Corporate power, lies about Leveson, and why the royals don’t deserve privacy

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/12/corporate-power-lies-about-leveson-and-why-royals-don%E2%80%99t-deserve-privacy



Corporate power, lies about Leveson, and why the royals don’t deserve privacy

Peter Wilby's First Thoughts.

Image
Kate and Gerry McCann. Photo: Getty

The newspapers’ response to the Leveson report illustrates perfectly what is wrong with them. Quoting Milton, Wilkes and the US founding fathers, they frame the story as an argument over freedom of the press and its role in protecting us from tyranny. What Leveson proposes, however, has no bearing on newspapers’ capacity to call power to account. His remedies are designed to limit the extent to which the press can harass, mock, insult, bully, threaten, intrude upon, lie about and generally ruin the lives of the weak and powerless, including not only the McCanns, the Dowlers, Christopher Jefferies, victims of terrorism, families of dead soldiers and so on, but also the relatives, employees and friends of those loosely described as celebrities.

The apposite quotation is not from Jefferson or Wilkes – who had no conception that the press existed to do anything other than annoy governments – but from the Chicago journalist F P Dunne: “The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” The British press today often does the reverse, training far more scrutiny on, for example, benefit claimants, asylum seekers and gypsies than it does on cheating corporations. It is an instrument of corporate power, and the citizenry needs protection from its excesses as well as from the government’s.

Newspaper executives say they don’t want government stooges going into newsrooms telling journalists what they can and cannot write. No, indeed. Journalists already have instructions from the stooges of Rupert Murdoch, Lord Rothermere, David and Frederick Barclay and Richard Desmond.

Explicit material

Not that Leveson proposes any role for a government stooge. His recommended legislation (his report says) “would not give any rights to parliament, to the government, or to any regulatory (or other) body to prevent newspapers from publishing any material whatsoever”. Nor would it require them to publish anything except corrections and apologies.

This is one of several misconceptions about the report deliberately propagated by newspapers. Leveson doesn’t want a quango; he wants a regulatory body set up by the press. Legislation would merely give it official recognition. This would allow publications that join it and thus participate in its arbitration procedures to apply for reduced legal costs when those who allege libel or invasion of privacy insist on going to court. As the former editor of two cashstrapped publications, I can assure you that the cheap arbitration provision will be of priceless value to small newspapers and magazines. On at least one occasion, I had to abandon a libel defence because legal costs became prohibitive. Such considerations are of little consequence to a Murdoch or Rothermere. A million in costs and another in damages is just a snip to them, comfortably outweighed by enhanced circulation revenues from their scandal-mongering.

Citizen Smith

Why has the press taken so calmly the news that the late Cyril Smith, a Liberal (and then Liberal Democrat) MP for 20 years, ought to have faced charges of child abuse? It is, if anything, a more scandalous case than Jimmy Savile’s. Smith was a significant political figure who chaired Rochdale’s education committee for six years and later became Liberal chief whip when Labour governed with an overall majority of three.

We are told the director of public prosecutions decided in March 1970 that allegations of assaults between 1961 and 1966 were “somewhat stale” and based on statements from young men whose “characters . . . render their evidence suspect”. But Tony Robinson, a retired Lancashire special branch sergeant, tells me that he recalls “NFA: not in the public interest” being on the front of the file when he saw it in 1974. Moreover, he says he received a telephone call from MI5 in 1977 (when the Liberals made a pact with Labour to keep the latter in power) asking for the file to be sent immediately to London. He never saw it again.

How did a criminal case find its way into special branch files? Why did MI5 want Smith’s file? To ensure that it stayed secret? Or to use it as a blackmail weapon? The fearless reporters of our still-free (but not, we are warned, for long) newspapers should strain every sinew to find answers. But there is no BBC angle. So they won’t.

