That funeral today

Richard Hillman

I reckon they were all popping pills to hold themselves together.

Really feel for her madge. 70 odd years together. Its not like she can keep busy and do a load of engagements either. God bless her. People may think religion is silly, its not something I subscribe to myself but her faith will get her through the toughness.

Voguementol

I watched it and found it interesting and at times poignant. Losing her husband after 73 years is a tragedy for the Queen who underneath it all is just a woman who is grieving. Despite all the pomp and ceremony they are still a family who have lost a loved one. The Brits do ceremony so well and its fascinating to watch. I am no royalist but kudos though where it is deserved.

tara73

Voguementol wrote: »

I watched it and found it interesting and at times poignant. Losing her husband after 73 years is a tragedy for the Queen who underneath it all is just a woman who is grieving. Despite all the pomp and ceremony they are still a family who have lost a loved one. The Brits do ceremony so well and its fascinating to watch. I am no royalist but kudos though where it is deserved.

and she met him for the first time when she was just 13 (and allegedly fell in love with him there and then). so she knew him 80 years, almost all her life, that's just an amazing story and circumstance in itself.

Be right back

A commentator said while his coffin was being driven to the church door, it was the first time Philip was ahead of the Queen as he always had to be slightly behind while alive.

Be right back

Be right back wrote: »

A commentator said while his coffin was being driven to the church door, it was the first time Philip was ahead of the Queen as he always had to be slightly behind while alive.

That’s right. Originally, the Queen was to go ahead to the church, but she made a personal decision to let him go first. For the first and only time.

Be right back

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That’s right. Originally, the Queen was to go ahead to the church, but she made a personal decision to let him go first. For the first and only time.

The last thing she could do for him..

ceegee

tara73 wrote: »

and she met him for the first time when she was just 13 (and allegedly fell in love with him there and then). so she knew him 80 years, almost all her life, that's just an amazing story and circumstance in itself.

All the best love stories start with a grown man chaperoning his 13 year old cousin.

It's up there with a fella pushing 30 taking a shine to his girlfriends 16 year old sister.

Ckendrick

Voguementol wrote: »

I watched it and found it interesting and at times poignant. Losing her husband after 73 years is a tragedy for the Queen who underneath it all is just a woman who is grieving. Despite all the pomp and ceremony they are still a family who have lost a loved one. The Brits do ceremony so well and its fascinating to watch. I am no royalist but kudos though where it is deserved.

Really after 73 years and at 99 and 95 it’s not a tragedy. It’s very sad, but it’s inevitable and as a woman of great faith she will have accepted long ago that nothing lasts forever and that one of them would have to go it alone sooner rather than later.
The death of Helen McCrory is a tragedy. 2 young teenagers lose their mother prematurely and a love affair comes to a sad end way too soon.

Ckendrick

ceegee wrote: »

All the best love stories start with a grown man chaperoning his 13 year old cousin.

It's up there with a fella pushing 30 taking a shine to his girlfriends 16 year old sister.

This post says more about your puerile mind then anything else.
If all you got from all the info in the public arena on the HRHs relationship this week was a mental picture of a man perving on a young teenage girl then you need to talk to someone to get help.

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The spire was our attempt

Jesus the craw thumping is going strong today. Quite a few households in mourning across the land, apparently.

I’m still fairly dubious that the Queen, rather than Buckingham palace, is the reason for U.K. tourism. Some of it.

There are other reasons to keep a slimmed down monarchy, it no doubt impresses heads of states.

BeginnerRunner

They took our flegs... to half mast.

Ash.J.Williams

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I have no mixed race family members, if I die tomorrow and there are no POC at my funeral does that make me a racist?

I merely pointed out how stupid the original post was and accidentally became the post


The joke being how can a white family be diverse under Covid measures if they are litterally the only people there

Then people started responding to me

Ash.J.Williams

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus the craw thumping is going strong today. Quite a few households in mourning across the land, apparently.

I’m still fairly dubious that the Queen, rather than Buckingham palace, is the reason for U.K. tourism. Some of it.

There are other reasons to keep a slimmed down monarchy, it no doubt impresses heads of states.

Wha?

Ash.J.Williams

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

It’s the final nail in our coffin as a failed state. It’s also another step along the road of us not being one at all any more.

No it isn’t

Amirani

Zebra3 wrote: »

We should be promoting democracy, not bootlicking the family of their unelected head of state.

Sounds like what the yanks try to do repeatedly in the Middle East.

We shouldn't be forcing our system of Government on others, particularly others that aren't living in a society that is oppressed by their system of Government. If the UK people want to live in a monarchy, let them at it.

Cilldara_2000

I don't give a flying f**k about the Brits and their strange ways but the flags thing was taking the pish, same as it was in 1997 and 2002. At least the King of Saudi Arabia was a head of state although had it been my choice, I wouldn't have lowered any flag given the particularly nasty regime he presided over.

Obv the head of state or government of close allies is different so I wouldn't have any gripe with half mast when herself eventually pushes on.

Also agree with those above saying that seeing her sitting there by herself was sad. This photo hit me in the feels. Whatever one might think about her lot in life and the institution she heads, she's a lonely old widow here and the impact of covid on funerals for so many people is desperately sad:

https://twitter.com/PAImages/status/1383423559884689410?s=20

Arthur Daley

I'd fancy being taken away on the bed of that Land Rover meself now. Better than some of the hearses I've seen recently. Original thought. Great advertising for Land Rover.

Arthur Daley

Arthur Daley wrote: »

I'd fancy being taken away on the bed of that Land Rover meself now. Better than some of the hearses I've seen recently. Original thought. Great advertising for Land Rover.

