The Queen's Funeral and Legacy

Jaytee said:

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.

no doubt.  

But it turns out the billions of viewers claim is based on a made up number that no one can verify. 

It truly is a preposterous number. Adding the UK, U.S., Australia and NZ viewing numbers gives a total of only about 50 million. And those are the most likely countries where people would be glued to their sets.


ml1 said:

no doubt.  

But it turns out the billions of viewers claim is based on a made up number that no one can verify. 

It truly is a preposterous number. Adding the UK, U.S., Australia and NZ viewing numbers gives a total of only about 50 million. And those are the most likely countries where people would be glued to their sets.

and you are someone that knows all this as a fact…it’s no wonder a lot of people in this world think Americans are foolish and ignorant…


Jaytee said:

ml1 said:

no doubt.  

But it turns out the billions of viewers claim is based on a made up number that no one can verify. 

It truly is a preposterous number. Adding the UK, U.S., Australia and NZ viewing numbers gives a total of only about 50 million. And those are the most likely countries where people would be glued to their sets.

and you are someone that knows all this as a fact…it’s no wonder a lot of people in this world think Americans are foolish and ignorant…

now that's a dumb comment.

as ml1 points out, the original 4.1B figure (I like the .1 part, makes it seems like someone calculated it rather than pulled it out of their butt) was from a single source. Plus, it was a prediction. Then for some asinine reason, the media ran with that number, again, based on nothing but that single source.

ml1 is rightly skeptical of that number. it is not he who is foolish and ignorant.


Jaytee said:

ml1 said:

no doubt.  

But it turns out the billions of viewers claim is based on a made up number that no one can verify. 

It truly is a preposterous number. Adding the UK, U.S., Australia and NZ viewing numbers gives a total of only about 50 million. And those are the most likely countries where people would be glued to their sets.

and you are someone that knows all this as a fact…it’s no wonder a lot of people in this world think Americans are foolish and ignorant…

the viewing numbers for the US and UK were already published, so those are facts indeed. The billions of viewers number was literally made up by a blogger. It's foolish and ignorant to believe a fantastical number without evidence. It's not foolish or ignorant to ask those folks for receipts for their claims.


I trust the numbers. Advertising rates are based on numbers of eyeballs. They have to be accurate so's when Trump dies, the cost per 30 second spots will accurately reflect the value. 

Hell. I'd like to enjoy a cold Coors, watching Donald be lowered, slowly into the ground.


Why would you bring up a narcist fake when we're discussing the Queen. Frankly based on your current history JerseyJack I believe you've become a complete troll. Sheesh. Oh and your posts you start will now be ignored for the most part. Complaints about not getting access to vaccines? Sheesh again. 


Really! How are some of you so sure that people in China or India or Russia or Africa or South America or the entire Caribbean were not watching the funeral? It’s very possible. Every coin has internet and smart phones. Not because some Americans dislike the British monarchy means that the rest of the world does. Again, that’s why most of the world think Americans are foolish and ignorant. 


Jaytee said:

Really! How are some of you so sure that people in China or India or Russia or Africa or South America or the entire Caribbean were not watching the funeral? It’s very possible. Every coin has internet and smart phones. Not because some Americans dislike the British monarchy means that the rest of the world does. Again, that’s why most of the world think Americans are foolish and ignorant. 

I don't think anyone here has said the things you are claiming were said.

we're quibbling with the 4 billion number, (or whatever it was) which was a prediction by some unknown.

you need to chill a bit.


It’s not hard to see why so many value the style of leadership the Queen set, and the example she set. 
https://www.theceomagazine.com/business/management-leadership/queen-elizabeth-ii-leadership-lessons/

It’s not turning her into a saint, nor glorifying her merely because she lived a long life. 
She was home-schooled yet had two university degrees awarded to her in the 1940s, acknowledging her passion and knowledge in classical music (piano) and constitutional law (&history). That was pretty unusual for a female Royal at the time - and her knowledge of constitutional law in over 20 countries grew over the decades. Again, at the time this was unusual for a woman, and most monarchs and business leaders tended to leave legal stuff to  law departments. She regularly had high level legal discussions with ministers and world leaders; they welcomed her advice and not just because of her title. 

