Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Should the Queen be at the Pope's funeral?

Author
Message
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 7th Apr 2005 22:21
As far as I can tell, the British Queen won't be at the Pope's funeral.

But should she be?

They are both Heads of State, and very prominent ones at that. Surely this is an event that she should be attending personally, I imagine the official line is that Tony Blair is representing the UK.

In US terms, Bush is Head of State. Blair is not. Bush is attending. The queen is not.

BatVink
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 7th Apr 2005 23:31
Prince Charles is representing the Queen at the funeral.

The current Queen rarely attends funerals herself, she is usually represented by someone else.

It may be a religious issue, I don't know.


BlueGUI Windows Plugin
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 7th Apr 2005 23:40
Prince Charles...I can see the headlines now...

4 attempts at a wedding and a Funeral



BatVink
Dave J
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2003
Location: Secret Military Pub, Down Under
Posted: 7th Apr 2005 23:43
Wasn't he meant to get married the same day as the funeral?


"Computers are useless, they can only give you answers."
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 8th Apr 2005 00:21
Postponed until Saturday.

Which unfortunately means the Grand National* is also delayed until after the wedding.

* Grand National - horse race that everybody and their grandmother bet on. It has been known for people to use their grandmothers as collateral.

BatVink
Fovis Joris
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: The Untied Statz of Amnesia
Posted: 8th Apr 2005 01:26
A question about the wedding. Once Prince Charles marries Ms. Parker-Bowles, will his ability to take the throne be in danger? or has he given up all hope of ever taking the throne?

How do Brits feel about the wedding in general?

Please pardon my ignorance, but, being a Yank, I don;t know much about the details of royalty.

Don't see the fnords and they won't eat you!
Mnemonix
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2002
Location: Skaro
Posted: 8th Apr 2005 01:36
Stupid Charlie

My horse will now be tired when it comes to run.

The 3d chat is coming...
Rights For Traffic Cones!
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 8th Apr 2005 02:10
If the Queen won't attend, Queen should be there at least.

billy the kid
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Dec 2004
Location:
Posted: 8th Apr 2005 02:25
Ive never understood the UK's public's fascination with the royalty. I mean its worse than worrying about which movie star is dating who because movie stars actually do something unlike royalty. Sigh...
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 8th Apr 2005 02:31
Quote: "How do Brits feel about the wedding in general?"


Britain is divided into die-hard royalists, and die-hard anti-royalists, there doesn't seem to be a middle ground. At least not in my experience anyway.

To me it's par for the course. He will become King, no doubt, unless he personally chooses to stand aside. So we will then have a head of the Church of England that is not only divorced, but also remarried. Yes, it's allowed in the CofE, but still frowned upon as morally wrong.

Par for the course. He drives (is chauferred in) an 8 mile to the gallon vehicle and lectures on conservation of the environment. His father is patron of the World Wildlife Fund, but shoots wildlife for sport. He demands privacy from the press for his children, yet his brother's TV company spied on them for a documentary. He supports homeless causes, yet his mother has more empty bedrooms than Morecambe in Winter.

Par for the course.

BatVink
IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 8th Apr 2005 03:26
Quote: "there doesn't seem to be a middle ground"


I think that middle ground includes me ... probably just me

*** Coming soon - Network Plug-in - Check my site for info ***
For free Plug-ins and source code http://www.matrix1.demon.co.uk
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 8th Apr 2005 06:00
Quote: "How do Brits feel about the wedding in general?"


Somewhere between fairly negative or resigned to acceptance I'd say. The problem for Camilla and Charles is that they lie in the shadow of the late Princess of Wales, the young Diana. The Camilla and Charles wedding is never going to have the glamour of the one between Diana and Charles.

Then there are a great deal of complications because Camilla is a divorcee.

In a modern society you'd hope that the Church would do the smart thing, forgive Camilla and Charles' respective failures in the past (after all, forgiveness is a central tenet of said religion) , and we could all have a memorable state occassion. Instead they are being most-unChristian, and forcing the couple to get married in a registry office.

Finally there is the argument over Camilla's title. Should she be allowed to become a Queen or not? The commentary and letters pages of The Telegraph have been filled with much theological discussion.

It seems to me that since there is absolutely no intellectual justification for the monarchy, we should make her Queen as it simplifies the matter and would enhance the prestige of the couple, which is fairly important if they are going to be Heads of State.

Quote: "I think that middle ground includes me ... probably just me"


Add me to that list. Whilst I don't believe there is any logical basis for a royalty with power, I'd rather have them than a USA or French-style republic. This is because it keeps the Prime Minister in check, provides a useful part of British culture and contributes to tourism.


BlueGUI Windows Plugin
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 8th Apr 2005 06:47
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 8th Apr 2005 06:54
I gotta queue for the middle ground too - I could care less what the royals get upto.

I do wonder what the royal wedding memorabelia (sp?) will look like though, maybe some Chaz & Cam mouse mats and a Coke-a-Cola ringpull competition to win a bit of cake.


Van-B

Quote: "How could I condescend you?, you don't even know what it means!"

Van-B's mom.
Dazzag
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Cyprus
Posted: 8th Apr 2005 07:14
Interesting. Most people where I work couldn't give a monkeys. And Windsor castle is almost viewable from where we are (buildings in the way, not distance so much). And my mother, who I always thought as royalist, turns out to be more about "moments in history". ie. "I was there when...". Such an event dropper....

