Not looking good for Queen Elizabeth (RIP)

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I generally agree with you, Jim. People are a product of the times in which they lived, and rather than applaud those who were forward-thinking, we spend way too much time trying to tear down those who were "normal" for their times. And yes, that includes subjects and acts that are detestable today.

People are a product of the times in which they lived, sure. But I've had some of these conversations with my wife regarding some in her family. "Well that's what they grew up with." Ok, I'll grant that. But they grew up over 50, 60 years ago. Perhaps that's enough time to change your views?

[Ksyrup]

You've lived enough life to see that in general, the older you get, the more hardened you become in your opinions, or nostalgia, etc.

But mainly, I was talking more about people who are no longer with us, who lived in different periods when what is seen as normal today was not the status quo when they lived. That said, I don't know many open-minded 70+ year olds. Both my and my wife's parents are still alive, and they are all Trumpers (my parents moreso than hers, but I know how they both vote). They both rail against current social trends, pronouns/gender ID, fake meat, immigrants, etc.

I think you severely overestimate a person's ability to simply "roll with the changes" - especially with 24/7 news/opinion TV cutting people off from reality and/or other people's views. Nearly every time we go to visit my wife's parents, Fox News is on. Middle of a weekend, Fox News. That has to rot your brain. And I'd say the same about watching MSNBC 24 hours a day. Get a fucking life!

[BYU 14]

I would also add that Queen Elizabeth in her later years, while still molded by her life experience, was far different in her views of the worlds, and others than then when she first ascended to the throne in the 50's.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Yes, this is exactly it. Because those who praise her are asked to consider a position that can't be defended in a 2022 world view. Which then becomes the conversation.

Except in some cases, the position could not be defended at the time that it was made. Or it was a decision that could be supported then but in hindsight can no longer be supported. Either way is possible to praise the overall while not defending the specific. My issue is the feeling that the position should not even be discussed at all.

Does everyone, on all sides of the political spectrum, have the same requirement? Who gets to decide when a mistake is so egregious by today's standards that apology isn't enough? Will it be enough tomorrow? Can the decision be reversed?

Many people just don't give interviews, and the world of politics is such that making an apology of any kind is seen as a fatal weakness. Or sometimes, enough time has passed that the offender is no longer with us.

And, of course, the next day, there will be a call for a new apology. Because the apology itself isn't important. It can't change history. All it does is change the topic to a position that can't be defended in the context of the day.

And this is where everything gets messy right? Do all sides of the political spectrum have to do it? No. Has that requirement been demanded of all sides of the political spectrum when it suited the other side? Absolutely. Is any side of the political spectrum prepared to give up their "right" to hold the other side to such a requirement for political advantage? Hell no. That has been the case my entire life.

You are right No one is required to give an interview. Yes in the world of politics making an apology is seen as a fatal weakness. But both of those decisions also smack of a person that lacks of humility, and is so angry and defensive as to believe they are beyond reproach. That does not mean the explanation/apology will be enough for some or guarantee that all criticism will go away. It does mean that the explanation/apology can be used to provide a bit of vital nuance to the conversation being had.

Of course. And, with humility, understand history. That times continually change, and our own evaluations are ultimately unimportant. We're supposed to learn from history, not judge it, over and over.

What we're doing is not so interesting or relevant that anyone should care about a pro/con list created on September 12, 2022.

When we erect a statue, it's not some forever judgment that a certain figure from history is the GOAT of people. It's a piece of artwork commemorating something - a moment, an idea, an inspiration. Nothing could possibly stand up to continual litigation and a changing world.

What we understand about history is that we rarely gets all the facts in one neat package. We understand that we may have one view of a moment in time based on limited information and limited perspective. As time goes on and we gather more information and perspectives from that time and from today, it makes sense that our views and opinions changes as well. Not all criticism discussed in 2022 is based exclusively on a 2022 world view. It may be rooted in information from that moment in time that we only accessed in 2022.

I've written many times that introspection is one of the more valuable traits people can have. If you're too much a product of the zeitgeist when you were first convincingly aware of the zeitgeist, that can be a problem.

So if we continually hold life as it was in the past to the zeitgeist, nothing holds up or ever will hold up. Even the best of us today won't hold up ten years from now if we don't change.

We can't commemorate anything, ever, by these standards. It's really quite unsettling how entrenched this is right now. And what's particularly worrisome is just how alone people are these days - it's so easy to tune into the Twitterverse and learn the zeitgeist, but never actually interact in person with another human being.

In short, this whole cancellation thing has become an avatar of today's overwhelming misanthropy.