The tax situation is complicated - taxes are raised in the monarch’s name, so she’s going to pay tax to herself??  At least she and Charles managed to negotiate some changes so that they pay some taxes on their incomes. Technically they own all the property in the UK anyway (Crown owns everything, you purchase from the Crown to use & enjoy for a set time), so overcoming all the centuries of legalese with no other entanglements is tricky. 


You don’t have to admire her, you don’t have to like what she did. But you can choose to recognise that the late Queen provided a steady example of leading by example, living up to your oath, serving your people, changing the world simply by doing your (boring, bureaucratic) job every single day for decades while wearing gloves, a hat, pearls, high heels and full makeup - never casual dress. (It’s so easy for men, flat shoes and trousers) And smiling. 


joanne said:

It’s not hard to see why so many value the style of leadership the Queen set, and the example she set. 
https://www.theceomagazine.com/business/management-leadership/queen-elizabeth-ii-leadership-lessons/

It’s not turning her into a saint, nor glorifying her merely because she lived a long life. 
She was home-schooled yet had two university degrees awarded to her in the 1940s, acknowledging her passion and knowledge in classical music (piano) and constitutional law (&history). That was pretty unusual for a female Royal at the time - and her knowledge of constitutional law in over 20 countries grew over the decades. Again, at the time this was unusual for a woman, and most monarchs and business leaders tended to leave legal stuff to  law departments. She regularly had high level legal discussions with ministers and world leaders; they welcomed her advice and not just because of her title. 

The tax situation is complicated - taxes are raised in the monarch’s name, so she’s going to pay tax to herself??  At least she and Charles managed to negotiate some changes so that they pay some taxes on their incomes. Technically they own all the property in the UK anyway (Crown owns everything, you purchase from the Crown to use & enjoy for a set time), so overcoming all the centuries of legalese with no other entanglements is tricky. 


You don’t have to admire her, you don’t have to like what she did. But you can choose to recognise that the late Queen provided a steady example of leading by example, living up to your oath, serving your people, changing the world simply by doing your (boring, bureaucratic) job every single day for decades while wearing gloves, a hat, pearls, high heels and full makeup - never casual dress. (It’s so easy for men, flat shoes and trousers) And smiling. 

you're just grasping at straws here. You should stop.

Better do as DB says, joanne, or he might be tempted to post the latest reading of his respect meter.


Jaytee said:

Really! How are some of you so sure that people in China or India or Russia or Africa or South America or the entire Caribbean were not watching the funeral? It’s very possible. Every coin has internet and smart phones. Not because some Americans dislike the British monarchy means that the rest of the world does. Again, that’s why most of the world think Americans are foolish and ignorant. 

I can believe people in every country watched. It's unbelievable however that  half the people on the entire planet watched. 

I'm not sure why it bothers you so that some us are skeptical of a number that a blogger pulled out of her ****. 

And I doubt anyone in the world thinks Americans who don't believe any random claim on the internet are ignorant. Probably the opposite. 


DaveSchmidt said:

Better do as DB says, joanne, or he might be tempted to post the latest reading of his respect meter.

I have this funny notion that the amount of public adulation of one's death should be commensurate with their accomplishments.

If you're down to talking about dress codes, that's a problem.

Call me silly.


Less than half the people in Britain watched the funeral and only 4% of the United States watched. I have a hard time believing over half the world's population watched.  It was only a prediction from a single blogger.  


drummerboy said:

Call me silly.

