The Queen's Funeral and Legacy
Who knows. Newsweek says 4.1 billion.
https://www.newsweek.com/queen-elizabeth-funeral-tv-broadcast-viewership-audience-1744187
I honestly could not care less about Queens. I much prefer the Bronx.
just for the record, I did do research, and even watched a lot of the coverage, because that's the waste of a human being I am.
I've yet to find anything significant the Queen did during her 70 year reign. In fact, her biggest accomplishment was pretty much that she had a 70 year reign. I guess not dying is an accomplishment of some sort.
The other thing she did was not embarrass herself too much while being on the world stage. I happen to find that pretty impressive, but let's not get crazy about it.
The thread title says "Legacy". So what was her legacy?
P. S. This is not snark.
She reigned over the continued occupation and oppression of Northern Ireland “for a start, as the Brits like to say. That’s something
BarneyGumble said:
She reigned over the continued occupation and oppression of Northern Ireland “for a start, as the Brits like to say. That’s something
tjohn said:
Who knows. Newsweek says 4.1 billion.
https://www.newsweek.com/queen-elizabeth-funeral-tv-broadcast-viewership-audience-1744187
fewer than half of the people in the UK watched.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/09/20/media/queens-funeral-tv-viewing-figures/index.html
So we're supposed to believe the proportion of people watching around the world was higher than in the UK?
I call BS.
ml1 said:
fewer than half of the people in the UK watched.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/09/20/media/queens-funeral-tv-viewing-figures/index.html
So we're supposed to believe the proportion of people watching around the world was higher than in the UK?
I call BS.
The commonwealth nations still find the British monarchy to be fascinating. In Latin America and the Caribbean she’s very popular. India, Africa, Europe. Then there’s the USA, people were just awestruck by the sheer pomp and ceremonies. I’m tending to believe it’s around 3 billion viewers. That 4 billion seems high.
A lot of people in this world care about Queen Elizabeth. Not so much for King Charles.
Poor Charles.... tough act to follow.
reminds me, there was a segment, maybe 15 years ago, This American Life.
It was this husband and wife comedy team. They were booked on Ed Sullivan. Rehearsals went well. Then the show. Opening act... accompanied by hooting in the audience, impatient for the main act. Then another act.... more hooting and disruption from the audience, comprised mostly of teen girls.
Their act was then scratched,
replaced by The Beatles."
Jaytee said:
The commonwealth nations still find the British monarchy to be fascinating. In Latin America and the Caribbean she’s very popular. India, Africa, Europe. Then there’s the USA, people were just awestruck by the sheer pomp and ceremonies. I’m tending to believe it’s around 3 billion viewers. That 4 billion seems high.
A lot of people in this world care about Queen Elizabeth. Not so much for King Charles.
If only 26 million people in the UK watched I'd be surprised if more than 150 million worldwide watched.
5 billion?? NFW.
It's a laughable overstatement.
ml1 said:
Jaytee said:
The commonwealth nations still find the British monarchy to be fascinating. In Latin America and the Caribbean she’s very popular. India, Africa, Europe. Then there’s the USA, people were just awestruck by the sheer pomp and ceremonies. I’m tending to believe it’s around 3 billion viewers. That 4 billion seems high.
A lot of people in this world care about Queen Elizabeth. Not so much for King Charles.If only 26 million people in the UK watched I'd be surprised if more than 150 million worldwide watched.
5 billion?? NFW.
It's a laughable overstatement.
Yeah, and how do they get those numbers anyway? Is it even possible for 5 billion people on this planet to watch the same thing at the same time?
drummerboy said:
Yeah, and how do they get those numbers anyway? Is it even possible for 5 billion people on this planet to watch the same thing at the same time?
usually they are talking about the potential audience. The signal is sent into countries with a combined population of 5 billion.
It's also WAY too early for them to have viewing numbers in most of the world.
You didn’t include Australia and NZ, which were broadcasting live, continuously with many people glued to their TVs and phones/tablets etc so not a minute was lost regardless of the time. Same for various islands nearby (Solomons, Cook, Norfolk, former British colonies in SE Asia like Singapore, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc).