Fertility rights

As I expected, the first child of Mr and Mrs William Windsor, who married in 2011, will arrive in 2013. The pregnancy announcement (advanced because severe morning sickness required hospitalisation) was probably scheduled for the Queen’s Christmas broadcast or New Year’s Day. Thus the young royals avoided overshadowing this year’s jubilee. They will also wish to avoid upstaging the monarch’s 90th birthday in 2016. Expect Harry Windsor to marry in 2014, and a second child for William and Kate in 2015. Even fertility is organised according to the family’s public relations requirements. That is why royals are not entitled to privacy and, whatever else it does, legislation on the press should specifically bar them from protection.

"That is why royals are not entitled to privacy and, whatever else it does, legislation on the press should specifically bar them from protection"

I think he is wrong, the Royals are entitled to privacy the same as any Citizen and when it comes to the press taking photos of Kate when she was sunbathing topless in a Private garden is well out of order.

Panda wrote:"That is why royals are not entitled to privacy and, whatever else it does, legislation on the press should specifically bar them from protection"

I think he is wrong, the Royals are entitled to privacy the same as any Citizen and when it comes to the press taking photos of Kate when she was sunbathing topless in a Private garden is well out of order.

Yeah, I can't quite see the logic behind that one, either?

Panda wrote:"That is why royals are not entitled to privacy and, whatever else it does, legislation on the press should specifically bar them from protection"

I think he is wrong, the Royals are entitled to privacy the same as any Citizen and when it comes to the press taking photos of Kate when she was sunbathing topless in a Private garden is well out of order.

The royals are not like any other citizen. For a start, as a citizen, I am not supported by the state from taxpayers money. As for Kate's photos, she will probably have learned not to sunbathe on a balcony like that. If the press could take photos of her it means that she was in plain view not just to them but to the public.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Panda wrote:"That is why royals are not entitled to privacy and, whatever else it does, legislation on the press should specifically bar them from protection"

I think he is wrong, the Royals are entitled to privacy the same as any Citizen and when it comes to the press taking photos of Kate when she was sunbathing topless in a Private garden is well out of order.

The royals are not like any other citizen. For a start, as a citizen, I am not supported by the state from taxpayers money. As for Kate's photos, she will probably have learned not to sunbathe on a balcony like that. If the press could take photos of her it means that she was in plain view not just to them but to the public.

it wasn't a BALCONY AnnaEsse, it was a secluded garden of a private House well away from the public. As for the Queen , she deserves every Penny she gets, which does not cover the full cost of Palace expenditure. The Royal Family, Palaces, Castles , Tower of London to see the Crown Jewels, Trooping the Colour are immeasurable for making Britain a Tourist earner. All around the World the Queen and now William and Kate are very popular , imagine what a dull place Britain would be if it was a Republic.

Panda wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Panda wrote:"That is why royals are not entitled to privacy and, whatever else it does, legislation on the press should specifically bar them from protection"

I think he is wrong, the Royals are entitled to privacy the same as any Citizen and when it comes to the press taking photos of Kate when she was sunbathing topless in a Private garden is well out of order.

The royals are not like any other citizen. For a start, as a citizen, I am not supported by the state from taxpayers money. As for Kate's photos, she will probably have learned not to sunbathe on a balcony like that. If the press could take photos of her it means that she was in plain view not just to them but to the public.

it wasn't a BALCONY AnnaEsse, it was a secluded garden of a private House well away from the public. As for the Queen , she deserves every Penny she gets, which does not cover the full cost of Palace expenditure. The Royal Family, Palaces, Castles , Tower of London to see the Crown Jewels, Trooping the Colour are immeasurable for making Britain a Tourist earner. All around the World the Queen and now William and Kate are very popular , imagine what a dull place Britain would be if it was a Republic.

A dull place? The royals have no presence in my day-to-day life. As for the full cost of all those palaces, are we to imagine that the royals accumulated their wealth through the sweat of their brows?

I've looked again at those photos of Kate and it does look like a balcony because she's right behind railings. I won't copy any of the photos here but they're on Google images.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Panda wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Panda wrote:"That is why royals are not entitled to privacy and, whatever else it does, legislation on the press should specifically bar them from protection"

I think he is wrong, the Royals are entitled to privacy the same as any Citizen and when it comes to the press taking photos of Kate when she was sunbathing topless in a Private garden is well out of order.

