|
Post by jojo on Sept 12, 2022 17:03:57 GMT
That's fair sph. And whilst some of these traditions were overly convoluted to underline the process and people wore what are now silly outfits so make it easier to know who they were and what role they played, or because these are legal issues and legal issues are full of pedantic, archaic language, there's also an element of 'they didn't have tv in those days' about it.
It would be good to review these ceremonies and streamline them a bit, and review whether they could be briefer. Could they keep the general vibe with fewer people. I'm not suggesting utilitarian boiler suits, but you don't necessarily need that much fur, frills and stockings to let people know it's a special occasion.
|
|
858 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Sept 12, 2022 17:55:00 GMT
King Charles has had three costume changes today so far, and he'll probably have to get back in uniform this evening again. Good business for dry cleaners.
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Sept 12, 2022 21:13:38 GMT
and people wore what are now silly outfits so make it easier to know who they were and what role they played When I saw the play 'King Charles III' in the US and Charles entered Parliament in full uniform, the US audience giggled. You'd think that would be familiar enough from photos/tv that they wouldn't think it was meant to look ridiculous, but apparently they did. (And the play wasn't exactly a laugh riot, so it's not like we'd been groomed for punchlines.)
|
|
4,028 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 14, 2022 5:23:59 GMT
There’s tradition and tradition, though. Much of the spectacle of monarchy are traditions going back centuries. However, Meghan has been widely slammed for not following “traditions” invented by Diana which are at most 40 years old. A ‘tradition’ = anything done twice. A great many traditions are petty and trivial - there’s no good reason to do the traditional thing, beyond it having been done that way before. It doesn’t matter in the vast majority of cases, of course, but it does when people continue traditions that are harmful. Granting a tradition more importance than the well-being of actual human beings is inherently harmful.
|
|
4,028 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 14, 2022 5:27:25 GMT
Some people just Do Not Like change of any form. They regard the Royal Family and its pettiest, most inconsequential traditions, customs and ceremonies as signs of stability and continuity, and they have some kind of weird psychological need for that. There's nothing even slightly weird about wanting stability and continuity. There are literally hundreds of psychological studies which say that those are beneficial human needs and none saying the opposite. Making what someone totally unrelated to you who you have never met decides to do for their summer holiday one of your barometers of stability is deeply weird.
|
|
1,845 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Sept 14, 2022 6:34:33 GMT
Stability is not fundamentally personal, we expect things to change in our relationships but expect the foundations of our lives to remain stable.
We know we could come home but be surprised by our nearest and dearest but do expect the house to be still there.
The Royal Family is deeply engrained in the British psyche, it is a constant, further amplified by the longevity of the Queen’s reign, if we were to ask a 100 people what fundamentally defined being British the Royal Family would be high on the list and this has been defined by the Queen for most people.
I was surprised by the immediate impact, not for my love of the monarchy but the change this will entail, we are beginning to see its impact on the Commonwealth, as the Queen’s reign was the end of Empire, Charles’ reign will likely become the end of the Commonwealth.
As Brexit was fundamentally a reaction to the diminishing influence of Britain this will be a further shock as we have to settle into being the Country we are, not the Country we were, whilst the Queen was alive we had a link with our past and future and we now only have the future.
Personally is the death of the Queen going to impact my immediate stability, no, is the death of the Queen going to impact the stability of this island we live on this is unequivocally yes, it may be benign but this is not the same Britain as a week ago.
|
|
1,222 posts
|
Post by mkb on Sept 14, 2022 7:28:10 GMT
Some people just Do Not Like change of any form. They regard the Royal Family and its pettiest, most inconsequential traditions, customs and ceremonies as signs of stability and continuity, and they have some kind of weird psychological need for that. There's nothing even slightly weird about wanting stability and continuity. There are literally hundreds of psychological studies which say that those are beneficial human needs and none saying the opposite. The "stability and continuity" of positive aspects of life is beneficial psychologically, but continuity of negative aspects is not. Whether a tradition should be continued should be judged on its merits, not simply by the fact that it has been going on for some time.
|
|
858 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Sept 14, 2022 8:00:50 GMT
Not a lot of stability at Clarence House. Up to 100 staff were told they might be made redundant on Monday while the King was at the memorial service in Edinburgh. So much for caring sharing Royals!
