DiscussMormonism.com

I realise all this happened in the wee small hours for most board members. But did anybody watch any of the late Queen's funeral ceremonies - both in Westminster Abbey and later at Windsor?

If so, what did you think of it?

I looked for Biden, but did not see him or any other recognisable world leader (I believe he was a bit late taking his place in any case, since he had to come in The Beast). Somebody explained to me that they did not want to show the location of VIPs in the Abbey (apart from the Royal Family), for security reasons. Makes sense, I suppose.

The bit that struck me most was when, just before the coffin went down into the royal vault in Windsor, they removed the regalia (Latin = "royal stuff") from her coffin - crown, orb and sceptre - as if to say "OK, you can stop being Queen now. You are just a dead lady, so relax". The Great Chamberlain (the head of her household) snapped his white rod of office in two, and put the two halves on her coffin. It's all over now ...

No, I didn’t watch it, but what you described was lovely. The Queen was a rare gem who truly understood the life she was handed, her responsibilities, and as a result was a wonderful diplomat and figurehead for the UK. Not gonna lie, I love the traditions the Royal Family keep for the cultural heritage of Britannia (England? UK? The Realm? The Commonwealth? I actually don’t know what their family’s left and right limits are).

- Doc

Yes of course I've watched it though I've had to pause it for a bit and then resume when the pipes played. The pipes cry. The pipes make me cry. I don't have any other comment at the moment except to say that it was lovely and powerful. I'm all about tradition. Still absorbing it and what we can learn from her life and passing.

ETA: One commentator said something I want to share here. He said that for all his life, Prince Charles knew that his first duty as King would be to bury his mother.

No wonder he recently said that the day of her passing was the one day that he dreaded.

The bit that struck me most was when, just before the coffin went down into the royal vault in Windsor, they removed the regalia (Latin = "royal stuff") from her coffin - crown, orb and sceptre - as if to say "OK, you can stop being Queen now. You are just a dead lady, so relax". The Great Chamberlain (the head of her household) snapped his white rod of office in two, and put the two halves on her coffin. It's all over now ...

I'm a West Virginian and a descendant of rebels. But Elizabeth II reminds me that I'm also a descendant of Great Britain and she'll always be my queen. She was firmly focused on being in the service of her people and that's what makes an exceptional leader and she worked right up to the end. I take comfort in knowing that a glorious resurrection awaits her.

Hawkeye wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 20, 2022 1:07 am

The bit that struck me most was when, just before the coffin went down into the royal vault in Windsor, they removed the regalia (Latin = "royal stuff") from her coffin - crown, orb and sceptre - as if to say "OK, you can stop being Queen now. You are just a dead lady, so relax". The Great Chamberlain (the head of her household) snapped his white rod of office in two, and put the two halves on her coffin. It's all over now ...

I'm a West Virginian and a descendant of rebels. But Elizabeth II reminds me that I'm also a descendant of Great Britain and she'll always be my queen. She was firmly focused on being in the service of her people and that's what makes an exceptional leader and she worked right up to the end. I take comfort in knowing that a glorious resurrection awaits her.

Give me a damned break, she was born into that position, born into privilege, born into "leadership." The net worth of the royal family is close to $30 billion, and they never earned a penny of it. I lived in England as a kid and was mesmerized by the concept of a Queen or King and loved drawing the UK flag, but to this day I never understood what the actual purpose of the monarchy was. And now the more I know the less I appreciate their existence. They don't control anything it seems, they just represent a symbol of times past apparently to give some traditionalists a sense of warm fuzzies. But their massive wealth as a royal family was for centuries established on stealing foreign lands, destroying livelihoods, repressing Africans and selling slaves. Millions are now impoverished because of the United Kingdom’s colonial exploits. Like many in Africa, the mineral and agricultural wealth emanating from those lands and poorly remunerated labor enriched the royal family and enabled the UK’s industrialization, leaving millions of people poor and disenfranchised. Britain had drained India for roughly $45 trillion over two centuries.

Vēritās wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 20, 2022 2:18 am

Give me a damned break, she was born into that position, born into privilege, born into "leadership." The net worth of the royal family is close to $30 billion, and they never earned a penny of it. I lived in England as a kid and was mesmerized by the concept of a Queen or King and loved drawing the UK flag, but to this day I never understood what the actual purpose of the monarchy was. And now the more I know the less I appreciate their existence. They don't control anything it seems, they just represent a symbol of times past apparently to give some traditionalists a sense of warm fuzzies. But their massive wealth as a royal family was for centuries established on stealing foreign lands, destroying livelihoods, repressing Africans and selling slaves. Millions are now impoverished because of the United Kingdom’s colonial exploits. Like many in Africa, the mineral and agricultural wealth emanating from those lands and poorly remunerated labor enriched the royal family and enabled the UK’s industrialization, leaving millions of people poor and disenfranchised. Britain had drained India for roughly $45 trillion over two centuries.