Jim this is just not true. We celebrate all sorts of events and people while at the same time acknowledging that are things about those events and people that don't match 2022 standards and are worthy of criticism. To take it to the very unimportant world of sports. Some believe that David Ortiz is and should be celebrated as one of the greatest players in baseball history. Also, based on evidence found in the Mitchell report, other believe that David Ortiz's use of PEDs make him unworthy of such celebrations. For a lot of those people that decision was made when the Mitchel report came out. Based on what we know right now, David Ortiz is a HOFer who also appear in the Mitchell report as a PED user. He will be celebrated by some and not celebrated by other based on the information we have now. I have no doubt that if we found out that David Ortiz is fully exonerated or is Satan reincarnated, it will probably cause a revaluation of whether we do or not celebrate him in the same way no matter what he did on the field or how many statues have been made in his honor and rightfully so.

[Butter]

"We can't commemorate anything, ever"

Everybody really feels for the plight of the middle-aged white man. When do we get to commemorate? Won't somebody think of our feelings?

Maybe time has come to consider more than the firmly entrenched white person approved view of everything all the time

If it makes you uncomfortable to think or talk about, outstanding! That's the point

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Butter

"We can't commemorate anything, ever"

Everybody really feels for the plight of the middle-aged white man. When do we get to commemorate? Won't somebody think of our feelings?

Maybe time has come to consider more than the firmly entrenched white person approved view of everything all the time

If it makes you uncomfortable to think or talk about, outstanding! That's the point

Rise up, earnest warrior of indignation.

At any rate, the point I'd make is that if you reduce everything to the "firmly entrenched white person..." stereotype, it's hard to have a real discussion. Call that discomfort if you like.

The difficulty with identity politics is that even with the infinite intersectional possibilities, it eliminates all diversity of thought. If we are the sum total of our immutable parts and cannot evolve or change, what's the point of thinking or talking in the first place? It's all been thought or said.

Regarding Ortiz. Sports Hall of Fames are cultivated and designed to derive a certain GOATness. He has denied PED use. So have numerous others who would easily meet Hall of Fame standards, but the voters do not believe the denials and feel this should be part of the voting standard. Ortiz was voted in. He will be celebrated and the rules state that decision is final. If I had my own baseball Hall of Fame, I don't know what I'd do. Ignore an entire era? Maybe, but it doesn't seem productive. I might not include Ortiz simply because of the DH rule. Or I might because he went .301/.380/.603 in 2004, and I know how much that year meant to Boston.

This is a different concept than whether an individual feels he or she should celebrate Elizabeth II's life or a moment within that life (most point to her example and resilience during WWII). We generally don't vote on tributes or artwork.

Do people today have a sense of history? One criticism with a sports analogy - "he's started life on third base and acts like he hit a triple." Certainly that would apply to royalty. Elizabeth became Queen because she was born into the right family at the right time. Is she exceptional for any reason other than that?

But does that concept apply to all of us in a certain sense? Are we now born just a millimeter from home plate, thinking we just hit a home run when the world has been evolving for billions of years? Or are we self aware, and we understand that everyone is born that close to home plate, but the plate is always in motion?

[thesloppy]

I think that if you wanted to celebrate Queen Elizabeth within your own bubble of friends and family it would go exactly as you want/expect. Now if you want to celebrate Queen Elizabeth's life publicly on the internet, without seeing any criticism, that is something else entirely. The former is still possible, the latter never was. You're trying to conflate a technological change in how people communicate with an imagined modern moral failing by everyone but you.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I think that if you wanted to celebrate Queen Elizabeth within your own bubble of friends and family it would go exactly as you want/expect. Now if you want to celebrate Queen Elizabeth's life publicly on the internet, without seeing any criticism, that is something else entirely. The former is still possible, the latter never was. You're trying to conflate a technological change in how people communicate with an imagined modern moral failing by everyone but you.

I'll direct you back to my original post. The argument is very different. It's about whether anyone can be celebrated, because there's always something that warrants cancellation when examined in the context of today's Twitterverse simple-mindedness. You're burning the straw man here.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'll direct you back to my original post. The argument is very different. It's about whether anyone can be celebrated, because there's always something that warrants cancellation when examined in the context of today's Twitterverse simple-mindedness. You're burning the straw man here.

Can anyone be celebrated? Sure. There may be backlash though.

Can anyone be celebrated without question? Very few, like I can only think of Vin Scully at the moment.

Can anyone celebrate people and events for great achievement without constantly being asked to acknowledge and even defend the indefensible positions and/or problematic aspects of the people or event? Absolutely. It does mean that some will "cancel" that person or event for those indefensible positions or problematic aspects. Even you may be "cancelled" as for being a celebrator if you celebrate too loudly, you don't do any acknowledging and/or criticizing or enough of it etc.

