference to the individual in this case, we dont call it whitewashing the truth if someone fails to mention X was a shit on the day of their death.
Bring it up, fine, but dont let's act like people being overly focused on the positives on the day of is some shameful attempt at whitewashing.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
Most of use don’t think this country has done anything particularly bad on a global scale in the late Queen’s lifetime.
The Group Areas Act in South Africa didn't sign itself into law.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
Most of use don’t think this country has done anything particularly bad on a global scale in the late Queen’s lifetime.
A lot also do not think we've done much particularly good either. A lot think as we're not a superpower it means we've done nothing at all.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
But it makes you wonder whay Maya Jasanoff would have had her do instead. Somehow prevent the unrolling of empire in the 50s and 60s? Even if it was within her gift, you would have thought this would be the sort of things that Maya Jasanoff might have viewed negatively.
I think the point is the Queen as an emblem for the country. For she was, wasn't she? An emblem of this country. Yes she was the Queen of Australia and Canada and so on, but she was nearly synonymous with the UK (or even England?). The soft power the UK wielded in her era was in part through her. But the UK has not comported itself in a way above reproach in that time.
So when thinking about the Queen's era, we have to think of the country she was head of state for, and the things done by it in her name, by people whose public roles entail them swearing allegiance to her. She's mixed in with that, for good and for ill. Let's not flinch from seeing that clearly.
Congrats to the NYT in playing its part in helping the Brexit Ultraroyalists through the grieving process, even if anger towards the Britain hayterz isn’t traditionally recognised as one of the stages.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
That supposes you have to bring up the bad stuff at every moment. It isnt whitewashing the truth to maybe save the conversation for 24 hours.
Thats not even deference to the individual in this case, we dont call it whitewashing the truth if someone fails to mention X was a shit on the day of their death.
Bring it up, fine, but dont let's act like people being overly focused on the positives on the day of is some shameful attempt at whitewashing.
I’ve said to many neighbours over the years, in jest, that if I die in interesting enough circumstances for them to be interviewed, I actively want them to say “nah he was a bit of a shit” just to shake things up.
… and we end the day in which the government splurged the greatest one-off amount of money in post-WW2 political history, £150bn (increasing the national debt by 6.5%, in one go) - with the story down at number 27 on the BBC news homepage.
Congrats to the NYT in playing its part in helping the Brexit Ultraroyalists through the grieving process, even if anger towards the Britain hayterz isn’t traditionally recognised as one of the stages.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
But it makes you wonder whay Maya Jasanoff would have had her do instead. Somehow prevent the unrolling of empire in the 50s and 60s? Even if it was within her gift, you would have thought this would be the sort of things that Maya Jasanoff might have viewed negatively.
I think the point is the Queen as an emblem for the country. For she was, wasn't she? An emblem of this country. Yes she was the Queen of Australia and Canada and so on, but she was nearly synonymous with the UK (or even England?). The soft power the UK wielded in her era was in part through her. But the UK has not comported itself in a way above reproach in that time.
So when thinking about the Queen's era, we have to think of the country she was head of state for, and the things done by it in her name, by people whose public roles entail them swearing allegiance to her. She's mixed in with that, for good and for ill. Let's not flinch from seeing that clearly.
Not really. Like other mega-celebrities, her government used her for high-level and public diplomacy. She wasn't really to blame for all the other things they did.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
Most of use don’t think this country has done anything particularly bad on a global scale in the late Queen’s lifetime.
A lot also do not think we've done much particularly good either. A lot think as we're not a superpower it means we've done nothing at all.
Oh, I agree with that too. I won’t apologise for imperial crimes nor will I take credit for imperial triumphs (or, latterly, wartime ones). That’s history. Good and bad, but it’s history.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
That supposes you have to bring up the bad stuff at every moment. It isnt whitewashing the truth to maybe save the conversation for 24 hours.
Thats not even deference to the individual in this case, we dont call it whitewashing the truth if someone fails to mention X was a shit on the day of their death.
Bring it up, fine, but dont let's act like people being overly focused on the positives on the day of is some shameful attempt at whitewashing.
I’ve said to many neighbours over the years, in jest, that if I die in interesting enough circumstances for them to be interviewed, I actively want them to say “nah he was a bit of a shit” just to shake things up.
"That's great, Mr Biggles, but I really was just wondering if you'd finished with that screwdriver i loaned you"
Congrats to the NYT in playing its part in helping the Brexit Ultraroyalists through the grieving process, even if anger towards the Britain hayterz isn’t traditionally recognised as one of the stages.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
That supposes you have to bring up the bad stuff at every moment. It isnt whitewashing the truth to maybe save the conversation for 24 hours.