The royals are not like any other citizen. For a start, as a citizen, I am not supported by the state from taxpayers money. As for Kate's photos, she will probably have learned not to sunbathe on a balcony like that. If the press could take photos of her it means that she was in plain view not just to them but to the public.

it wasn't a BALCONY AnnaEsse, it was a secluded garden of a private House well away from the public. As for the Queen , she deserves every Penny she gets, which does not cover the full cost of Palace expenditure. The Royal Family, Palaces, Castles , Tower of London to see the Crown Jewels, Trooping the Colour are immeasurable for making Britain a Tourist earner. All around the World the Queen and now William and Kate are very popular , imagine what a dull place Britain would be if it was a Republic.

A dull place? The royals have no presence in my day-to-day life. As for the full cost of all those palaces, are we to imagine that the royals accumulated their wealth through the sweat of their brows?

I've looked again at those photos of Kate and it does look like a balcony because she's right behind railings. I won't copy any of the photos here but they're on Google images.

well said Anna

dutchclogs wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Panda wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Panda wrote:"That is why royals are not entitled to privacy and, whatever else it does, legislation on the press should specifically bar them from protection"

I think he is wrong, the Royals are entitled to privacy the same as any Citizen and when it comes to the press taking photos of Kate when she was sunbathing topless in a Private garden is well out of order.

The royals are not like any other citizen. For a start, as a citizen, I am not supported by the state from taxpayers money. As for Kate's photos, she will probably have learned not to sunbathe on a balcony like that. If the press could take photos of her it means that she was in plain view not just to them but to the public.

it wasn't a BALCONY AnnaEsse, it was a secluded garden of a private House well away from the public. As for the Queen , she deserves every Penny she gets, which does not cover the full cost of Palace expenditure. The Royal Family, Palaces, Castles , Tower of London to see the Crown Jewels, Trooping the Colour are immeasurable for making Britain a Tourist earner. All around the World the Queen and now William and Kate are very popular , imagine what a dull place Britain would be if it was a Republic.

A dull place? The royals have no presence in my day-to-day life. As for the full cost of all those palaces, are we to imagine that the royals accumulated their wealth through the sweat of their brows?

I've looked again at those photos of Kate and it does look like a balcony because she's right behind railings. I won't copy any of the photos here but they're on Google images.

well said Anna

Thank you. Saw a good video on YouTube, which I'll try to find later. The part that stuck in my mind was images of William and Harry as young lads out hunting with guns and dogs, bagging dozens of birds and also deer, their bodies lying on the ground like trophies. Apparently, their mother Diana told them to keep their shooting quiet because the public would not like them "killing Bambi." The royals acquired land and property through the slave labour of serfs, theft, corruption and alliances with all sorts of undesirables.

AnnaEsse wrote:

dutchclogs wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Panda wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

The royals are not like any other citizen. For a start, as a citizen, I am not supported by the state from taxpayers money. As for Kate's photos, she will probably have learned not to sunbathe on a balcony like that. If the press could take photos of her it means that she was in plain view not just to them but to the public.

it wasn't a BALCONY AnnaEsse, it was a secluded garden of a private House well away from the public. As for the Queen , she deserves every Penny she gets, which does not cover the full cost of Palace expenditure. The Royal Family, Palaces, Castles , Tower of London to see the Crown Jewels, Trooping the Colour are immeasurable for making Britain a Tourist earner. All around the World the Queen and now William and Kate are very popular , imagine what a dull place Britain would be if it was a Republic.

A dull place? The royals have no presence in my day-to-day life. As for the full cost of all those palaces, are we to imagine that the royals accumulated their wealth through the sweat of their brows?

I've looked again at those photos of Kate and it does look like a balcony because she's right behind railings. I won't copy any of the photos here but they're on Google images.

well said Anna

Thank you. Saw a good video on YouTube, which I'll try to find later. The part that stuck in my mind was images of William and Harry as young lads out hunting with guns and dogs, bagging dozens of birds and also deer, their bodies lying on the ground like trophies. Apparently, their mother Diana told them to keep their shooting quiet because the public would not like them "killing Bambi." The royals acquired land and property through the slave labour of serfs, theft, corruption and alliances with all sorts of undesirables.

