Good morning all. I’m sure everyone will join me in relief that the enforced TV bible bashing is behind us and we can settle into a proper weekend day of cooking programmes and football. And the rain has gone. Hurray!
You assume far too.much.
The relief among the people is palpable, on this bright spring morn. The rainy sermon is over, and just rejoice at that news.
I am much happier rejoicing at the fact that we have reconfirmed Constitutional Monarchy as the Settlement for this country until long after all of us on PB are dead and buried. Yesterday showed that perfectly and will have done us no harm in the soft power stakes around the world.
Yes, I know the @Anabobazina’s of this world will find this bewildering and the @malcolmg’s will find it loathsome and yada yada but yesterday made me happier about things in quite an important way
My national identity is quite important to me (not quite fundamental but certainly profound). For quite a few years an air of decline and malaise - sometimes almost terminal - has surrounded Britishness and Englishness, a form of slow but debilitating sickness, a kind of scurvy of the soul
Yesterday in all its nonsensical pageantry and glorious music and matchless history and predictable drizzle and architectural spleandour and ridiculous boring horsey marching and - most of all - its mysterious, pointless, luminous ritual which goes back ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED YEARS - if not longer - with an English king being anointed in the Abbey built by Anglo Saxon kings 1200 years ago - made me put all of our recent travails in perspective. The deep perspective of enormous time
We are such an ancient nation, wreathed in legend and myth, assailed and venerated, reviled and revered, broken and blighted in places, yet bright and thriving in others: the last few years are NOTHING in comparison to all of that. They are a passing fever, soon forgotten
We do not repine. We are the English, we are the British. We’re still here
Only monarchy, I suspect, can enact this peculiar and reviving magic
I’m one of the most patriotic Englishmen you’ll meet, in a sporting context. I follow the England cricket and football teams with gusto. I don’t need the monarchy to feel national pride. Indeed yesterday’s long damp sermon was rather the opposite - dull, pious and boring! Hardly the stuff to stir the senses.
As I said yesterday evening to you, if you set out to be uninspired then you will be. Only someone with an utterly closed mind could fail to be moved and inspired by the vast history and tradition on display yesterday. Not just sat in museums to be shuffled past by bored school kids but actually being used as it was intended, as part of the heritage of our country.
"Only someone with an utterly closed mind"
really? you found it moving and inspiring. others didn't.
Yes really. If you have any onterest what so ever in the history of our country as Anabob claims to have (and I do recognise that as a German that does not apply to you in the same way as it would to a Briton) then yesterday's proceedings were absolutely moving and inspiring. The use of a gospel dating from the 6th century, a ceremony that dates back to the 10th century and all performed in a building that dates back to the 11th century. All utterly authentic and unique. If someone who purports to be a 'patriotic Englishman' is not inspired by that in favour of a couple of ball games no more than 250 years old then they surely do have a closed mind.
Well, as a British person, I did not find it moving or inspiring. Maybe I didn't see the right bit, but I've seen more inspiring church fetes.
And it feels like an extremely insecure and/or arrogant statement to decree that others must find something moving and inspiring.
Apologies I thought you were German.
And no it is not insecure at all. Just basic common sense and logic. To claim one is strongly patriotic and then to be uninspired by the history and symbolism that defines the country seems utterly deluded.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else and I wouldn't claim to be strongly patriotic, but maybe that particular symbolism doesn't define the country for other people who nevertheless consider themselves strongly patriotic. Or is it delusional to disagree that the symbolism of the coronation is what defines Britain?
I think this debate hits the bullseye in terms of the peculiar challenge we face in defining “Britishness” right now.
Objectively, I agree with Richard - the depth of history on display is inspiring. Yet I can also understand a point of view that sees this as a very narrow definition of Britishness that excludes a lot of what makes me proud of our country. I can see why for some it is actively off-putting (eg the prominence of old whites men in the proceedings).
Those who scream ‘woke’ reflexively on the one hand, along with those who refuse to admit the value of this depth of national history on the other, are the truly closed-of-mind, in my view.
What value is there in defining Britishness iyo? Aren't we better off leaving it undefined?
Yeah perhaps ‘define’ is the wrong word there. I don’t mean we should try to tie it down - in fact the opposite - in my view the concept of Britishness needs to be able to accommodate those who found yesterday inspiring but also those who found the tearing down of Colston inspiring.
Which is tricky to achieve, but is what makes our country an interesting one.
