Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Maintains the “mystique”

I would love to know who originally came up with the idea of having 4 days of events to mark the Jubilee. There was absolutely no way that the queen was going to be able to fully participate in all four days of event especially with all the travelling involved between the different venues.

I'd take a wild punt that Boris Johnson played a key role in pushing for the 4 days of celebrations hoping that he would get some benefit from it.

If so I wish him well to wear it.

The previous jubilees extended the holiday weekend to Tuesday. Seemed to work.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 10:11 pm Seemed to work.

Or not. At least until Wednesday.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v44/n11 ... jyjkzskn4Q

Jonathan Meades in the LRB, on the monarchy. Fucking hell but he's good. Savage. Accurate. Merciless.

Quite excellent. I've bought the book on the strength of that, and the fact that so many people gave it poor reviews on Amazon for, essentially, being true.

What an utterly tedious Tweet.

Primitive hipsterism...

I don't think you know what hipsterism is Malcolm let alone primitive hipsterism.

Don't be a twat.

You know, the more I think about it (and given the saturation media coverage of this weekend’s absurd living obsequies, I have little choice but to think about it), the notion of a monarch having been in post for a full 70 years, of a frail nonagenarian still perpetuating the illusion of a vigorous head of state, bolstered by Buck House press office euphemisms such as having “experienced discomfort”, is actually rather obscene.

Brenda, in a sane world, would have stood down 30 years ago to a very comfortable retirement in favour of her jug-eared son. Abdication not possible? Nonsense. Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands managed it with the minimum of fuss. What of the divine nature of her accession to the throne, the “will of god”, her anointed obligation to “serve” her “whole life, whether it be long or short”? Well, consider Pope Benedict. Similarly created pontiff by the will of the almighty, he too retired and a successor was appointed without much ado, thereby avoiding the rather disgustingly drawn-out, agonising death of his predecessor Pope John Paul II in office. Presumably, Benedict had a quiet word with The Big Pink Pixie in the Sky.

That we are now celebrating the impending demise (for that is what, effectively, is happening) of our 96 year old head of state with concert performances at Buckingham Palace by the likes of Queen and Sir Rod Stewart, while the monarch herself has more than likely taken an early night with a large gin and some earplugs, is, in my view, quite repugnant.

And Paddington fucking Bear??? Talk about bread and circuses.

One thing is for sure - when Elizabeth II either dies on the throne or abdicates, culturally it'll be the end of an era as regards the monarchy within the British psyche. It'll not be the same in the lifetime of anyone now living.

I don't know how much it's propaganda, but people who claim to know the family reckon that after seeing the effect that Edward VIII's abdication had on her father's health, abdication is the one thing she'd absolutely refuse.

As far as the party went, she's been living full time at Windsor Castle since April. Buck House was just a symbol, and a pretty backdrop for the photos.

It's a shame so many left leaning public figures, not just in politics, are pro-monarchy. I feel like a stranger in my own land at the minute. Stephen Fry was doing his bit of sycophancy last night.

Still, if they, in the same way that many who live pay day to pay day, think it's okay for a Head of State to sit on a gold throne and tell their nation's people how hard they are going to have it financially from now on, they are entitled to their view.

On a lighter note Rod Stewart looked like he hadn't had time to change from filming a Hi-De-Hi reboot...

What gets me is the blandness of the line up. No Radiohead, no Iron Maiden, no PJ Harvey or Stormzy. It's a K-Tel concert, music for people who really don't get music.

As for the entire question of monarchy, while I can see the advantages of a figurehead who's not a political appointee (and it saves us from all that "Oh, who do you want? President Blair???" bollocks), the reverence and idea that they're something special, while in fact they seem to be a steady procession of entitled dullards, can get to fuck.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:01 pm

Or as Marina Hyde put it:
"For some, of course, enjoyment is quite out of the question. But I hope that, like me, you very much enjoy the grandeur of those who feel bound to issue their own regular court-and-social bulletins concerning the jubilee. “I will not be watching this.” “I will not be attending a street party.” “I will be clicking my knitting needles.” Marvellous. It’s very good of them to emerge on to their digital balconies to acknowledge their public at all, of course, and perhaps accept a posy or two from their devoted followers. But also, it’s funny how both the most ardent royalists and republicans in this country embody the sweetly ridiculous solipsism of that brilliant final couplet from AA Milne’s poem about changing the guard at Buckingham Palace. “‘Do you think the King knows all about me?’ ‘Sure to, dear, but it’s time for tea … ’ ”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... lee-royals

Out for a family birthday celebration so only caught the last 15 minutes of the palace show. To my eyes, the weirdness off the scale and love of the Queen has reached a cult-like obsession. We mock this behaviour in other 'lesser' countries.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 11:51 am What gets me is the blandness of the line up.

Speaking of bland; I thought Cliff Richard was supposed to be headlining but I've not heard any mention of him, did he not show?