I HATE that so called SPORT HUNTING and them royals just love it Anna

Umph, I believe British royalty always had problems with expenses, starting with King John who didn't have enough money to pay his soldiers due to the first major inflation during the 13th C.

I think having a king or queen is good for a country, simply because they're not elected. Nobody to blame if they turn out a bit weird. Considering the amount of manipulation by people in power - press and finances as well as 'old boy networks' , the alternative to royalty is to have a president. Elections can be rigged in all sorts of ways.
Can you imagine Blair for president?

Parliament and the PM have some power in keeping royals in check as seen by the abdication of Edward VIIIth. He would have been a dreadful king, I think the queen does a very good job. She is an extremely frugal lady, I remember reading that Edward was over the moon when she allowed him to buy a pair of jeans on one occasion.

Point I'm trying to make is that having a royal house that goes back centuries gives a certain stability to the image of the country as a whole. Point in case is e.g. Belgium, which is a constructed country with a constructed royal house. It didn't and doesn't work.
Whereas the French magazines are full of foreign royalty - seemingly they miss this aspect of government after having over a millenium of kings.

Blair and others of his ilk, the great manipulators, would have had no trouble to be elected president of Great Britain.
Cherie who invented human rights for all but the native Britons, could have been First Lady. Can also imagine the hangers-on? The whole thing would be royalty in all but name by a bunch of money-grabbing politicians.
No thanks! The royals are not ideal, the state should not support too many royals but I'd rather live in a monarchy than a Blair-type media-run dictatorship.

Personally, I think that William had a personality by-pass, Kate wears the wrong eye make up, Harry should live off his income and Dad can always support him and Edward, ghastly Andrew et al should all be demoted. That would clean the place up no end.
At least Charles has an interest in the country, he has quietly restored old buildings which would otherwise have fallen down, promoted ecological matters and apparently passed his opinions on to whatever government is in power. It seems that' he's not allowed to do that according to the media. All they tend to print is essential information on his toothpaste use and how he likes his eggs cooked.

I dislike hunting - especially fox hunting - as well, a pheasant shoot is so simple that it's impossible to miss so it's a farce imo. Ordinary hunting I don't mind, shooting a rabbit for the pot, a pheasant (beats me why they have shoots, I was forever picking them up from the road) .But when I eat a chicken, I am complicit in mass slaughter and rather unpleasant lifestyles for the chicken concerned. It's done well out of sight and sound of the consumer. I eat free range, but the complicity still applies.
So as long as the object of the 'hunt' is to eat the creatures you shoot, it's not immoral imo.
Venison: it is essential to cull the herds and shooting them in the wild is the best way to do this. It is the least distressing for the herd. Same with wild boar.
Eating meat from the hunt is imo the normal way to be a carnivore.
Fox hunting is the most unsporting kind of hunt there can be. Stopping up the earths, ghastly dogs which are kept in kennels all the time, didn't Oscar Wilde say that it was the 'unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable'?

I too do not like foxhunting tigger, but I am convinced the Queen, Prince Charles and Princess Anne earn their keep and.

The revenue from Tourism pays for their "keep" and for all the glamour of living in a Palace , the Royal Family has no real privacy . Prince Charles started the Prince's Trust many years ago , a great idea to give financial support for young people to start a Business, Anna is President of the Save the Children Fund so they are not exactly layabouts. I felt a pride to be British through the Royal Family and how they are so popular around the world and loved the Jubilee Celebrations, the humour of the Queen to go along with the James Bond spoof. I'm probably in the minority here but everyone is entitled to an opinion but William and Kate are also great Ambassadors for Britain and so give me a Monarchy any day.

Panda wrote:I too do not like foxhunting tigger, but I am convinced the Queen, Prince Charles and Princess Anne earn their keep and.