But none of that is new. It did not just show up with social media. It has always been there. This is where privilege comea in and I don't mean that as some sort of euphemism or to be slanderous of race, gender etc. I mean that you have had the privilege of not finding yourself constantly placed in that last category. Many people have not had that privilege. The have learned to celebrate whoever they want to celbrate and deal with whatever comes with that. Those people also have made the call that if they have to be placed in that category constantly they are dragging everyone down there when given the chance.

Would I prefer that everyone be allowed to celebrate flawed people who acheive great things in their lives despite past lapses in judgement or prejudice when held to the standards of today? Sure. It may sting a little bit when they do depending on the lapse/prejudice but I will get over it. Do I need eveyone to defend or even acknowledge those lapses in judgement or prejudice prior to the celebration? Not really though it is much more likely to if I feel like celebrators are in denial of those things or have categorized those things as fake news. For example, if Ray Rice won NFL Man of the Year the year after he came back from his suspension, yes I am going to need an explanantion how we got from Point A to Point B. Does not mean we can't get there but I need to hear it. And yes, I acknowledged a small amount of pettyness pops up when I see a person is celebrating someone with the same lapses in judgment/prejudice as someone else the celbrator has criticized others for celebrating.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Can anyone be celebrated without question? Very few, like I can only think of Vin Scully at the moment.

Can anyone celebrate people and events for great achievement without constantly being asked to acknowledge and even defend the indefensible positions and/or problematic aspects of the people or event? Absolutely. It does mean that some will "cancel" that person or event for those indefensible positions or problematic aspects. Even you may be "cancelled" as for being a celebrator if you celebrate too loudly, you don't do any acknowledging and/or criticizing or enough of it etc.

But none of that is new. It did not just show up with social media.

I think much of this is new in that in today's zeitgeist, many would read your statement about Vin Scully as a challenge.

Mostly, it's the idea that any past celebration or action is subject to a constant reevaluation through the ever-changing lens of the present.

In the past, when people have honored someone who recently died, the idea has been to try and find what there is to celebrate.

The Twitterverse mentality, which absolutely is new, is to try and find what there is to condemn and turn every celebration into this new form of "criticism" where that find becomes the pivot into a condemnation of those who dare to celebrate.

As Butter said, the goal is to make you feel uncomfortable.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think much of this is new in that in today's zeitgeist, many would read your statement about Vin Scully as a challenge.

Not for the first time lately, you've expressed pretty much the exact thought I had when seeing/reading something.

That probably makes us both a little uneasy

[RainMaker]

I can see how the monarchy is fascinating to some. I'll always tune in to a documentary or show about famous buildings and artifacts they own. So the historical aspect of it interests me. The modern stuff, not so much.

Trying to think of an American comparison is tough. There's some element of celebrity culture to the whole thing. Tabloids incessantly cover the members and the assorted gossip. They have devoted fans. But most celebrities here have accomplished something to gain status (even if we don't find it has a particular value).

Maybe socialite culture, although I don't think we take that as seriously as the monarchy. Business leaders like Elon Musk or Steve Jobs are given a sort of royalty status, but they have a resume of accomplishment (even if we think the praise is undeserving).

It's a weird thing to me that I guess maybe you have to grow up with to understand fully. It's like when I see a million people watching some guy play Minecraft on Twitch and think "I don't get it".

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I can see how the monarchy is fascinating to some. I'll always tune in to a documentary or show about famous buildings and artifacts they own. So the historical aspect of it interests me. The modern stuff, not so much.

Trying to think of an American comparison is tough. There's some element of celebrity culture to the whole thing. Tabloids incessantly cover the members and the assorted gossip. They have devoted fans. But most celebrities here have accomplished something to gain status (even if we don't find it has a particular value).

Maybe socialite culture, although I don't think we take that as seriously as the monarchy. Business leaders like Elon Musk or Steve Jobs are given a sort of royalty status, but they have a resume of accomplishment (even if we think the praise is undeserving).

It's a weird thing to me that I guess maybe you have to grow up with to understand fully. It's like when I see a million people watching some guy play Minecraft on Twitch and think "I don't get it".

As someone living in a Commonwealth country, at this point in time they seem to be just an example (the biggest maybe) of something that makes people harken back to a mythical golden age of England and dreams of princes and princesses and wonderful tea parties etc.


The usual defense on the British side from what I see of them is that they bring in more money than they spend, although I don't know how true that is - it's not like the castles would be demolished if the royal family were demoted to regular citizen status, and I doubt most tourism to the UK is predicated on there actually being a royal family in place.