Again with the imperatives. I already do.


drummerboy said:

joanne said:

It’s not hard to see why so many value the style of leadership the Queen set, and the example she set. 
https://www.theceomagazine.com/business/management-leadership/queen-elizabeth-ii-leadership-lessons/

It’s not turning her into a saint, nor glorifying her merely because she lived a long life. 
She was home-schooled yet had two university degrees awarded to her in the 1940s, acknowledging her passion and knowledge in classical music (piano) and constitutional law (&history). That was pretty unusual for a female Royal at the time - and her knowledge of constitutional law in over 20 countries grew over the decades. Again, at the time this was unusual for a woman, and most monarchs and business leaders tended to leave legal stuff to  law departments. She regularly had high level legal discussions with ministers and world leaders; they welcomed her advice and not just because of her title. 

The tax situation is complicated - taxes are raised in the monarch’s name, so she’s going to pay tax to herself??  At least she and Charles managed to negotiate some changes so that they pay some taxes on their incomes. Technically they own all the property in the UK anyway (Crown owns everything, you purchase from the Crown to use & enjoy for a set time), so overcoming all the centuries of legalese with no other entanglements is tricky. 


You don’t have to admire her, you don’t have to like what she did. But you can choose to recognise that the late Queen provided a steady example of leading by example, living up to your oath, serving your people, changing the world simply by doing your (boring, bureaucratic) job every single day for decades while wearing gloves, a hat, pearls, high heels and full makeup - never casual dress. (It’s so easy for men, flat shoes and trousers) And smiling. 

you're just grasping at straws here. You should stop.

Consider the possibility that Americans just have a different perspective than someone in a Commonwealth country like Australia or Canada.


yahooyahoo said:

Less than half the people in Britain watched the funeral and only 4% of the United States watched. I have a hard time believing over half the world's population watched.  It was only a prediction from a single blogger.  

Fewer.


nohero said:

drummerboy said:

joanne said:

It’s not hard to see why so many value the style of leadership the Queen set, and the example she set. 
https://www.theceomagazine.com/business/management-leadership/queen-elizabeth-ii-leadership-lessons/

It’s not turning her into a saint, nor glorifying her merely because she lived a long life. 
She was home-schooled yet had two university degrees awarded to her in the 1940s, acknowledging her passion and knowledge in classical music (piano) and constitutional law (&history). That was pretty unusual for a female Royal at the time - and her knowledge of constitutional law in over 20 countries grew over the decades. Again, at the time this was unusual for a woman, and most monarchs and business leaders tended to leave legal stuff to  law departments. She regularly had high level legal discussions with ministers and world leaders; they welcomed her advice and not just because of her title. 

The tax situation is complicated - taxes are raised in the monarch’s name, so she’s going to pay tax to herself??  At least she and Charles managed to negotiate some changes so that they pay some taxes on their incomes. Technically they own all the property in the UK anyway (Crown owns everything, you purchase from the Crown to use & enjoy for a set time), so overcoming all the centuries of legalese with no other entanglements is tricky. 


You don’t have to admire her, you don’t have to like what she did. But you can choose to recognise that the late Queen provided a steady example of leading by example, living up to your oath, serving your people, changing the world simply by doing your (boring, bureaucratic) job every single day for decades while wearing gloves, a hat, pearls, high heels and full makeup - never casual dress. (It’s so easy for men, flat shoes and trousers) And smiling. 

you're just grasping at straws here. You should stop.

Consider the possibility that Americans just have a different perspective than someone in a Commonwealth country like Australia or Canada.

It's not a question of different perspective. Joanne is trying to make the case that the Queen was a great historical figure with a legacy of great accomplishment.

She is failing to make that case because the Queen was not that person.


The Queen was a historical figure and a very famous person, but her accomplishments are primarily based on lineage and old age.


Couple of comments from an admirer of the queen.

1. From drummerboy: "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."

Every week the prime minister had to present his/her plans and stances to a sensible and informed person.  She would certainly never reveal what was said on either side, and as far as i know the pm's didn't either.  We cannot possibly know what influence she had (at least not yet - are notes kept? do historians eventually get to look?), but surely it was on the side of moderation and good sense.