Oh, and my thoughts are that the queen isn't going because she is the head of a different church (not religious, so haven't the foggiest), but mainly because she is pretty old herself.

Cheers

Ps Oh yeah, my mum said I saw my first daisy by the vatican (used to live near by for a few years). Apparently I went something like "Look! Flowers flowers!" and started playing with them. Didn't help Italian women mistaked me for a girl at the time (blonde hair back when)

I am 99% probably lying in bed right now... so don't blame me for crappy typing
empty
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: 3 boats down from the candy
Posted: 8th Apr 2005 07:18
Quote: "Its "I couldn't care less""

It's "It's".


But no monarchy means no "Changing of the guard" at Buckingham palace. What are you gonna do with all the tourists?


Play Nice! Play Basic! Version 1.06
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 8th Apr 2005 08:06
Quote: "after all, forgiveness is a central tenet of said religion"


Yes, but you have to admit your wrong-doings in order to receive forgiveness. The Prince was advised to publish some form of "closure" on the Camilla affair by admitting it and confirming it was wrong. He refused.

Quote: "I do wonder what the royal wedding memorabelia (sp?) will look like though"


Well, it's all got the wrong date on it for starters!!!!!!


...and it looks like I was wrong about the middle ground, maybe it's a regional thing.

BatVink
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 8th Apr 2005 08:07 Edited at: 8th Apr 2005 08:09
Quote: "I hate to brake it to you"


It's 'I hate to break it to you'.

But no, if the Queen doesn't want to go to the Pope's funeral, so be it. Hard to believe there are people out there who actually care if she goes or not. If our prime minister Paul Martin wasn't going (he is) then I also wouldn't care. It's his perogative.

EDIT:

Ooer, Empty beat me to the punch.


--[GameBasic - Coming Soon]-- ^^^ banner generously designed by TheBigBabou
empty
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: 3 boats down from the candy
Posted: 8th Apr 2005 08:11
Quote: "But no, if the Queen doesn't want to go to the Pope's funeral, so be it. Hard to believe there are people out there who actually care if she goes or not. If our prime minister Paul Martin wasn't going (he is) then I also wouldn't care. It's his perogative."

Agreed but it's "prerogative". Ok enough of that now


Play Nice! Play Basic! Version 1.06
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 8th Apr 2005 08:19
I have removed the off-topic posts about language. If forum users who have a poor grasp of English wish to argue about grammar and spelling with other forum users who also have a poor grasp of English, then they may do so in another thread.

Quote: "Yes, but you have to admit your wrong-doings in order to receive forgiveness. The Prince was advised to publish some form of "closure" on the Camilla affair by admitting it and confirming it was wrong. He refused."


Ah - I was not aware of this.


BlueGUI Windows Plugin
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 8th Apr 2005 08:29
Thats just great that is. Forum members having a discussion about something and then a mod comes in and insults everyone.

He started it


"Lets migrate like bricks" - Me
Scraggle
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posted: 9th Apr 2005 23:24
I have to put myself in the anti-royal camp.

They just cost far too much money and do very little in return. It could be argued that they bring tourism into the country but I believe that tourists would still come if there was no royalty. France seems to manage.

I would be interested to hear any arguments that attempt to justify the multi millions (billions?) of pounds in taxes that the royals soak up each year but I don't think it can be justified.

BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 10th Apr 2005 00:01
Quote: "It could be argued that they bring tourism into the country "


I saw some figures a while back that showed that it costs more to keep our Royal Family than they generate in income from tourism.

BatVink
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 10th Apr 2005 00:07 Edited at: 10th Apr 2005 00:08
Quote: "I would be interested to hear any arguments that attempt to justify the multi millions (billions?) of pounds in taxes that the royals soak up each year but I don't think it can be justified."


According to research reported in the Telegraph (remembering that the Telegraph is a right-wing newspaper), the Queen and the Royals cost each person the equivilent of 61p / year.

Assuming this figure is accurate, then I certainly could justify it, even if they provide nothing more than a sense of national identity. Having established that the cost is insignificant, the only real argument against their existence is one of politics.

Quote: "It could be argued that they bring tourism into the country but I believe that tourists would still come if there was no royalty. France seems to manage."


Countries are a little like businesses, they need a selling point. France doesn't have a royalty, but on the other hand it has a reputation for excellent weather, fine wine etc. Britain's tourist industry would of course still exist with or without the monarchy, the question is whether or not it would be as healthy? I can't say.


BlueGUI Windows Plugin
Pricey
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Feb 2003
Location:
Posted: 11th Apr 2005 05:09
Excuse me if this has already been stated but the Queen is the head of the Church of England and the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church and that MAY have something to do with it. Not sure but our Royal protocol is full of technicalities like that.

:: 1.8 gHZ AMD Duron :: 256 MB Ram :: 32 MB SiS Graphics ::

:: Current Project: Sea Bound ::
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 11th Apr 2005 05:30
I believe that the Pope's funeral was attended by many people who practise other faiths, so I'm not sure if it is directly related to that, but it is quite possible.


BlueGUI Windows Plugin
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 11th Apr 2005 07:00
The Church of England is a Catholic church. The funeral, as well as being Roman Catholic, contained Catholic elements for inclusion.

You're right, Rob, there were Jews, Muslims and many more faiths present.

BatVink

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-27 07:39:19
Your offset time is: 2024-11-27 07:39:19