Yeah, not a fan of the whole idea of a monarchy. Just seems like grift in the same way as religion is a con (and let's face it; the monarchy is only relevant because of the idiotic idea of religion).

I'm glad the queen wore it well, but that doesn't excuse the idiocy of the monarchy idea.

To make myself clear: I do not see any benefit for the UK in continuing to have a system of hereditary monarchy after the death of the late Queen. For me, the difficulty with the present system is a political one: effectively, all the so-called Royal Prerogatives (such as dissolving or suspending Parliament) are now exercised by whoever happens to be the prime minister, who either exercises them directly, or "advises" the monarch to exercise them. Furthermore, whatever the opinion of the monarch may be, and whether it is expressed openly or not, it is a long established practice that any bill which has passed through both houses of Parliament is signed into law by the Monarch. And all this takes place without any kind of written constitution to protect the rights of the subject against the passing of oppressive laws.

Thus, for instance, the present government is considering bringing in a law that would effectively remove ministers from judicial control; either the judiciary would be completely disbarred from reviewing the lawfulness of ministerial acts, or the ministers in question would have the power to amend or override any judicial decision against them that they did not like. In my view, the only way out of this is a written constitution with a ceremonial president rather along the lines of what is found in the Irish Republic, who does, however, have the power to send any bill to the Supreme Court for a decision as to whether or not it is "repugnant to the constitution". Exactly how such a president might be elected is a point that merits careful discussion. Personally, I would be in favour of the vote being held among the members of a Senate (replacing the present House of Lords) who would themselves have been elected as representatives of the regions of the country, using proportional representation. A popular vote might end up with a candidate being chosen simply because they happened to be ... well, 'popular'. And that is not what the role demands.

Having said all that: as monarchs go, the late Queen was certainly one of the best and most conscientious that the country has had. When she came to the throne in 1952 after the unexpected death of her father at a relatively young age, it would have been unthinkable on her part to have refused to take on the role, and the great majority of the British population would have been horrified had she done so. I doubt very much that she welcomed the role that was thrust upon her – almost certainly she would have preferred to go on living as the wife of a naval officer. But given her role of acting as a powerless personification of the nation, I think she did it as well as she could with great energy and goodwill, and a large proportion of the UK population seemed to like her being there. For me, she at least blocked us from having any of the politicians of the last few decades as a head of state, for which I am profoundly grateful.

One of my best friends in this life was Rene Verdon. I would sit for hours with him and talk about the people he met and things he had done. He came to my son's fourth birthday party at my house and sat with my grandmother in the living room and they talked for hours about Washington DC and the Kennedys and the weather.

Rene was the White House chef for JFK. He was replace by a Texan chef when LBJ took over. During the funeral services and everything that led up to the funeral, Rene was responsible for the menus of more kings and queens and presidents and heads of state in a single assembly than had ever been gathered in the history of the world.

When I watched Queen Elizabeth II's funeral, I wondered if a new record had been set. That was a lot of important people there.

In Sweden we have our royal house. When the crown princess was married in 2010 she wanted to be walked down the aisle by her father. Which is seen as archaic and a symbol of the patriarchy, that her dad would be giving her away. It was quite a bit of a stir since the public (helped) pay for the wedding. I felt it's her wedding she can have it how she wants, but also she represents the people so maybe represent the Swedish way. Her dad is a bit of a doofus, but she seems sharp and well put together. Most of the money they get from the public is maintaining things that we would probably maintain anyway, like the palaces and such as historical places. It doesn't really do much that they live in some of the apartments that the public wouldn't be allowed in anyway. The Germans love royalty, among others, so things like a royal wedding are huge tourist draws. Which also probably means that overall we get more economic activity than we spend on the royal house.

Anything to do with the prime minister and government is handled by the Speaker of the Riksdag (parliament) so the king doesn't even have a ceremonial part in that.

I hope though that both royal houses end within a generation or two. They still have their private wealth. Though like Brits, there does seem to be some welcoming that there is someone other than the current prime minister who can be viewed as head of state for more ceremonial things. Though it feels weird that the head of state is hereditary.