Indeed, as I responded to accusations of not being proud of Britain a few days back:
One thing in particular that makes me proud is that monarchist and jingoistic self-importance is met by British mickey-taking and pricking that pomposity, rather than violent mobs. The worst that happened yesterday was a few protesters having their placards impounded, and even that fairly meekly done. Truly the mark of a civilised country.
On topic - seems a real vindication of Starmer's strategy. The likes of Alastair Campbell who want him to come out for rejoining the EU have surely got this wrong tactically.
Or alternatively, Brexit just isn’t either as salient or as popular in those regions as it used to be. So it’s not swinging votes. Meaning Labour could probably get away with being a bit more pro-European. They certainly shouldn’t be proposing rejoining though.
My mental model currently is the country is fundamentally Tory but can be persuaded to vote Labour when Lab are very credible and the Tories have got so punch drunk on winning they act stupidly.
Second condition holds but I don't think Keir should be taking any liberties with sounding pro European.
There's a spectrum of 'pro-European'. from the LibDems full on rejoin through to 'lets get better relationships with the continent'.
What KS could, and should, be saying is that Brexit, as delivered by the Tories, is not working for this country and we need to reassess and renegotiate what has been delivered. It's a long way from rejoin and it would be both deliverable and not frighten off brexit voters.
Disagree. Any mention of renegotiation = risk of restarting the argument and frighten brexit voters. If keir starmer starts getting asked about whether we will still be in a customs union or rejoin single market - that's a sign of failure.
Yes, improving relationship with Europe works. "Renegotiation" is toxic. Especially if it is anything that opens up immigration again. Red Wall voters are defaulting back to Labour because the Tories haven't done enough to restrict unwanted types of immigration and Labour aren't currently putting free movement back on the table. That could change quickly, especially once Labour are in government and immigration becomes their problem.
On that note, this excellent FT article describes the transformation in types of immigration. It is exactly as I have said for years: we have virtually eliminated unskill work migration but dramatically increased mid-skill migration.
Instead, a system of free movement for Europeans and hurdles to migration for most others has been replaced by one in which skilled workers globally can gain entry with slightly lower barriers than before, but at a higher cost.
Excluded from the system are lower-paid jobs, a big shock for sectors such as logistics and manufacturing that had previously hired freely from the EU, and are now struggling most with hiring. This can change swiftly, however, when particular roles are added to a list of “shortage” occupations with lower requirements for skill and salary.
This sort of thing needs to be adjusted for. We should be maintaining a high bar for salary and not pick winners with favours for industry lobbies wanting their "shortage" getting a lower bar. If it is genuinely a shortage that has the potential to offer high value to the economy, they can pay the necessary wage.
We also need to take a fresh look at student dependents and family migration. 18 year old arranged brides that barely know the groom should not be getting a place in the UK over a skilled worker.
The music - Zadok the Priest - was specifically written for this exact moment of anointment by George Handel and used in all British Coronations since 1727. It was also written to be heard in this exact place: Westminster Abbey, the ancient church of the Anglo Saxon kings
Charles is ceremonially disrobed and then anointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury as the 6th century Augustine Gospels - one of the oldest books in the world - are open at the precise verses
Where on earth do you get all this drivel from? The "Augustine Gospels" are "open at the precise verses"?
The St Augustine Gospels is a manuscript of the gospels. The gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In the New Testament.
The lyrics of Zadok the priest are adapted from the first book of Kings. That's in the Old Testament.
As for your tripe about Westminster Abbey being "the ancient church of the Anglo Saxon kings", for heaven's sake! It was founded in 1065. That is very soon before "Anglo Saxon kings" stopped being a thing, in the modern parlance. The number that could have been crowned there is at most one (King Harold). And there is no explicit evidence where he was crowned.
Not so. Westminster Abbey as a sacred Anglo-Saxon site dates back to the mid 900s. Thorney island
“In the 1040s King Edward (later St Edward the Confessor) established his royal palace by the banks of the river Thames on land known as Thorney Island. Close by was a small Benedictine monastery founded under the patronage of King Edgar and St Dunstan around 960A.D. “
No doubt there was some kind of foundation before the present abbey was founded by Edward the Confessor, but "the ancient church of the Anglo Saxon kings" is history by 'Hello' magazine.