I can’t find a link at the moment, but I’ve seen a picture of a cycling enthusiasts coffin being taken to cemetery by being towed on a special trailer by bicycle!

Ash.J.Williams

Arthur Daley wrote: »

I'd fancy being taken away on the bed of that Land Rover meself now. Better than some of the hearses I've seen recently. Original thought. Great advertising for Land Rover.

An Indian company:)

Arthur Daley

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

An Indian company:)

Alas, but still built in Solihull

silverharp

I never thought an Irish man would have so much in common with prince Phillip. At 3.00 today he was thrown into the back of a land rover surrounded by brits.

FTA69

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The royal family are probably the biggest tourist attraction in the UK so it's effectively a marketing exercise for GB holidays ltd.

They really aren’t. There’s nobody spilling out of planes in Heathrow filled full of excitement about the royal family.

Timberrrrrrrr

FTA69 wrote: »

They really aren’t. There’s nobody spilling out of planes in Heathrow filled full of excitement about the royal family.

Go to London and talk to American tourists 50+ years old and come back and tell me that, I won't even go into how crazy the Japanese are.

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Wha?

Ash, I said three distinct things in simple English. What are you wha’ing about.

FTA69

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Go to London and talk to American tourists 50+ years old and come back and tell me that, I won't even go into how crazy the Japanese are.

I’ve lived in London for 13 years. The Winter Palace in St Petersburg and Versailles in France are some of the most visited tourist destinations in the world and they did their royal families in generations ago. People no more go to London for the Queen than they go to Amsterdam for the Dutch monarchy. The Tower of London has no royal significance at all for the past few centuries but is still a hugely popular destination. The idea that British or London tourism hinges on the royals is absurd claptrap casually thrown out by people who for some bizarre reason can’t bring themselves to admit that monarchy is a load of outdated, unnecessary sh*t and that the family in question are a shower of useless parasites.

Quantum Erasure

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I reckon they were all popping pills to hold themselves together.
.

I dont know if I'd be able to keep it together sitting there, coming up on e

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Go to London and talk to American tourists 50+ years old and come back and tell me that, I won't even go into how crazy the Japanese are.

I’ve been to London. I’ve even worked there. I’ve even worked close to the palace.
The attraction there is the changing of the guard. The Queen is sometimes there, sometimes she isn’t. There’s no acknowledgement of the tourists by the Queen unless she waves them from the Beamer.

She’s in Scotland in high summer anyway.

Ash.J.Williams

Deleted User wrote: »

I’ve been to London. I’ve even worked there. I’ve even worked close to the palace.
The attraction there is the changing of the guard. The Queen is sometimes there, sometimes she isn’t. There’s no acknowledgement of the tourists by the Queen unless she waves them from the Beamer.

She’s in Scotland in high summer anyway.

I don’t think anyone actually believes people travel to see the royals behind glass like in the zoo

chrissb8

walshb wrote: »

Why so annoyed?

They are our neighbours. It’s 2021. It’s about showing a mark of respect, building bridges, moving on and embracing peace and harmony and good relations..

The famine was not all that long ago. To put it into context, my grandmother's grandmother would have been around for the famine. Again, I rewatched older than Ireland tonight and you had people 1st hand telling you about Croke park, black and tans etc. In their lifetime.


I don't know how there can be any sort of building of relations, within a modern sense, when Britain has not openly acknowledged its damages to the countries it ruled over, but in fact, celebrates them. And as pointed out above, were very recent in committing these damages.

We will move on as a nation when Britain openly comes to terms with its colonial history. And isn't openly shoving it in people's faces. I'm not banging on the drum of resentment for the sake of it. There is a lot of good in England and from all the bs which anchors it in some belief that Britain was a force of good for the world, the royal family serves as a strong reminder of that said bs.


There's a strong reason why people don't baulk at German national pride. If you go to Berlin it is openly acknowledged through museums, memorials and every German citizen is told of their indelible red mark on recent history that they must never forget.

The same cannot be said for Britain.

So why would an Irish national broadcaster show a Royal procession? Which served as a lynchpin for one of the most tyrannical regimes in that of the British empire. That same royal family that revelled in being the figurehead for many countries taken by force.

It's embarrassing and it is perfectly natural to feel a natural resentment to any fawning by any Irish institution.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

chrissb8 wrote: »

The famine was not all that long ago. To put it into context, my grandmother's grandmother would have been around for the famine. Again, I rewatched older than Ireland tonight and you had people 1st hand telling you about Croke park, black and tans etc. In their lifetime.


I don't know how there can be any sort of building of relations, within a modern sense, when Britain has not openly acknowledged its damages to the countries it ruled over, but in fact, celebrates them. And as pointed out above, were very recent in committing these damages.

We will move on as a nation when Britain openly comes to terms with its colonial history. And isn't openly shoving it in people's faces. I'm not banging on the drum of resentment for the sake of it. There is a lot of good in England and from all the bs which anchors it in some belief that Britain was a force of good for the world, the royal family serves as a strong reminder of that said bs.


There's a strong reason why people don't baulk at German national pride. If you go to Berlin it is openly acknowledged through museums, memorials and every German citizen is told of their indelible red mark on recent history that they must never forget.

The same cannot be said for Britain.

So why would an Irish national broadcaster show a Royal procession? Which served as a lynchpin for one of the most tyrannical regimes in that of the British empire. That same royal family that revelled in being the figurehead for many countries taken by force.

It's embarrassing and it is perfectly natural to feel a natural resentment to any fawning by any Irish institution.

Woke thread --->