It’s really tiresome repeating the examples this female world leader gave us, as girls growing up in Orly dominated by strong male power figures. As a female Royal in a time of war, she earns to strip a car engine and fix it, putting it together again, driving for the army, and also performing first aid. These skills and interests she kept up her entire life, meaning she could talk knowledgeably with factory hands, mechanics, nurses, military - many world leaders can’t do that from personal experience.
She was one of the first UK Royals to broadcast regularly on radio and tv - which means her kind of spoken English had to be intelligible to all citizens. She didn’t just depend on a narrator explaining her actions and speeches.
She was a master diplomat, travelling an enormous number of mission miles throughout her career - in many countries she was the ruling Monarch to actually visit even if it was celebrating the country’s independence from the Empire. She also welcomed an extraordinary number of ambassadors to the UK. She spoke a few of their languages, too.
She consulted weekly with the British Prime Minister, every single one of them, even when she was out of the country. Every week. And she opened and closed the Parliamentary sitting ‘season’ - they can’t sit unless the monarch call Parliament to session. They haven’t passed legislation until it’s ratified by the monarch, And she read every Bill before signing it. Even the boring ones. (Teaching we girls how to run a business and how to delegate. Yes really)
There’s more, but I can’t get into it. There was a very long period when Britain was stalled with strikes and low employment, while an unpopular government tried to govern with a heavy hand. The calm steady smile of the Queen carrying out her duties, ensuring people on her estates and nearby were looked after (setting an example for other rich folk) while staying out of politics actually gave people hope. Oh! She ensured her children had regular schooling, not tutors - a Royal first. And she and Charles agreed to pay taxes on part of their incomes, another first.
Ask a Canadian.
joanne said:
You didn’t include Australia and NZ, which were broadcasting live, continuously with many people glued to their TVs and phones/tablets etc so not a minute was lost regardless of the time. Same for various islands nearby (Solomons, Cook, Norfolk, former British colonies in SE Asia like Singapore, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc).
It’s really tiresome repeating the examples this female world leader gave us, as girls growing up in Orly dominated by strong male power figures. As a female Royal in a time of war, she earns to strip a car engine and fix it, putting it together again, driving for the army, and also performing first aid. These skills and interests she kept up her entire life, meaning she could talk knowledgeably with factory hands, mechanics, nurses, military - many world leaders can’t do that from personal experience.
She was one of the first UK Royals to broadcast regularly on radio and tv - which means her kind of spoken English had to be intelligible to all citizens. She didn’t just depend on a narrator explaining her actions and speeches.
She was a master diplomat, travelling an enormous number of mission miles throughout her career - in many countries she was the ruling Monarch to actually visit even if it was celebrating the country’s independence from the Empire. She also welcomed an extraordinary number of ambassadors to the UK. She spoke a few of their languages, too.
She consulted weekly with the British Prime Minister, every single one of them, even when she was out of the country. Every week. And she opened and closed the Parliamentary sitting ‘season’ - they can’t sit unless the monarch call Parliament to session. They haven’t passed legislation until it’s ratified by the monarch, And she read every Bill before signing it. Even the boring ones. (Teaching we girls how to run a business and how to delegate. Yes really)There’s more, but I can’t get into it. There was a very long period when Britain was stalled with strikes and low employment, while an unpopular government tried to govern with a heavy hand. The calm steady smile of the Queen carrying out her duties, ensuring people on her estates and nearby were looked after (setting an example for other rich folk) while staying out of politics actually gave people hope. Oh! She ensured her children had regular schooling, not tutors - a Royal first. And she and Charles agreed to pay taxes on part of their incomes, another first.
Ask a Canadian.
Thank you for providing all of this context. Much, much appreciated especially coming from you. xoxo
joanne said:
You didn’t include Australia and NZ, which were broadcasting live, continuously with many people glued to their TVs and phones/tablets etc so not a minute was lost regardless of the time. Same for various islands nearby (Solomons, Cook, Norfolk, former British colonies in SE Asia like Singapore, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc).