2. Regarding the great viewership debate:  does anyone count the many people who might not have watched on television per se, but looked in online?

3. For myself, i am missing one of the few remaining constants in a dizzingly changing and challenged world (yes, i guess i'm getting old).  RIP Elizabeth, job well done.


mjc said:

Couple of comments from an admirer of the queen.

1. From drummerboy: "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."

Every week the prime minister had to present his/her plans and stances to a sensible and informed person.  She would certainly never reveal what was said on either side, and as far as i know the pm's didn't either.  We cannot possibly know what influence she had (at least not yet - are notes kept? do historians eventually get to look?), but surely it was on the side of moderation and good sense.


You're missing the point. She was a rubber stamp, regardless of the advice she offered. Whether she was there or not, the history of legislation during her reign would have been the same.

Which, since she was un-elected, is how it should be.


drummerboy said:

You're missing the point. She was a rubber stamp, regardless of the advice she offered. Whether she was there or not, the history of legislation during her reign would have been the same.

Which, since she was un-elected, is how it should be.

And you know that the history of legislation would have been the same because???

I think you are missing the more nuanced point that mjc made: "Every week the prime minister had to present his/her plans and stances to a sensible and informed person. She would certainly never reveal what was said on either side, and as far as i know the pm's didn't either. We cannot possibly know what influence she had (at least not yet - are notes kept? do historians eventually get to look?), but surely it was on the side of moderation and good sense."


wendy said:

And you know that the history of legislation would have been the same because???


I dunno. Wild guess.


drummerboy said:

mjc said:

Couple of comments from an admirer of the queen.

1. From drummerboy: "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."

Every week the prime minister had to present his/her plans and stances to a sensible and informed person.  She would certainly never reveal what was said on either side, and as far as i know the pm's didn't either.  We cannot possibly know what influence she had (at least not yet - are notes kept? do historians eventually get to look?), but surely it was on the side of moderation and good sense.


You're missing the point. She was a rubber stamp, regardless of the advice she offered. Whether she was there or not, the history of legislation during her reign would have been the same.

Which, since she was un-elected, is how it should be.

And you're missing the ultimate point...What the fick business is it of yours? 


Royal assent has been withheld in New Zealand (1900s), Australia ((1800s), 2005 (state of Victoria https://www.aspg.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/II-2-MURRAY-LA-VIC-done.pdf) and we read elsewhere here it was threatened before passing in the UK House of Lords just over 100 years ago. It’s an active power. 


Dennis_Seelbach said:

drummerboy said:

mjc said:

Couple of comments from an admirer of the queen.

1. From drummerboy: "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."

Every week the prime minister had to present his/her plans and stances to a sensible and informed person.  She would certainly never reveal what was said on either side, and as far as i know the pm's didn't either.  We cannot possibly know what influence she had (at least not yet - are notes kept? do historians eventually get to look?), but surely it was on the side of moderation and good sense.


You're missing the point. She was a rubber stamp, regardless of the advice she offered. Whether she was there or not, the history of legislation during her reign would have been the same.

Which, since she was un-elected, is how it should be.

And you're missing the ultimate point...What the fick business is it of yours? 

Are you sure you know this is a discussion board?


joanne said:

Royal assent has been withheld in New Zealand (1900s), Australia ((1800s), 2005 (state of Victoria https://www.aspg.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/II-2-MURRAY-LA-VIC-done.pdf) and we read elsewhere here it was threatened before passing in the UK House of Lords just over 100 years ago. It’s an active power. 

The Queen did not withhold assent in 2005.  It was the Governor of Victoria.

Your post is irrelevant.

Even if it's an active power, the Queen of England did not use it during her reign.

Which is as it should be.


drummerboy said:

I dunno. Wild guess.

If prime ministers accepted my input every week, I wouldn’t need to veto anything, either.


DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

I dunno. Wild guess.

If prime ministers accepted my input every week, I wouldn’t need to veto anything, either.

Yeah, you missed the boat on that one.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.