Just admit you are wrong. It was founded by King Edgar in 960… and “This monastery Edward chose to re-endow and greatly enlarge, building a large stone church in honour of St Peter the Apostle. This church became known as the "west minster" to distinguish it from St Paul's Cathedral (the east minster) in the City of London.“
No. The fact is that whatever foundation existed before the present foundation in 1065 was so obscure that its origin is lost in a morass of legend. No doubt people like you will eagerly grasp at anything you can find online to support whatever political hobby horse you're riding, but if anyone is interested in proper history they can find a more informed account of the evidence in the Victoria County History of London, published in 1909: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/london/vol1/pp433-457
As for your claim it was founded by Edgar, as so often with monastic traditions that is based on a spurious charter. What the VCH says is this: "One of Edgar's charters has been accepted by Widmore as genuine, but it has far less appearance of authenticity than that of Offa. Not only is the date given as 951, whereas Edgar did not come to the throne until 958, but also Bishop Wulfred is wrongly mentioned as a contemporary of Offa."
I am sure it has already been done ... but here we are again...
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
King Charles: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Boris: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical coronation ceremony.
Charles: Be quiet!
Boris: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Charles: Shut up!
Boris: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Surely one of the arguments - if slightly tonugue in cheek - in favour of Monarchy is the fact that without it we would almost inevitably have President Boris. Having followed on from President Thatcher and President Blair.
In one stroke we move from one of the most uniting constitutional arrangements in this country to one of the most divisive.
Is it necessarily one of the most divisive? Eg the German presidency seems far less divisive than the British monarchy. Even when the last but one had to resign because he faced prosecution for corruption in 2012 (he was later acquitted of all charges) nobody gave much of a shit.
Hard to imagine Charles facing prosecution for corruption, no matter what he's been up to.
Yes one of the most divisive. Look at the hatred expressed at figures like Thatcher, Blair and Johnson from the other side of the political divide (and often from their own side). None of them would command the overall respect of the public at large and the whole position would become a laughing stock. What sort of image would that project to the wider world.
And as others have already mentioned, I doubt 1% of the rest of the world could tell you who the German President was. With the exception of Macron because of the nature of the French Constitution, the rest of the European Presidents are non-entities who do nothing for their countries.
As opposed to Charles - a non-entity with a good publicity machine who does nothing for his country
Ask any diplomat or government from almost anywhere in the world about the soft power exerted by the Monarchy. It is the sort of power they would sell their mothers for.
As an aside, 5.5 million Ukrainians (mostly women and children) who fled the country at the beginning of the war have returned home.
I mention this because some posters were adamant that they were never going to leave.
The other thing to note about this is that really shows that they do not expect the war to be lost. No one moves back from London to Lvov if they are worried about a Russian breakthrough.
18-20 million watching the Coronation isn't bad. That's 27% of the entire population which, in this day and age, is about as good as it gets. My estimate a week ago was about 10-11 million. And I expect the viewing figures will edge a bit higher once catch-ups are included.
I think the highest ever was 31 million for Diana's funeral, and that was a hugely shocking event in a pre-digital/smart TV age with virtually wall-wall coverage, and whilst it's about 8-9 million less than the Queen's funeral of 28 million it's still pretty decent for a new monarch who's a bit bittersweet & has lots of baggage.
I think Buckingham Palace will be satisfied with these figures.
Good morning all. I’m sure everyone will join me in relief that the enforced TV bible bashing is behind us and we can settle into a proper weekend day of cooking programmes and football. And the rain has gone. Hurray!
You assume far too.much.
The relief among the people is palpable, on this bright spring morn. The rainy sermon is over, and just rejoice at that news.
I am much happier rejoicing at the fact that we have reconfirmed Constitutional Monarchy as the Settlement for this country until long after all of us on PB are dead and buried. Yesterday showed that perfectly and will have done us no harm in the soft power stakes around the world.