It’s really tiresome repeating the examples this female world leader gave us, as girls growing up in Orly dominated by strong male power figures. As a female Royal in a time of war, she earns to strip a car engine and fix it, putting it together again, driving for the army, and also performing first aid. These skills and interests she kept up her entire life, meaning she could talk knowledgeably with factory hands, mechanics, nurses, military - many world leaders can’t do that from personal experience.
She was one of the first UK Royals to broadcast regularly on radio and tv - which means her kind of spoken English had to be intelligible to all citizens. She didn’t just depend on a narrator explaining her actions and speeches.
She was a master diplomat, travelling an enormous number of mission miles throughout her career - in many countries she was the ruling Monarch to actually visit even if it was celebrating the country’s independence from the Empire. She also welcomed an extraordinary number of ambassadors to the UK. She spoke a few of their languages, too.
She consulted weekly with the British Prime Minister, every single one of them, even when she was out of the country. Every week. And she opened and closed the Parliamentary sitting ‘season’ - they can’t sit unless the monarch call Parliament to session. They haven’t passed legislation until it’s ratified by the monarch, And she read every Bill before signing it. Even the boring ones. (Teaching we girls how to run a business and how to delegate. Yes really)There’s more, but I can’t get into it. There was a very long period when Britain was stalled with strikes and low employment, while an unpopular government tried to govern with a heavy hand. The calm steady smile of the Queen carrying out her duties, ensuring people on her estates and nearby were looked after (setting an example for other rich folk) while staying out of politics actually gave people hope. Oh! She ensured her children had regular schooling, not tutors - a Royal first. And she and Charles agreed to pay taxes on part of their incomes, another first.
Ask a Canadian.
I hadn't written anything negative about the queen herself. I'm only taking issue with the preposterous claim that 2/3 of the world's population watched the funeral. According to the WSJ, only 10 million people in the U.S. tuned in. The notion that 2/3 of the continents of South America and Africa, and the majority of China watched is unbelievable.
whatever anyone thinks about the royal family, nobody is served by made up "facts" being dished out to the public.
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
Poor Charles.... tough act to follow.
reminds me, there was a segment, maybe 15 years ago, This American Life.
It was this husband and wife comedy team. They were booked on Ed Sullivan. Rehearsals went well. Then the show. Opening act... accompanied by hooting in the audience, impatient for the main act. Then another act.... more hooting and disruption from the audience, comprised mostly of teen girls.
Their act was then scratched,
replaced by The Beatles."
McCall and Brill. Mitzi McCall popped occasionally in TV and movies for decades after that.
Ask Dave about Chinese stats perhaps?
ETA: we’re just under 2 hours away from a national day of offical mourning. Pretty much everything commercially will come to a standstill for 24 hours. Everything. No noises to be heard beyond your front door, not even in your own garden. Conversations in hushed voices. Think back to when JFK was killed, and was buried - and then mute all your modern toys, nationally.
ml1 said:
I hadn't written anything negative about the queen herself. I'm only taking issue with the preposterous claim that 2/3 of the world's population watched the funeral. According to the WSJ, only 10 million people in the U.S. tuned in. The notion that 2/3 of the continents of South America and Africa, and the majority of China watched is unbelievable.
whatever anyone thinks about the royal family, nobody is served by made up "facts" being dished out to the public.
it’s a very large planet with millions of people who like to watch extraordinary spectacles on their tv. I honestly don’t find it to be so unbelievable. It’s very possible. Just the British commonwealth countries alone make up a big chunk of the global population.
joanne said:
You didn’t include Australia and NZ, which were broadcasting live, continuously with many people glued to their TVs and phones/tablets etc so not a minute was lost regardless of the time. Same for various islands nearby (Solomons, Cook, Norfolk, former British colonies in SE Asia like Singapore, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc).
It’s really tiresome repeating the examples this female world leader gave us, as girls growing up in Orly dominated by strong male power figures. As a female Royal in a time of war, she earns to strip a car engine and fix it, putting it together again, driving for the army, and also performing first aid. These skills and interests she kept up her entire life, meaning she could talk knowledgeably with factory hands, mechanics, nurses, military - many world leaders can’t do that from personal experience.
She was one of the first UK Royals to broadcast regularly on radio and tv - which means her kind of spoken English had to be intelligible to all citizens. She didn’t just depend on a narrator explaining her actions and speeches.