The revenue from Tourism pays for their "keep" and for all the glamour of living in a Palace , the Royal Family has no real privacy . Prince Charles started the Prince's Trust many years ago , a great idea to give financial support for young people to start a Business, Anna is President of the Save the Children Fund so they are not exactly layabouts. I felt a pride to be British through the Royal Family and how they are so popular around the world and loved the Jubilee Celebrations, the humour of the Queen to go along with the James Bond spoof. I'm probably in the minority here but everyone is entitled to an opinion but William and Kate are also great Ambassadors for Britain and so give me a Monarchy any day.

I don't know how the British people fell for the story that William and Kate just happened to meet accidentally at university. A man who used to work for, let's say a government department, suggested to me that the royals don't have these spontaneous moments. The royal family needed to redeem itself with various scandals hanging over them and it was important for William to be seen to be bringing a 'commoner,' into the fold. Don't know what Kate's father did for a living, but her mother worked as a flight attendant before starting their party business. They managed to send 2 girls to an exclusive school that cost £30,000 a year and also educate their son privately? Since their marriage, it's been mostly William and Kate in the news and the image of the royals has been much enhanced by the saga of the in love young couple. Scandals forgotten. William married a commoner, whose great great something or other had been a coal miner. Now we've got the royal baby for the next 8 months and beyond. It all takes the attention away from whatever else the royals have been doing or not doing.

`Deserves` is an odd concept really. I suppose if someone deserves something it means they are entitled through merit, through hard work, achievement etc. (Contrary to this it can be deserving of punishment). So it comes down to a moral issue of whether we think, just because someone is born or marries into a privileged family, they automatically deserve something. IMO the answer is No.

In law, we are all supposed to be entitled to privacy, but even that depends on certain things. If one courts and uses the press and public to further ones own ends, then those rights diminish IMO.

There is a small part of me that is fascinated by pomp and ceremony, but when it comes down to it, its really only because I like watching the horses; the actually ethos of the whole carnival sickens me. It makes me shudder to see people holding royalty in high regard, its just hysteria. Maybe the present Queen has good qualities but so do lots of people. With most royal families, their position and wealth has been obtained through the suffering and killing of probably billions of people, through land grab, theft of opposing religions` wealth, slavery, surfdom, mining, rape of lands and peoples - so what is there to be proud of in that? And why would anyone want to be called a `subject` of people like that?


http://popreflection.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/stupid-things-people-do-celebrate-the-queens-diamond-jubilee-and-thus-the-british-crown/

Inappropriate?
It is the Queen’s Diamond jubilee and the Brits are so serious about this shit that they have actually turned it into a national holiday. Across the country, Britons celebrated with street parties and days off work. On Sunday, her “Majesty” attended a luncheon and traveled down the Thames river on a barge. The British flag, the Union Jack, fluttered from buildings, shops and train stations across the country and with a crowd of rain-soaked spectators estimated by organizers at 1.25 million cheering from the riverbanks, the pageant was the largest public event in four days of celebrations of the monarch’s 60 years on the throne.

Don't say you didn't enjoy any of it.!!!! History shows us that the Portugese, Spanish and English explored the world and yes they did exploit the indigenous population but we today can't nor shouldn't feel responsible for what happened Centuries ago. I love the pageantry, Trooping the colour, Royal Weddings , the Queen's Coronation etc and think the Queen does a good job. I don't envy her, do you????

Oldartform wrote:`Deserves` is an odd concept really. I suppose if someone deserves something it means they are entitled through merit, through hard work, achievement etc. (Contrary to this it can be deserving of punishment). So it comes down to a moral issue of whether we think, just because someone is born or marries into a privileged family, they automatically deserve something. IMO the answer is No.

In law, we are all supposed to be entitled to privacy, but even that depends on certain things. If one courts and uses the press and public to further ones own ends, then those rights diminish IMO.

There is a small part of me that is fascinated by pomp and ceremony, but when it comes down to it, its really only because I like watching the horses; the actually ethos of the whole carnival sickens me. It makes me shudder to see people holding royalty in high regard, its just hysteria. Maybe the present Queen has good qualities but so do lots of people. With most royal families, their position and wealth has been obtained through the suffering and killing of probably billions of people, through land grab, theft of opposing religions` wealth, slavery, surfdom, mining, rape of lands and peoples - so what is there to be proud of in that? And why would anyone want to be called a `subject` of people like that?


http://popreflection.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/stupid-things-people-do-celebrate-the-queens-diamond-jubilee-and-thus-the-british-crown/

I totally agree with your views, Oldartform

Would those who dont like the 'Royals' like to advise on what they should do with themselves now ?