IMO kings and queens and princes and princesses belong in Disney cartoons in the 21st century. I hope now that Charles wears the crown Australia looks at formally becoming a republic once again.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not for the first time lately, you've expressed pretty much the exact thought I had when seeing/reading something.

That probably makes us both a little uneasy

Not at all. It's always been a bit weird on the forum, because people react to me differently. At any rate, we've been here a long, long time and we've both dealt with difficult times. It changes us.

I also suspect, as I get older, that people share more characteristics than they'd like to admit. We just lose our ability and desire to connect based on what we have in common when we go online.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Butter

"We can't commemorate anything, ever"

Everybody really feels for the plight of the middle-aged white man. When do we get to commemorate? Won't somebody think of our feelings?

Maybe time has come to consider more than the firmly entrenched white person approved view of everything all the time

If it makes you uncomfortable to think or talk about, outstanding! That's the point

[albionmoonlight]

Officials at the coronation will include: the Fitzalan Pursuivant Extraordinary, Rouge Dragon Pursuivant of Arms, Gentleman Usher of the Purple Rod, Bath King of Arms, Marchmont Herald, Harbinger of the Gentlemen at Arms and the Gold-Stick-in-Waiting. (none of these is fake)

— Milton Everglade (@MiltonEverglade) September 13, 2022

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not for the first time lately, you've expressed pretty much the exact thought I had when seeing/reading something.

That probably makes us both a little uneasy

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Not at all. It's always been a bit weird on the forum, because people react to me differently. At any rate, we've been here a long, long time and we've both dealt with difficult times. It changes us.

I also suspect, as I get older, that people share more characteristics than they'd like to admit. We just lose our ability and desire to connect based on what we have in common when we go online.

I'm just saying that none of us here would be opposed to the two of you collaborating on an old-school-wrestling sim :-)

[sovereignstar v2]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'm just saying that none of us here would be opposed to the two of you collaborating on an old-school-wrestling sim :-)

You just gave me another chance to shill for TCY2, because if he started work on something like that I would be piiiiiiiissed . No NIL needed. Jim, if you want to keep academics semi-important, do it. It's your game -- we aren't talking Football Manager here! Add some new offense, maybe tweak the time management stuff, make bowl affiliations editable and we're good.

Apologies, I won't stop believing.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'm just saying that none of us here would be opposed to the two of you collaborating on an old-school-wrestling sim :-)

I have an old school wrestling RPG that I created many years ago, and recently pulled out of the cobwebs to try and bring it back in 2022. If only some people on this board knew how to program games!

[Edward64]

The Brits sure know how to put on a royal funeral. Like the outfits.

[Solecismic]

No one would want me working on a wrestling game. There's a thread on the front page with more than 9,000 posts and 725,000 views. I can tell you with certainty that none of those views are mine. I'd be better off working on the city builder with the dinosaur. I could code the Dramamine factories. More important than city walls, aqueducts and temples combined.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'm just saying that none of us here would be opposed to the two of you collaborating on an old-school-wrestling sim :-)

If we were gonna collab on a game, the dream scenario would be that he nail the HS football sim I'd love to see someday.

I know the bones I'd want, the concept it'd work around ... I just don't have the foggiest how it'd be coded lol

[Hammer]

Living in England is surreal right now. This fuss being made has blown me away. I find the royal thing a little daft and pointless. But I am finding out a huge majority of the population don't feel the same way. To admit my thoughts would risk social self destruction.

There was me thinking everyone was supposed to be equal. We fight racism, sexism, homophobia. Yet here is this person sat on a thrown. Makes no sense to me. I can only vent this to strangers 5,000 miles away. This opinion must be kept to myself over here. In fact a woman was arrested earlier in the week for holding an "abolish the monarchy" banner. Seems like something China would do. Normally freedom and speech and demonstration are good to go here. Not right now. Crazy times.

[sovereignstar v2]

A huge majority? Wow! Not over there, but I am on the Manchester City fan board all the time and there are lots of people that have no time for the monarchy. It probably steers toward a certain demographic, but I certainly got the impression it was closer to 50/50 than not.

[Kodos]

Put me in the “monarchy is not needed” category, especially with the absurd amount of money the royal family gets.

[Solecismic]

I'm not sure I buy into the monarchy runs a profit because of tourism argument. Another argument might be that the US has "influencers" and Hollywood and Kennedys and maybe Obamas at some point (but not Trumps) - royals are just another variation on the same theme.

My sense is that this outpouring for the Queen has been building for a long, long time. It's as much a fond goodbye to the old days as it is a celebration of the royals. When Charles dies, it won't be the same sentiment. The big question is whether William will restore it or whether it will pretty much fade away with Charles in charge.