She was a master diplomat, travelling an enormous number of mission miles throughout her career - in many countries she was the ruling Monarch to actually visit even if it was celebrating the country’s independence from the Empire. She also welcomed an extraordinary number of ambassadors to the UK. She spoke a few of their languages, too.
She consulted weekly with the British Prime Minister, every single one of them, even when she was out of the country. Every week. And she opened and closed the Parliamentary sitting ‘season’ - they can’t sit unless the monarch call Parliament to session. They haven’t passed legislation until it’s ratified by the monarch, And she read every Bill before signing it. Even the boring ones. (Teaching we girls how to run a business and how to delegate. Yes really)There’s more, but I can’t get into it. There was a very long period when Britain was stalled with strikes and low employment, while an unpopular government tried to govern with a heavy hand. The calm steady smile of the Queen carrying out her duties, ensuring people on her estates and nearby were looked after (setting an example for other rich folk) while staying out of politics actually gave people hope. Oh! She ensured her children had regular schooling, not tutors - a Royal first. And she and Charles agreed to pay taxes on part of their incomes, another first.
Ask a Canadian.
pfffffft
I know ml1 and others didn't write anything negative and was merely taking issue with the numbers I quoted from someone's Facebook post. I suppose that quote's figures was more of a distraction from the real reason I started this new thread. I believe the post I quoted from provided a person's name but alas I cannot find the quote anymore.
Let me just say that joanne's post sets a very low bar for "accomplishment".
She was at once a master diplomat yet stayed out of politics. Don't know how you do that.
She advised the government yet not once caused the government to change their position. Which is as it should be.
She read every bill? LOL, and I doubt that. Have you ever seen a piece of major legislation these days? Pretty much no one reads the whole thing.
I could go on, which I did in another thread, but I won't.
The hagiographic reaction to her death has nothing to do with her "accomplishments" or her "legacy".
Her real legacy is Charles. We'll see how he works out.
wendy said:
I know ml1 and others didn't write anything negative and was merely taking issue with the numbers I quoted from someone's Facebook post. I suppose that quote's figures was more of a distraction from the real reason I started this new thread. I believe the post I quoted from provided a person's name but alas I cannot find the quote anymore.
that’s the number some commentators used from the BBC. It’s an estimate, I think they use numbers from the World Cup soccer and princess Diana’s wedding and funeral. It’s way more people than the super bowl audience.
joanne said:
You didn’t include Australia and NZ, which were broadcasting live, continuously with many people glued to their TVs and phones/tablets etc so not a minute was lost regardless of the time. Same for various islands nearby (Solomons, Cook, Norfolk, former British colonies in SE Asia like Singapore, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc).
It’s really tiresome repeating the examples this female world leader gave us, as girls growing up in Orly dominated by strong male power figures. As a female Royal in a time of war, she earns to strip a car engine and fix it, putting it together again, driving for the army, and also performing first aid. These skills and interests she kept up her entire life, meaning she could talk knowledgeably with factory hands, mechanics, nurses, military - many world leaders can’t do that from personal experience.
She was one of the first UK Royals to broadcast regularly on radio and tv - which means her kind of spoken English had to be intelligible to all citizens. She didn’t just depend on a narrator explaining her actions and speeches.
She was a master diplomat, travelling an enormous number of mission miles throughout her career - in many countries she was the ruling Monarch to actually visit even if it was celebrating the country’s independence from the Empire. She also welcomed an extraordinary number of ambassadors to the UK. She spoke a few of their languages, too.
She consulted weekly with the British Prime Minister, every single one of them, even when she was out of the country. Every week. And she opened and closed the Parliamentary sitting ‘season’ - they can’t sit unless the monarch call Parliament to session. They haven’t passed legislation until it’s ratified by the monarch, And she read every Bill before signing it. Even the boring ones. (Teaching we girls how to run a business and how to delegate. Yes really)There’s more, but I can’t get into it. There was a very long period when Britain was stalled with strikes and low employment, while an unpopular government tried to govern with a heavy hand. The calm steady smile of the Queen carrying out her duties, ensuring people on her estates and nearby were looked after (setting an example for other rich folk) while staying out of politics actually gave people hope. Oh! She ensured her children had regular schooling, not tutors - a Royal first. And she and Charles agreed to pay taxes on part of their incomes, another first.