Yes, I know the @Anabobazina’s of this world will find this bewildering and the @malcolmg’s will find it loathsome and yada yada but yesterday made me happier about things in quite an important way
My national identity is quite important to me (not quite fundamental but certainly profound). For quite a few years an air of decline and malaise - sometimes almost terminal - has surrounded Britishness and Englishness, a form of slow but debilitating sickness, a kind of scurvy of the soul
Yesterday in all its nonsensical pageantry and glorious music and matchless history and predictable drizzle and architectural spleandour and ridiculous boring horsey marching and - most of all - its mysterious, pointless, luminous ritual which goes back ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED YEARS - if not longer - with an English king being anointed in the Abbey built by Anglo Saxon kings 1200 years ago - made me put all of our recent travails in perspective. The deep perspective of enormous time
We are such an ancient nation, wreathed in legend and myth, assailed and venerated, reviled and revered, broken and blighted in places, yet bright and thriving in others: the last few years are NOTHING in comparison to all of that. They are a passing fever, soon forgotten
We do not repine. We are the English, we are the British. We’re still here
Only monarchy, I suspect, can enact this peculiar and reviving magic
I’m one of the most patriotic Englishmen you’ll meet, in a sporting context. I follow the England cricket and football teams with gusto. I don’t need the monarchy to feel national pride. Indeed yesterday’s long damp sermon was rather the opposite - dull, pious and boring! Hardly the stuff to stir the senses.
As I said yesterday evening to you, if you set out to be uninspired then you will be. Only someone with an utterly closed mind could fail to be moved and inspired by the vast history and tradition on display yesterday. Not just sat in museums to be shuffled past by bored school kids but actually being used as it was intended, as part of the heritage of our country.
"Only someone with an utterly closed mind"
really? you found it moving and inspiring. others didn't.
Yes really. If you have any onterest what so ever in the history of our country as Anabob claims to have (and I do recognise that as a German that does not apply to you in the same way as it would to a Briton) then yesterday's proceedings were absolutely moving and inspiring. The use of a gospel dating from the 6th century, a ceremony that dates back to the 10th century and all performed in a building that dates back to the 11th century. All utterly authentic and unique. If someone who purports to be a 'patriotic Englishman' is not inspired by that in favour of a couple of ball games no more than 250 years old then they surely do have a closed mind.
It is all Spitfires , Empire, we won the war and Germans keep cheating us at football.
And what, pray, is Scottish Nationalism but Braveheart, Robert the Bruce, neeps and tatties and We hate the fucking English, the colonizing bastards?
At least English Patriotism is sufficiently self confident not to be founded on racist hatred of another country
Silly Billy Leon, you are believing your own silly propaganda. Those old chestnuts don't cut it any more given millions of English live in Scotland. We are not the racist ones I am afraid.
Comments
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4386927#Comment_4386927
One thing in particular that makes me proud is that monarchist and jingoistic self-importance is met by British mickey-taking and pricking that pomposity, rather than violent mobs. The worst that happened yesterday was a few protesters having their placards impounded, and even that fairly meekly done. Truly the mark of a civilised country.
On that note, this excellent FT article describes the transformation in types of immigration. It is exactly as I have said for years: we have virtually eliminated unskill work migration but dramatically increased mid-skill migration.
https://www.ft.com/content/27e77f3b-b50d-47f9-b5b2-278019f8e0f6
Instead, a system of free movement for Europeans and hurdles to migration for most others has been replaced by one in which skilled workers globally can gain entry with slightly lower barriers than before, but at a higher cost.
Excluded from the system are lower-paid jobs, a big shock for sectors such as logistics and manufacturing that had previously hired freely from the EU, and are now struggling most with hiring. This can change swiftly, however, when particular roles are added to a list of “shortage” occupations with lower requirements for skill and salary.
This sort of thing needs to be adjusted for. We should be maintaining a high bar for salary and not pick winners with favours for industry lobbies wanting their "shortage" getting a lower bar. If it is genuinely a shortage that has the potential to offer high value to the economy, they can pay the necessary wage.
We also need to take a fresh look at student dependents and family migration. 18 year old arranged brides that barely know the groom should not be getting a place in the UK over a skilled worker.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/london/vol1/pp433-457
As for your claim it was founded by Edgar, as so often with monastic traditions that is based on a spurious charter. What the VCH says is this:
"One of Edgar's charters has been accepted by Widmore as genuine, but it has far less appearance of authenticity than that of Offa. Not only is the date given as 951, whereas Edgar did not come to the throne until 958, but also Bishop Wulfred is wrongly mentioned as a contemporary of Offa."
I mention this because some posters were adamant that they were never going to leave.
I think the highest ever was 31 million for Diana's funeral, and that was a hugely shocking event in a pre-digital/smart TV age with virtually wall-wall coverage, and whilst it's about 8-9 million less than the Queen's funeral of 28 million it's still pretty decent for a new monarch who's a bit bittersweet & has lots of baggage.
I think Buckingham Palace will be satisfied with these figures.