Thats not even deference to the individual in this case, we dont call it whitewashing the truth if someone fails to mention X was a shit on the day of their death.
Bring it up, fine, but dont let's act like people being overly focused on the positives on the day of is some shameful attempt at whitewashing.
I’ve said to many neighbours over the years, in jest, that if I die in interesting enough circumstances for them to be interviewed, I actively want them to say “nah he was a bit of a shit” just to shake things up.
There was a wonderful quote from a neighbour in the papers a few years ago when some appalling individual drove a car at some people entering a mosque. It was along the lines, "He's lived on the estate a few years. He's always been a complete c***, but this is still surprising".
… and we end the day in which the government splurged the greatest one-off amount of money in post-WW2 political history, £150bn (increasing the national debt by 6.5%, in one go) - with the story down at number 27 on the BBC news homepage.
Quite incredible.
A day to bury bad news?
But more seriously, we don't know it will be that much, it depends on the price of energy.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
That supposes you have to bring up the bad stuff at every moment. It isnt whitewashing the truth to maybe save the conversation for 24 hours.
Thats not even deference to the individual in this case, we dont call it whitewashing the truth if someone fails to mention X was a shit on the day of their death.
Bring it up, fine, but dont let's act like people being overly focused on the positives on the day of is some shameful attempt at whitewashing.
Tell you what, you decide for yourself when you'd like to say certain things, and let others decide for themselves when it's the best time.
The death of a monarch isn't just the death of a human. It's a time to reflect. You see a lot of that going on right now. But some people, people like you?, seem to think that this should be a safe space only for a certain type of reflection: personal and not institutional; positive and not critical. I don't accept that. For me, now, today, literally this very minute is as good a time as any to reflect on our institutional life.
Maybe we shouldnt give a flying fuck about the inevitable noises off because they dont really matter. And there is nothing more that the malcontents just seeking to sound off hate more than no one caring what they think.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
Most of use don’t think this country has done anything particularly bad on a global scale in the late Queen’s lifetime.
I've seen tweets tonight effectively blaming her for climate change.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
That supposes you have to bring up the bad stuff at every moment. It isnt whitewashing the truth to maybe save the conversation for 24 hours.
Thats not even deference to the individual in this case, we dont call it whitewashing the truth if someone fails to mention X was a shit on the day of their death.
Bring it up, fine, but dont let's act like people being overly focused on the positives on the day of is some shameful attempt at whitewashing.
Tell you what, you decide for yourself when you'd like to say certain things, and let others decide for themselves when it's the best time.
The death of a monarch isn't just the death of a human. It's a time to reflect. You see a lot of that going on right now. But some people, people like you?, seem to think that this should be a safe space only for a certain type of reflection: personal and not institutional; positive and not critical. I don't accept that. For me, now, today, literally this very minute is as good a time as any to reflect on our institutional life.
It’s an entirely performative anger as well. I doubt any of them have read the offending article.
Here’s a picture of the Queen dancing with Kwame Nkrumah to make them chill out.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
They can’t even wait one single day. They are helpless
Reminds of when an erstwhile poster here was dragged over the coals over an article about Seamus Heaney.
Then there's the matter of tact: does it do you good to know that your article was published on the day of Seamus Heaney's funeral, a day when his family and friends were still in shock at his unexpected death? Nobody is suggesting that you don't have the right to publish whatever you want, but I'd like to know what mixture of vanity and puerile mischief put you up to it.
'I should begin by letting you know that I'm entirely aware that your article was written as an exercise in gaining attention; your anonymous authority is transparent and such emptiness should not be playing on my mind. And yet it is. Perhaps it's the arrogance in your suggestion that you've been 'debating' about poetry. Perhaps it's your glib anti-Irish sentiments on Twitter ('leprechaun hat', indeed). Perhaps it's your swift move from attempting to write as some kind of pseudo-critic to attacking Seamus Heaney's personal life ('by all accounts, Nobel Laureate Seamus Heaney was a functional alcoholic'). More than this, I think it's your wholesale view of poetry: to you, poetry is something that can be judged by how many gobbets you can pull from your head, seemingly without context and seemingly at random, or by some vague notion of how a line sings.'
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
But it makes you wonder whay Maya Jasanoff would have had her do instead. Somehow prevent the unrolling of empire in the 50s and 60s? Even if it was within her gift, you would have thought this would be the sort of things that Maya Jasanoff might have viewed negatively.