[thesloppy]

...of our days and our knights.



I'm sorry...I'll show myself out.

[Solecismic]

It was intentional, but bonus points for the spelling.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar v2

A huge majority? Wow! Not over there, but I am on the Manchester City fan board all the time and there are lots of people that have no time for the monarchy. It probably steers toward a certain demographic, but I certainly got the impression it was closer to 50/50 than not.

Football fans certainly have a culture of their own in England. Bit like a republican or democrat in the U.S. That said, maybe most people are just being sensitive right now in RL. Those with nothing nice to say keeping a lid on it. Posting on a board probably let's RL sensitivity slide. So perhaps you are right.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

...of our days and our knights.



I'm sorry...I'll show myself out.

I love the internet pic.twitter.com/RkpPAY1MAb

— 🍹 Princess Consuela Banana-Hammock (@kimmie_c_) September 10, 2022

[Edward64]

I've read reports the line to pay final respects is like 20+ hours. Wondering how (haven't read anything about) the "logistics" are being solved e.g. loo, food etc.

[miami_fan]

Granted my expectations of human beings shrink lower and lower with the news of the day I have to believe that, of all lines, it would not be an issue with someone leaving to go to the restroom/grab a bite to eat and regaining their spot in that line.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I've read reports the line to pay final respects is like 20+ hours. Wondering how (haven't read anything about) the "logistics" are being solved e.g. loo, food etc.

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Granted my expectations of human beings shrink lower and lower with the news of the day I have to believe that, of all lines, it would not be an issue with someone leaving to go to the restroom/grab a bite to eat and regaining their spot in that line.

A friend of mine who is working in london did it with his girlfriend and both their parents, started around 2 am and took about 13 hours and a bit over 9 miles, mostly along the Thames. Was just slightly miffed he did it a bit too late to potentially meet David Beckham also waiting in line (who apparently couldn't have been nicer and approachable). Was overall extremely impressed by the whole atmosphere, be it people waiting or police and staff. There's a couple thousand volunteers and crowd controllers, though those had an easy job. Brits are famous for their queues afterall . i'm sure there's plenty of videos on youtube but the gist of it as he told it is:

You get a wristband with a number signifying your place in the queue (also a blanket), so people can and will move in and out for short segways with older folks taking rests on benches or steps and stuff in between. The route isn't exactly isolated but right in london along the thames afterall. Some places like a couple museums along the route opened 24 hours to allow queuers to use their facilities during the night, there's portable toilets at certain areas, drinking water stations as well. And there's obviously bakerys etc around, street vendors, people will go on coffee runs etc. People quite simply also bring food and drink and many will share and trade. Only at the final security checkpoint at Westminster you have pretty much 'airplane-rules' of what you can bring in.

[Edward64]

Thanks for the info. I knew there had to be a way, just wasn't sure of the details.

[CrimsonFox]

The coverage of the prefuneral and the funeral is amazing. I'm sad. Gonna miss her.

[GrantDawg]

There are many things that will change due to her passing. One of them is that James Bond is no longer in "Her Majesty's Secret Service."

[Edward64]

I wonder if Elizabeth & Charles were "transitioning" for the past several months/years for this eventuality?

No doubt Charles has handlers to help him with the public events stuff. But she met with the PM every week, did Charles participate in those discussions? Or maybe nothing really substantive happened in those weekly meetings.

[CrimsonFox]

I really don't think it will work with charles. THere was something always quaint and olde english about the Queen. All her fancy dresses and hats. But now we have...an old guy in a suit. nope. I don't like it.

[Annaaa]

The queen lived a long, vibrant life. She was beautiful. with a sense of style... and her favorite dogs... We won't know who she really was, but with her gone is a whole era.

[Edward64]

I know I've had it before and didn't like it. Don't really know if it is really cruel but kudos to Charles I guess.

I wonder if veal is still being served though? From what I remember, it was pretty bad conditions in the US but regulations now have made it more "humane". Unsure what it's like now in UK or Europe.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63676759

There will be no foie gras served in royal residences, a letter from Buckingham Palace to animal rights campaigners has confirmed.

King Charles is understood to have been a longstanding opponent of the food, made from the liver of a duck or goose, that campaigners say is cruel.

The King's household wrote to the Peta campaign group that foie gras was not bought or served in royal residences.

There have been protests about force-feeding used to produce foie gras.

King Charles, when he was Prince of Wales, had been an advocate of higher welfare standards in farming and for over a decade had stopped the use of foie gras in his own properties and had been instrumental in a wider ban across royal residences.