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Sept 14, 2022 8:30:44 GMT
Given that countries are still joining the Commonwealth, I see no reason for it to come to an end imminently. Countries might move away from having a monarch, but there are economic and cultural benefits that are worth preserving or acquiring.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Sept 14, 2022 8:36:09 GMT
And as for the possibility of redundancies, the timing is a little insensitive but that sort of change is inevitable.
Clarence House will no longer be a site of major royal activity. The new Prince of Wales will be based in Windsor not London and so the new team will be based there.
And with the Royal Household seeking a more streamlined approach, not running duplicate establishments for the King is the right move.
Some of the Clarence House staff may move with Charles, some may transfer to Windsor.
At least this isn't like some ancient dynasties rulers where close servants were killed to help serve the dead ruler in the afterlife.
|
|
|
Post by vickyg on Sept 14, 2022 8:41:23 GMT
Not a lot of stability at Clarence House. Up to 100 staff were told they might be made redundant on Monday while the King was at the memorial service in Edinburgh. So much for caring sharing Royals! I'm surprised this is getting any air time whatsoever. Clarence House is no more. Why would they continue to employ hundreds of staff when two sprightly 70 somethings will need far less support than one/two people in their mid and late 90s. Surely this would have been well understood by the staff involved.
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Sept 14, 2022 10:33:29 GMT
It seems employers have a legal obligation to tell staff of the possibility of redundancy as soon as they become aware of this. This will be one of those damned if they do and damned if they don't situations, although safe to say that most staff would have been aware that changes were inevitable. It's expected that many staff will be redeployed, but we have one less senior royal and one less royal household to manage. Hopefully some will be ready to move on or retire, and perhaps some of what were in theory the Queen's staff were already working with Charles as he took over more of her duties, so this was already a work in progress.
The question of timing is an interesting one and people will have different views. Is it better to have maximum possible notice so you can plan your life, or is it better to let people stay happily ignorant for as long as possible? This happens whenever a large company announces possible or actual redundancies before Christmas. Yes, it might 'ruin' Christmas if you know you are about to lose your job, but is that really worse than letting people spend more than they should or need to in that period?
There's a case to be said that they didn't need to say it out loud just yet as most staff would have realised that change was afoot and that would include some redundancies, but you can be sure it would be held against them at some point.
People say they like the idea of a slimmed down royal family and want them to cut costs. What did they think would happen?
I do feel sorry for those involved. Everything must be a big shock for them, and I don't blame them if they are upset, but the media commentators misreporting an organisation correctly following employment law to generate outrage and clicks are not the good guys here.
|
|
6,230 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Sept 14, 2022 12:58:33 GMT
TBH The staff must have known that it was always going to happen sometime given the Queen was in poor health but also in her 90s.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2022 23:39:30 GMT
King Charles and his pen preferences has me fixed on my own writing instruments this week.
|
|
4,567 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Sept 15, 2022 9:50:52 GMT
Meanwhile in Scandinavia a Royal does not look fusty and saves some money.
Happy Coat ❤️
://orderofsplendor.blogspot.com/2017/07/royal-outfit-of-day-queen-margrethe-and.html?m=1
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Sept 16, 2022 10:23:25 GMT
I'm not sure whether it was on this thread or the other that I said I loved Queen Daisy, and things like that coat are why! See also her going on a rollercoaster (complete with hat and diamond brooch) for her Golden Jubilee.
|
|
|
Post by ronnette on Sept 16, 2022 19:48:53 GMT
Not a lot of stability at Clarence House. Up to 100 staff were told they might be made redundant on Monday while the King was at the memorial service in Edinburgh. So much for caring sharing Royals! This annoys me. Do some research. Staff at Clarence House have known for years and years that upon accession to the throne by Charles, their roles are no longer viable. It’s not like they’ve suddenly been chucked out whilst he’s having a jolly mourning the death of his mother. Grrr.
|
|
4,567 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Sept 16, 2022 20:01:15 GMT
100% staff. How many people does he and Camilla need ?
|
|
892 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Sept 17, 2022 4:02:46 GMT
Well that toothpaste doesn't make it onto the toothbrush on its own you know.