I think the point is the Queen as an emblem for the country. For she was, wasn't she? An emblem of this country. Yes she was the Queen of Australia and Canada and so on, but she was nearly synonymous with the UK (or even England?). The soft power the UK wielded in her era was in part through her. But the UK has not comported itself in a way above reproach in that time.
So when thinking about the Queen's era, we have to think of the country she was head of state for, and the things done by it in her name, by people whose public roles entail them swearing allegiance to her. She's mixed in with that, for good and for ill. Let's not flinch from seeing that clearly.
Not really. Like other mega-celebrities, her government used her for high-level and public diplomacy. She wasn't really to blame for all the other things they did.
That's why we're talking about reflecting on her era, not some mythical tyrannical autocracy. Keep up.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
That supposes you have to bring up the bad stuff at every moment. It isnt whitewashing the truth to maybe save the conversation for 24 hours.
Thats not even deference to the individual in this case, we dont call it whitewashing the truth if someone fails to mention X was a shit on the day of their death.
Bring it up, fine, but dont let's act like people being overly focused on the positives on the day of is some shameful attempt at whitewashing.
Tell you what, you decide for yourself when you'd like to say certain things, and let others decide for themselves when it's the best time.
The death of a monarch isn't just the death of a human. It's a time to reflect. You see a lot of that going on right now. But some people, people like you?, seem to think that this should be a safe space only for a certain type of reflection: personal and not institutional; positive and not critical. I don't accept that. For me, now, today, literally this very minute is as good a time as any to reflect on our institutional life.
It’s an entirely performative anger as well. I doubt any of them have read the offending article.
Here’s a picture of the Queen dancing with Kwame Nkrumah to make them chill out.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
That supposes you have to bring up the bad stuff at every moment. It isnt whitewashing the truth to maybe save the conversation for 24 hours.
Thats not even deference to the individual in this case, we dont call it whitewashing the truth if someone fails to mention X was a shit on the day of their death.
Bring it up, fine, but dont let's act like people being overly focused on the positives on the day of is some shameful attempt at whitewashing.
I’ve said to many neighbours over the years, in jest, that if I die in interesting enough circumstances for them to be interviewed, I actively want them to say “nah he was a bit of a shit” just to shake things up.
"That's great, Mr Biggles, but I really was just wondering if you'd finished with that screwdriver i loaned you"
“Ok but before we get to that, have I told you about the regulations on the flying of flags”.
"The sooner you (black Conservative Party Cabinet Minister @JamesCleverly) are out of the UK, the better". - @snb19692 08/09/2022
Steve Bray is a racist. I hope that he is questioned by the @metpoliceuk and his unacceptable abuse/harassment of MPs and their families ends now!“
Whilst I don't like Steve Bray and thinks he harms his cause, isn't that pretty clearly a reference to Cleverly being Foreign Secretary rather than a call for deportation?
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
That supposes you have to bring up the bad stuff at every moment. It isnt whitewashing the truth to maybe save the conversation for 24 hours.
Thats not even deference to the individual in this case, we dont call it whitewashing the truth if someone fails to mention X was a shit on the day of their death.
Bring it up, fine, but dont let's act like people being overly focused on the positives on the day of is some shameful attempt at whitewashing.
Tell you what, you decide for yourself when you'd like to say certain things, and let others decide for themselves when it's the best time.
The death of a monarch isn't just the death of a human. It's a time to reflect. You see a lot of that going on right now. But some people, people like you?, seem to think that this should be a safe space only for a certain type of reflection: personal and not institutional; positive and not critical. I don't accept that. For me, now, today, literally this very minute is as good a time as any to reflect on our institutional life.
Um, I never said it shouldn't be brought up (in fact I said the opposite) . So either you cannot read or you're angry at something else.
What I said was that it isnt whitewashing if someone doesnt bring up the bad stuff today, which was the apparent implication. If someone chose not to reflect in the manner you describe today it doesnt mean they dont wish to reflect on it at all.
You dont know if someone sticking to a tribute today might have some very conflicted views because of negative historical events. So you shouldn't presume they are whitewashing if they are choosing not to focus on it even of you are doing so. It doesnt automatically mean, as you have seemingly assumed, that they dont agree with you to some degree.
Try being a bit less judgy - I'm happy to avoid those who want to enforce grief or seek attention with vulgarities, no safe spaces needed thanks.