I do happen to think there are too many on the Royal list but i also think that they are A) are entitled to some privacy and B) didnt ask to be Royals in the first place,they were just born that way.

The Queen works very hard and will die before She retires some of the lesser ones do work to a fashion most of the others i am fairly indifferent to but tolerate on the basis of their curiosity value.

The cost of maintaining the Royals is a fraction of the cost of maintaining the House of Lords and the House of Commons which are both grossly over staffed 'per capita' if you compare our population to that ,say of the US.

Value for money the Royals come out of that equation pretty well.

And i agree with tigger,having an unelected 'governer' is not a bad thing constitutionaly.

I resent being a 'subject' of anyone - good or bad.

It's about time we got rid of archaic terms like that.
Take for example 'His Royal Highness' or 'Her Majesty'. These titles are used unthinkingly.
But when one rolls them around one's tongue a little, how ridiculous and pompous they seem.
'High' and 'Majestic' - in a pig's ear they are!

I can remember my late mother ranting about all the bowing and scraping.
If any of that family expect me to curtsey to them, they'll have a ruddy long wait (and not because of my arthritic knees either).
I was reading recently that, after centuries of Health & Safety-defying subservience, only two royal retainers are now required to exit the Queen's presence by walking backwards.
ONLY TWO???
Well that's alright then.
I mean, two grown men still do this? Really? Genuflecting as they trip over the corgis, maybe?

What really sickens me, as the TV cameras pan over any royal progress you care to mention, is seeing gaggles of old dears who've waited hpurs and hours in the rain, flag in one hand, posy wrapped in petrol station cellophane in the other, getting so flushed with excitement as their monarchical heroes exchange a few cursory words. Coo, ain't she lovely, gawd bless 'er!

All I see is the stark contrast between them and the haute couture-draped, expensively-coiffed people who are addressing them.
And I imagine them going home, cold and damp .... "Should I put the fire on? Nah, better not, gas has gone up again ..."

What a mealy mouthed lot you closet Republicans are.

The Queen is well regarded all over the world, can any Politician claim such respect? despite what people think, the Queen is very frugal and the Privy Purse is not sufficient so she tops up with her own money. The royals bring in far more revenue through Tourism than they take out and it is the Queen holding the Commonwealth together .

Anyway, we all have our own opinions, no point arguing over them.

Panda wrote:What a mealy mouthed lot you closet Republicans are.

The Queen is well regarded all over the world, can any Politician claim such respect? despite what people think, the Queen is very frugal and the Privy Purse is not sufficient so she tops up with her own money. The royals bring in far more revenue through Tourism than they take out and it is the Queen holding the Commonwealth together .

Anyway, we all have our own opinions, no point arguing over them.

Off with our heads???

pennylane wrote:

Panda wrote:What a mealy mouthed lot you closet Republicans are.

The Queen is well regarded all over the world, can any Politician claim such respect? despite what people think, the Queen is very frugal and the Privy Purse is not sufficient so she tops up with her own money. The royals bring in far more revenue through Tourism than they take out and it is the Queen holding the Commonwealth together .

Anyway, we all have our own opinions, no point arguing over them.

Off with our heads???

You can get out from under there PennyLane , I don't want your head love, a stretch on the Rack will do. excellent Emoticon.

I would put to the guillotine anyone who suggests Prince Charles has big ears.

You should all feel ashamed of yourselves you really should.I would give my last farthing to have the opportunity to wash the hard skin from my Regents feet.

Panda wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Panda wrote:What a mealy mouthed lot you closet Republicans are.

The Queen is well regarded all over the world, can any Politician claim such respect? despite what people think, the Queen is very frugal and the Privy Purse is not sufficient so she tops up with her own money. The royals bring in far more revenue through Tourism than they take out and it is the Queen holding the Commonwealth together .

Anyway, we all have our own opinions, no point arguing over them.