Ask a Canadian.
First, the population of New Zealand and Australia is about 30 million combined. These are not the countries that will drive viewership numbers for the funeral.
Second, Charles is inheriting his mother's BILLION dollar estate tax free, based on an agreement with the government. First of all, the fact that she has a billion dollar estate should infuriate the people of England and the fact he gets it tax free is also gross.
drummerboy said:
Let me just say that joanne's post sets a very low bar for "accomplishment".
She was at once a master diplomat yet stayed out of politics. Don't know how you do that.
She advised the government yet not once caused the government to change their position. Which is as it should be.
She read every bill? LOL, and I doubt that. Have you ever seen a piece of major legislation these days? Pretty much no one reads the whole thing.
I could go on, which I did in another thread, but I won't.
The hagiographic reaction to her death has nothing to do with her "accomplishments" or her "legacy".
Her real legacy is Charles. We'll see how he works out.
It's been a while since I disagreed with everything you wrote in a post. Just like old times. Seriously I respect your opinion and trust you really have researched her life as well as you indicate but I find your dismissal of the woman's position and the people's reaction to them a real turn off. Hagiographic? Don't think so but thanks for inspiring me to learn a new word's meaning.
drummerboy said:
Let me just say that joanne's post sets a very low bar for "accomplishment".
Take it from a Yank whose quotation marks precede the full stop.
wendy said:
drummerboy said:
Let me just say that joanne's post sets a very low bar for "accomplishment".
She was at once a master diplomat yet stayed out of politics. Don't know how you do that.
She advised the government yet not once caused the government to change their position. Which is as it should be.
She read every bill? LOL, and I doubt that. Have you ever seen a piece of major legislation these days? Pretty much no one reads the whole thing.
I could go on, which I did in another thread, but I won't.
The hagiographic reaction to her death has nothing to do with her "accomplishments" or her "legacy".
Her real legacy is Charles. We'll see how he works out.
It's been a while since I disagreed with everything you wrote in a post. Just like old times. Seriously I respect your opinion and trust you really have researched her life as well as you indicate but I find your dismissal of the woman's position and the people's reaction to them a real turn off. Hagiographic? Don't think so but thanks for inspiring me to learn a new word's meaning.
look, I don't think she was a bad person. not at all. for a Queen of England, she did a fine job, whatever that job actually is.
but to pretend that she was some great historical figure who had some real effect on the world is just silly. and if that were the case, one wouldn't need to do deep research to determine her accomplishments. They'd be at the top of any reporting about her legacy.
The accomplishment that's always the top is that she was queen for 70 years. Big whoop. That's just luck.
And the fact that she has a lot of fans doesn't mean squat. Look at Trump. People are weird, to say the least.
The other Discussion that had the word Amateur was snarky and frankly mean. For those who don't know what the Queen contributed and what she meant to many of those in the UK for the last 70 years, do your research. She did do more than Diana by the way and the so-called snub was rectified and even had her bow her head during Diana's funeral. Last week's Daily may be a good way to get some helpful facts regarding her legacy.
I just saw the below posted on Facebook and thought it was worth sharing:
"I’m glad that what is being reported as the most watched event in world history was a marathon of tradition, liturgy, choral music, and ritual. That 5 billion people (or 63% of the world’s population) were glued not to a runway or an awards show or a lip-syncing boy band being obliterated by light effects, but to Anglican chant, the strains of Howells, Weir, Parry, and Harris; not to words like “you hoes be trippin’,” but to “My soul, there is a country” and “The day thou gavest” and the Kontakion. I’m not sure it means anything for the era to come, and there was surely a celebrity draw here, but I must say I’m pleasantly surprised. I hope something sticks![EDITED to clarify that I’m not looking down on every form of art that isn’t the ~Anglican way~; just that I’m in a sort of wonder that, instead of the usual most popular forms, today it was this improbable scene that the world watched.]"
Can't stop the snark but perhaps go to that other thread. TIA