"The sooner you (black Conservative Party Cabinet Minister @JamesCleverly) are out of the UK, the better". - @snb19692 08/09/2022
Steve Bray is a racist. I hope that he is questioned by the @metpoliceuk and his unacceptable abuse/harassment of MPs and their families ends now!“
Whilst I don't like Steve Bray and thinks he harms his cause, isn't that pretty clearly a reference to Cleverly being Foreign Secretary rather than a call for deportation?
Nope, he wants him out of the country permanently, not just on a FO jaunt. Maybe not because he’s black, though.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
Most of use don’t think this country has done anything particularly bad on a global scale in the late Queen’s lifetime.
I've seen tweets tonight effectively blaming her for climate change.
Lol. I obviously don’t follow enough loons. Jacinda Ardern suggested that the new King was a climate change pioneer in her presser.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
Most of use don’t think this country has done anything particularly bad on a global scale in the late Queen’s lifetime.
Watch this, from start to finish, and then make that claim:
"The sooner you (black Conservative Party Cabinet Minister @JamesCleverly) are out of the UK, the better". - @snb19692 08/09/2022
Steve Bray is a racist. I hope that he is questioned by the @metpoliceuk and his unacceptable abuse/harassment of MPs and their families ends now!“
Whilst I don't like Steve Bray and thinks he harms his cause, isn't that pretty clearly a reference to Cleverly being Foreign Secretary rather than a call for deportation?
At least we now know when it’s appropriate for the police to knock on people’s doors because of bad tweets.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
Most of use don’t think this country has done anything particularly bad on a global scale in the late Queen’s lifetime.
I've seen tweets tonight effectively blaming her for climate change.
She's spread a lot of chem trails, and they...actually I dont remember what the conspiracy about them is about.
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
That supposes you have to bring up the bad stuff at every moment. It isnt whitewashing the truth to maybe save the conversation for 24 hours.
Thats not even deference to the individual in this case, we dont call it whitewashing the truth if someone fails to mention X was a shit on the day of their death.
Bring it up, fine, but dont let's act like people being overly focused on the positives on the day of is some shameful attempt at whitewashing.
Tell you what, you decide for yourself when you'd like to say certain things, and let others decide for themselves when it's the best time.
The death of a monarch isn't just the death of a human. It's a time to reflect. You see a lot of that going on right now. But some people, people like you?, seem to think that this should be a safe space only for a certain type of reflection: personal and not institutional; positive and not critical. I don't accept that. For me, now, today, literally this very minute is as good a time as any to reflect on our institutional life.
Um, I never said it shouldn't be brought up. So either you cannot read or you're angry at something else.
What I said was that it isnt whitewashing if someone doesnt bring up the bad stuff today, which was the apparent implication. If someone chose not to reflect in the manner you describe today it doesnt mean they dont wish to reflect on it at all.
You dont know if someone sticking to a tribute today might have some very conflicted views because of negative historical events. So you shouldn't presume they are whitewashing if they are choosing not to focus on it even of you are.
Try being a bit less judgy - I'm happy to avoid those who want to enforce grief or seek attention with vulgarities, no safe spaces needed thanks.
"This is my truth; please wait a day before you tell me yours". This is a well-worn way to muffle criticism, you know. "Now is not the time, now is not the time, oh that thing? That was ages ago, move on."
@nytimes "We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
No point in whitewashing that truth from the conversation. You can't have someone "representing" the country but cry foul when people raise the bad stuff.
That supposes you have to bring up the bad stuff at every moment. It isnt whitewashing the truth to maybe save the conversation for 24 hours.
Thats not even deference to the individual in this case, we dont call it whitewashing the truth if someone fails to mention X was a shit on the day of their death.
Bring it up, fine, but dont let's act like people being overly focused on the positives on the day of is some shameful attempt at whitewashing.
Tell you what, you decide for yourself when you'd like to say certain things, and let others decide for themselves when it's the best time.
The death of a monarch isn't just the death of a human. It's a time to reflect. You see a lot of that going on right now. But some people, people like you?, seem to think that this should be a safe space only for a certain type of reflection: personal and not institutional; positive and not critical. I don't accept that. For me, now, today, literally this very minute is as good a time as any to reflect on our institutional life.
Um, I never said it shouldn't be brought up. So either you cannot read or you're angry at something else.
What I said was that it isnt whitewashing if someone doesnt bring up the bad stuff today, which was the apparent implication. If someone chose not to reflect in the manner you describe today it doesnt mean they dont wish to reflect on it at all.