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Sept 17, 2022 6:48:40 GMT
Well that toothpaste doesn't make it onto the toothbrush on its own you know. Do you have a source for this?
|
|
892 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Sept 17, 2022 9:14:16 GMT
Well that toothpaste doesn't make it onto the toothbrush on its own you know. Do you have a source for this? I think originally Paul Burrell said it in a documentary years ago, you see it mentioned in lots of profiles and books about Charles/the Royals
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Sept 17, 2022 15:32:45 GMT
Quite a lot of background noise from republicans who want an elected head of state. They haven’t really thought it through because it would be either Jeremy Corbyn or Boris Johnson and each of those would be unacceptable to 50% of voters. Are there any countries where the head of state is elected by popular vote ? Apart from USA obviously which isn’t a positive example. France I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Sept 17, 2022 20:31:24 GMT
Again I'm asking a uninformed question, but how would abolishing the monarchy actually change the political process in the UK?* Wouldn't there have to be other changes in the process... and could those same changes not be implemented without abolishing the monarchy?
*I know the PM is technically asked by the monarch to form a government on their behalf. Is that enshrined in some document so that it couldn't easily be amended?
|
|
2,203 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Sept 17, 2022 20:45:50 GMT
Quite a lot of background noise from republicans who want an elected head of state. They haven’t really thought it through because it would be either Jeremy Corbyn or Boris Johnson and each of those would be unacceptable to 50% of voters. Are there any countries where the head of state is elected by popular vote ? Apart from USA obviously which isn’t a positive example. France I suppose. I think your 50% is about 20% light. Still, must be worth a shout we could have had David Attenborough as our head of state for the last forty years. To be followed by Stephen Fry
|
|
|
Post by originalconceptlive on Sept 17, 2022 21:36:22 GMT
|
|
2,257 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Sept 17, 2022 22:24:00 GMT
King Charles hardly seems to have had a moment to himself with the latest today visiting the Police HQ , then the queue and afterwards meeting several heads of state. Tomorrow holding the biggest gathering of dignatories at the Palace the day before the funeral.
|
|
2,786 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Oct 4, 2022 7:55:43 GMT
|
|
4,028 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 4, 2022 9:44:34 GMT
Gosh there’s some rictus grins going on there - unsurprisingly as it was the night before the funeral. Smile!!
Couldn’t they have waited a bit to find an occasion for a photo where they’d actually want to smile?
|
|
4,567 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Oct 4, 2022 10:09:35 GMT
Who poses for pictures the night before your Mother's/ Grans etc funeral ?
|
|
5,571 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 4, 2022 14:29:57 GMT
Quite a lot of background noise from republicans who want an elected head of state. They haven’t really thought it through because it would be either Jeremy Corbyn or Boris Johnson and each of those would be unacceptable to 50% of voters. Are there any countries where the head of state is elected by popular vote ? Apart from USA obviously which isn’t a positive example. France I suppose. I think your 50% is about 20% light. Still, must be worth a shout we could have had David Attenborough as our head of state for the last forty years. To be followed by Stephen Fry I think you can have an elected head of state who isn't the Prime Minister. Different system. But why bother? You’d still have to provide housing and a bit of pomp. Might as well keep with what we’ve got. Personally I think that the best thing they could do for their children, Will and Kate that is, is pull back a lot, lose the houses, the clothes allowance and the deference. Let little George breathe.
|
|