The Queen has passed away

[Lako42]

6 minutes ago, Nalis said:

It's funny how death can bring people closer together, like William and Harry.

 

My mum's siblings have definitely been closer in the years after my nan died.

The opposite for me.

 

Family turned toxic and selfish the minute my nan passed 

[Super_horns]

31 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Well, the staff have been told that some of their jobs will no longer exist and there will be consultations about what happens next.  As you would have been aware if you had read the article, which the headline writer obviously didn't.  No redundancy notices have been issued, no P45s have been issued, all they have been told is that the jobs of people working for Charles, Prince of Wales at Clarence House will not necessarily exists now that Charles, Prince of Wales no longer exists in that form, and Clarence House is being closed.

 

I wonder why a church service over 500 miles away was considered relevant to the article?

Sorry my bad .

 

Yes did only see the headline on another site .

 

So Prince William will be Prince of Wales but reside somewhere else - maybe due to the fact he has 3 kids to fit in somewhere ?

Edited 14 September 2022 by Super_horns

[Daggers]

Oh my days, this just keeps getting better 

 

 

[Izzy]

2 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Oh my days, this just keeps getting better 

 

 

 

[Daggers]

 

 

[HybridFox]

Lovely words from Obama on their state visits

[inckley fox]

23 hours ago, st albans fox said:

They don’t have to remain silent but they also are not obliged to start shouting or singing 

 

they should respect the right of those who want to show their respects by refraining during that 2 mins.  After the period of quiet/silence, they can shout and sing what they want (as long as it isn’t inciting violence which is against the law) 

 

to me, it’s about showing respect to their fellow citizens. 

I agree with you, but in the interests of free speech there has to be a difference between what people 'should' do and what they 'must' do. If you choose not to observe, as an example, a minute of silence in public or at an event for which a minute's silence isn't integral (e.g. a public parade, football match etc.), then that's a case of something you shouldn't have done, rather than something you can prohibit.

 

I would never agree with someone who ruins everyone else's experience of a tribute and (with regard to what another poster said about 'informal social policing') I wouldn't be alone in telling them what I thought. That person, if it was generally held that we should be abiding by a different norm, would be subjected to a miserable afternoon after making their stand. Unless it was Prince Andrew they were yelling at, of course! (No, I know he's not a convicted sex pest... but neither was Jimmy Savile. Informal social policing therefore also extends to other people, like Andrew, whose behaviour didn't carry a criminal penalty, but which people consider to be inappropriate).

 

But in a free country, you really can't insist on people falling into line. I don't like a lot of things people say, but they have the right nonetheless. If someone says something which might get them a punch in the face, you have to allow them to say it. You arrest the person who hits them. If someone says something abhorrent then, unless it's slanderous or persistent harassment (another can of worms, of course...), you have the right to respond and put them in their place that way. Regardless of laws which may exist that infringe on the right to free speech, this is nonetheless part of the nature of what it is, and the risks you take when you exercise it.

 

When you ask spectators at a football match to maintain silence you're asking for a favour from a section of the crowd. You're saying 'look, you've not come here for this reason, and you might not agree with it, but out of respect for others would you please allow them their tribute'. So I'd argue that the notion of a minute's silence probably isn't the wisest form of tribute, because there are plenty of people out there who are within their rights to be - if you like - 'disrespectful' at that time. In other words, if a minute's silence isn't observed because of a few 'morons', all it means is that as a whole, that form of tribute wasn't agreed upon unanimously, and (seeing as it requires unanimity) was inappropriate.

 

Equally, if you think a procession or parade in public is appropriate for the person, then that also depends on the people who attend being in agreement.  When, say, David Bowie died I would have been fully in favour of the whole world solemnly prancing around to 'Ziggy Stardust' at 5:15pm, but it would have been a crap tribute, because it wouldn't have happened and I couldn't possibly impose it. (Except for in my house, of course.)