You dont know if someone sticking to a tribute today might have some very conflicted views because of negative historical events. So you shouldn't presume they are whitewashing if they are choosing not to focus on it even of you are.
Try being a bit less judgy - I'm happy to avoid those who want to enforce grief or seek attention with vulgarities, no safe spaces needed thanks.
"This is my truth; please wait a day before you tell me yours". This is a well-worn way to muffle criticism, you know. "Now is not the time, now is not the time, oh that thing? That was ages ago, move on."
I'm not telling you or anyone to wait a day. Say it all now by all means.
I'm saying don't presume everyone who is waiting a day is whitewashing just because they are waiting. People generally focus on the positives in the immediate, it doesnt mean they all have no negatives.
How is that muffling criticism? It's making sure you don't pretend anyone not criticising today has no criticism to make.
Comments
I felt shock and denial earlier, and then anger because I think I felt I'd somehow been lied to and misled. And I wasn't prepared for it. Then I didn't like how not everyone was respecting it in the way I felt they should, and then I felt scared. And now I'm worried. Listless.
Lots of emotions. I've also smiled looking at the Paddington clip again this evening, felt a strong sense of gratitude for her, and then gone back to feeling depressed again. Then a bit of anger again some more, and then numbness - and some denial some more.
It's disorientating and confusing. Others will be secretly feeling them, I'm sure, and not sharing this.
I understand it's normal.
G'night all. God Save the King and all that.
My guess is that the ambassador would be asked "who do you anticipate attending to represent your country on this occassion?" And that only if the answer is considered inappropriate would there be further discussion.
That would avoid diplomatic embarrassment for the country inviting (either by inviting an inappropriate person or being turned down) and the country being invited (by turning it down).
In this case, it's clear Putin wouldn't want to attend, and Russia are very likely to name a relatively anonymous individual, or send condolences but no representative. That way no invitation would be issued to him, and no refusal received.
It would similarly be the case if a head of state was unable to attend for some other reason (whether illness or, frankly, priorities) - it wouldn't be the case that Cyril Ramaphosa (say) had declined an invitation to attend, merely that South Africa was represented by its Foreign Minister.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/21/buried-50-years-britain-shamesful-role-biafran-war-frederick-forsyth
Ian Dunt
@IanDunt
·
3h
She always felt like something we could all agree on. Everyone seemed to admire her, no matter their other divisions. It feels a much lonelier country without her in it.
The Ambassador is exactly who I'd expect.
Party 2022 B votes 2022 B share since 2022 since 2021 "top" since 2021 "average"
Labour 443 43.9% +4.3% +24.1% +23.8%
Conservative 391 38.8% +14.2% +9.0% +6.2%
Independent Stallard 126 12.5% from nowhere from nowhere from nowhere
Liberal Democrat 49 4.9% -0.3% from nowhere from nowhere
Previous Independents -30.7% -30.2% -28.6%
Veterans & People -14.4% -12.3%
Reform -3.8% -4.2%
For Britain -2.1% -2.3%
Total Votes 1,009 63% 30% 33%
hat tip from middleenglander of vote-12
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1568004803770609665?s=20&t=ZdVitxSgJAst7Opx6s9V4g
Some bugger has to do it.
I’m glad you made it in the end.
They’re very lucky to have you.
Sophy Ridge
@SophyRidgeSky
My favourite story about the Queen… just lovely
https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/1567963716339236869
@nytimes
"We should not romanticize her era," writes Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard, in a guest essay. "The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged."
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1567968544876265473
I tend to resist these kind of simplistic cause and effect narratives, but it does look to me (whatever the medical diagnosis) - like she’s been going downhill seriously since Phillip died. Perhaps related, perhaps not.
Her doctors and close family will know the full story. As you say, I doubt we’ll ever find out.
@spikedonline
·
1h
RIP Queen Elizabeth II. In our fragmented and identitarian age, she gave millions of people a sense of connection – to nation and to one another. Even for us republicans, there is much to admire in her long and stoical reign,
I expect the first anguished column in the Guardian from a bewildered republican before the end of next year.
I'd refer him to Pericles' slightly sinister quote (more recently echoed by ~Trotsky): "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."
Yeah, go on. Let’s give it a go….
Then there's the matter of tact: does it do you good to know that your article was published on the day of Seamus Heaney's funeral, a day when his family and friends were still in shock at his unexpected death? Nobody is suggesting that you don't have the right to publish whatever you want, but I'd like to know what mixture of vanity and puerile mischief put you up to it.
https://thequietus.com/articles/13293-seamus-heaney-open-letter-sean-thomas
It's pretty clear most people don't want to abolish the monarchy. Quite a lot of republicans simply accept that reality - there's nothing disgraceful in being at peace with the fact that a view you hold is not going to prevail.
Indeed, it's fairly likely that applies to the current occupant of Number 10. I don't know - maybe she had a Damascene conversion, but it's also very possible she just realised it was a low priority and why throw away a political future over a debate she was never going to win anyway. Of course, she had to "recant" in a way someone who doesn't have a political career needn't do as so few people care. But was it genuine? Maybe, maybe not... it doesn't really matter either way as the outcome is the same.
https://twitter.com/jordanuhl/status/1567977935629615104?s=46&t=dXm1lvqH-fwlsxNHioW9BA
Thats not even deference to the individual in this case, we dont call it whitewashing the truth if someone fails to mention X was a shit on the day of their death.
Bring it up, fine, but dont let's act like people being overly focused on the positives on the day of is some shameful attempt at whitewashing.
The soft power the UK wielded in her era was in part through her. But the UK has not comported itself in a way above reproach in that time.
So when thinking about the Queen's era, we have to think of the country she was head of state for, and the things done by it in her name, by people whose public roles entail them swearing allegiance to her. She's mixed in with that, for good and for ill. Let's not flinch from seeing that clearly.
… and we end the day in which the government splurged the greatest one-off amount of money in post-WW2 political history, £150bn (increasing the national debt by 6.5%, in one go) - with the story down at number 27 on the BBC news homepage.
Quite incredible.
But more seriously, we don't know it will be that much, it depends on the price of energy.
The death of a monarch isn't just the death of a human. It's a time to reflect. You see a lot of that going on right now. But some people, people like you?, seem to think that this should be a safe space only for a certain type of reflection: personal and not institutional; positive and not critical. I don't accept that. For me, now, today, literally this very minute is as good a time as any to reflect on our institutional life.
https://twitter.com/thomasevansadur/status/1567823099474726912?s=46&t=M0P7lSN90UxyCiLpwqIsmw
"The sooner you (black Conservative Party Cabinet Minister @JamesCleverly) are out of the UK, the better". - @snb19692 08/09/2022
Steve Bray is a racist. I hope that he is questioned by the @metpoliceuk and his unacceptable abuse/harassment of MPs and their families ends now!“
I doubt any of them have read the offending article.
Here’s a picture of the Queen dancing with Kwame Nkrumah to make them chill out.
'I should begin by letting you know that I'm entirely aware that your article was written as an exercise in gaining attention; your anonymous authority is transparent and such emptiness should not be playing on my mind. And yet it is. Perhaps it's the arrogance in your suggestion that you've been 'debating' about poetry. Perhaps it's your glib anti-Irish sentiments on Twitter ('leprechaun hat', indeed). Perhaps it's your swift move from attempting to write as some kind of pseudo-critic to attacking Seamus Heaney's personal life ('by all accounts, Nobel Laureate Seamus Heaney was a functional alcoholic'). More than this, I think it's your wholesale view of poetry: to you, poetry is something that can be judged by how many gobbets you can pull from your head, seemingly without context and seemingly at random, or by some vague notion of how a line sings.'
What I said was that it isnt whitewashing if someone doesnt bring up the bad stuff today, which was the apparent implication. If someone chose not to reflect in the manner you describe today it doesnt mean they dont wish to reflect on it at all.
You dont know if someone sticking to a tribute today might have some very conflicted views because of negative historical events. So you shouldn't presume they are whitewashing if they are choosing not to focus on it even of you are doing so. It doesnt automatically mean, as you have seemingly assumed, that they dont agree with you to some degree.
Try being a bit less judgy - I'm happy to avoid those who want to enforce grief or seek attention with vulgarities, no safe spaces needed thanks.
Nope, he wants him out of the country permanently, not just on a FO jaunt. Maybe not because he’s black, though.
Jacinda Ardern suggested that the new King was a climate change pioneer in her presser.
https://youtu.be/XAJ62IG3gBo
This is a well-worn way to muffle criticism, you know. "Now is not the time, now is not the time, oh that thing? That was ages ago, move on."
I'm saying don't presume everyone who is waiting a day is whitewashing just because they are waiting. People generally focus on the positives in the immediate, it doesnt mean they all have no negatives.
How is that muffling criticism? It's making sure you don't pretend anyone not criticising today has no criticism to make.