[Raj]

@Daggers is ripping this thread!!!🤣🤣🤭

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

Oh my days, this just keeps getting better 

 

 

I imagine its to do with insurance

 

people riding bikes and a lack staff onsite ???

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, Super_horns said:

 

Seems someone in the King Charles camp has been handing out some P45s since the passing of the Queen. 

 

Very ruthless. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/king-charles-staff-given-redundancy-notice-during-church-service-for-queen

i believe that the reason for these letters being sent out so swiftly is employment law.  waiting another week could lead to claims from employees who are eventually made redundant  

 

two sides to every story 

[StanSP]

 

[Alf Bentley]

King Charles III is already more than halfway to avoiding the unwanted title of "The Derby County of Monarchs".

Provided he doesn't die or get deposed before Sunday, he'll have out-reigned Bradgate Park's very own Lady Jane Grey (9 days).

 

If, as likely, he makes it through to Christmas, he'll also have left Edward "Prince in the Tower" V in his wake.

By next summer, he'll be able to cross off Harold "Arrow in the Eye" II, Edward "Hitler Botherer" VIII and Edmund "Ironside" II......."Ironside" and you lasted 5 months?! Edmund Made-Of-Glass would've been more accurate, mate!

 

That should be good for Charles's confidence. I can only see him picking up steam from there - and scorching past the likes of Harthacnut (2 years? Considerably less than half a Cnut, really, weren't you?), Richard "Tricky Dicky" III, James "Fenian" II, Edward "Boy" VI, Mary "Bloody" I, William "Hello Sailor" IV, Edward "Playboy" VII and George "Morbidly Obese" IV, none of whom lasted beyond a decade.

 

There's even a chance that he might not be the shortest-reigning King Charles. Charles I reigned for 24 years before (literally) getting the chop, so if our boy can manage a year older than his mother, that's another one for him to chalk off.

 

Barring astonishing developments in the biosciences, though, he surely cannot hope to beat his mother's record? To live to age 144 is too much to ask, even for a royal....

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, Daggers said:

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise.

 

In my defence, some are born strange, some achieve strangeness, and some have strangeness thrust upon them. All three in my case.

You might be strange but you are our strange.

[urban.spaceman]

This must be tough for William and especially Harry. Just over a week since the 25th anniversary of when they did this for their mother. 

[Alf Bentley]

They're not going to bury that crown with her, are they? That would be a waste of good jewellery.

[AKCJ]

Doesn't Center Parcs take bookings either from Friday to Monday or Monday to Friday?

 

So the vast majority of people will be leaving on the Monday morning either way.

[st albans fox]

15 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Doesn't Center Parcs take bookings either from Friday to Monday or Monday to Friday?

 

So the vast majority of people will be leaving on the Monday morning either way.

If there aren’t any staff around on Monday morning then everyone leaving Monday morning will have to check out Sunday evening …. 
 

I reckon they will have to ask for volunteers to work - no choice 

[Daggers]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

I imagine its to do with insurance

 

people riding bikes and a lack staff onsite ???

I'm unaware of Center Parcs.

 

I know it exists, it's just I've always assumed it was some kind of centre for wife swapping or Carry On Nudism. It's a mental image I plan on keeping as it always tickles me when someone I know says they're going.

[st albans fox]

12 minutes ago, Daggers said:

I'm unaware of Center Parcs.

 

I know it exists, it's just I've always assumed it was some kind of centre for wife swapping or Carry On Nudism. It's a mental image I plan on keeping as it always tickles me when someone I know says they're going.

That’s exactly what it is mate …..

 

you should book ….

[RowlattsFox]

50 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Doesn't Center Parcs take bookings either from Friday to Monday or Monday to Friday?

 

So the vast majority of people will be leaving on the Monday morning either way.

You can do Friday to Friday I believe. Would need a bit of money to do that though 

[AKCJ]

51 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

If there aren’t any staff around on Monday morning then everyone leaving Monday morning will have to check out Sunday evening …. 
 

I reckon they will have to ask for volunteers to work - no choice 

Pretty sure they're letting people check out on the Monday still.

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, inckley fox said:

I agree with you, but in the interests of free speech there has to be a difference between what people 'should' do and what they 'must' do. If you choose not to observe, as an example, a minute of silence in public or at an event for which a minute's silence isn't integral (e.g. a public parade, football match etc.), then that's a case of something you shouldn't have done, rather than something you can prohibit.

 

I would never agree with someone who ruins everyone else's experience of a tribute and (with regard to what another poster said about 'informal social policing') I wouldn't be alone in telling them what I thought. That person, if it was generally held that we should be abiding by a different norm, would be subjected to a miserable afternoon after making their stand. Unless it was Prince Andrew they were yelling at, of course! (No, I know he's not a convicted sex pest... but neither was Jimmy Savile. Informal social policing therefore also extends to other people, like Andrew, whose behaviour didn't carry a criminal penalty, but which people consider to be inappropriate).

 

But in a free country, you really can't insist on people falling into line. I don't like a lot of things people say, but they have the right nonetheless. If someone says something which might get them a punch in the face, you have to allow them to say it. You arrest the person who hits them. If someone says something abhorrent then, unless it's slanderous or persistent harassment (another can of worms, of course...), you have the right to respond and put them in their place that way. Regardless of laws which may exist that infringe on the right to free speech, this is nonetheless part of the nature of what it is, and the risks you take when you exercise it.

 

When you ask spectators at a football match to maintain silence you're asking for a favour from a section of the crowd. You're saying 'look, you've not come here for this reason, and you might not agree with it, but out of respect for others would you please allow them their tribute'. So I'd argue that the notion of a minute's silence probably isn't the wisest form of tribute, because there are plenty of people out there who are within their rights to be - if you like - 'disrespectful' at that time. In other words, if a minute's silence isn't observed because of a few 'morons', all it means is that as a whole, that form of tribute wasn't agreed upon unanimously, and (seeing as it requires unanimity) was inappropriate.

 

Equally, if you think a procession or parade in public is appropriate for the person, then that also depends on the people who attend being in agreement.  When, say, David Bowie died I would have been fully in favour of the whole world solemnly prancing around to 'Ziggy Stardust' at 5:15pm, but it would have been a crap tribute, because it wouldn't have happened and I couldn't possibly impose it. (Except for in my house, of course.)

You don't have the right to be abusive, and label it as free speech, if we did, you'd end up with really serious racial problems. And, to be perfectly honest, that young scotish bloke, whose probably sh**ed his fair share of 17 year olds anyway, was being fairly abusive

[RumbleFox]

7 hours ago, Izzy said:

It's for one day. One day to respect someone who reigned for 70 years.

 

Not sure what you mean by "lapping it up"? Maybe some people/businesses have gone too far, but by this time next week it'll all be over.

 

People getting their knickers in a twist about all this is no stranger than people queuing up to see a coffin IMHO

 

X

And what about the closing of food banks? And the fact it’s going to cost more than enough for the funeral to help ease the burden on those most in need at this time due to the cost of living crisis? 

[String fellow]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

They're not going to bury that crown with her, are they? That would be a waste of good jewellery.

Probably no jewellery but the coffin definitely contains a few quids-worth of lead!

I wonder how many of us have learnt a new word today - catafalque.

Edited 14 September 2022 by String fellow

[RumbleFox]

You know what. When I heard the news I did feel sad. She’s a human being with family and any death is tragic. But the more it’s gone on the more sick I feel about it all. The sheer COST of it all. The rolling tv. The forced mourning. The literal arresting of people who have simply stated the truth. The empire/rule Britannia/colonial bullshit. I’d never dance around and laugh at her death but the state of it all. Fvck me. People are going to die this winter, lots of people. With no fanfare. And the fact that we’ve no money to help them but millions to make sure all the billboards have the queens face on them, etc. it’s sickening.