Off with our heads???

You can get out from under there PennyLane , I don't want your head love, a stretch on the Rack will do. excellent Emoticon.

: Whew! I can handle the rack I guess.

I thought for one dreadful moment the Queens Guard were on their way and I was going to be hauled up before the Crown Prosecution without any Queens Council.... and finally the Queens Coroner would conclude I was driving drunk, and that's what done for me!

Panda wrote:Inappropriate?
It is the Queen’s Diamond jubilee and the Brits are so serious about this shit that they have actually turned it into a national holiday. Across the country, Britons celebrated with street parties and days off work. On Sunday, her “Majesty” attended a luncheon and traveled down the Thames river on a barge. The British flag, the Union Jack, fluttered from buildings, shops and train stations across the country and with a crowd of rain-soaked spectators estimated by organizers at 1.25 million cheering from the riverbanks, the pageant was the largest public event in four days of celebrations of the monarch’s 60 years on the throne.

Don't say you didn't enjoy any of it.!!!! History shows us that the Portugese, Spanish and English explored the world and yes they did exploit the indigenous population but we today can't nor shouldn't feel responsible for what happened Centuries ago. I love the pageantry, Trooping the colour, Royal Weddings , the Queen's Coronation etc and think the Queen does a good job. I don't envy her, do you????

As I said Panda, I only really enjoyed watching the horses, the rest makes me ashamed to be human. Pageantry, like any mass gatherings, be it religious or whatever has a strange affect on people - they lose their identity and are easily influenced. Fair enough if its a positive influence but rather scarey when its not.

almostgothic wrote:I resent being a 'subject' of anyone - good or bad.

It's about time we got rid of archaic terms like that.
Take for example 'His Royal Highness' or 'Her Majesty'. These titles are used unthinkingly.
But when one rolls them around one's tongue a little, how ridiculous and pompous they seem.
'High' and 'Majestic' - in a pig's ear they are!

I can remember my late mother ranting about all the bowing and scraping.
If any of that family expect me to curtsey to them, they'll have a ruddy long wait (and not because of my arthritic knees either).
I was reading recently that, after centuries of Health & Safety-defying subservience, only two royal retainers are now required to exit the Queen's presence by walking backwards.
ONLY TWO???
Well that's alright then.
I mean, two grown men still do this? Really? Genuflecting as they trip over the corgis, maybe?

What really sickens me, as the TV cameras pan over any royal progress you care to mention, is seeing gaggles of old dears who've waited hpurs and hours in the rain, flag in one hand, posy wrapped in petrol station cellophane in the other, getting so flushed with excitement as their monarchical heroes exchange a few cursory words. Coo, ain't she lovely, gawd bless 'er!

All I see is the stark contrast between them and the haute couture-draped, expensively-coiffed people who are addressing them.
And I imagine them going home, cold and damp .... "Should I put the fire on? Nah, better not, gas has gone up again ..."

Yep - my thinking exactly AG.

I`ve never understood why people go along with all the bowing and curtseying - makes it seem as if these people they bow to are somehow `higher`. I hate it when my dog does his submissive bit too. I`m no higher or better than him.

Oldartform wrote:

almostgothic wrote:I resent being a 'subject' of anyone - good or bad.

It's about time we got rid of archaic terms like that.
Take for example 'His Royal Highness' or 'Her Majesty'. These titles are used unthinkingly.
But when one rolls them around one's tongue a little, how ridiculous and pompous they seem.
'High' and 'Majestic' - in a pig's ear they are!

I can remember my late mother ranting about all the bowing and scraping.
If any of that family expect me to curtsey to them, they'll have a ruddy long wait (and not because of my arthritic knees either).
I was reading recently that, after centuries of Health & Safety-defying subservience, only two royal retainers are now required to exit the Queen's presence by walking backwards.
ONLY TWO???
Well that's alright then.
I mean, two grown men still do this? Really? Genuflecting as they trip over the corgis, maybe?

What really sickens me, as the TV cameras pan over any royal progress you care to mention, is seeing gaggles of old dears who've waited hpurs and hours in the rain, flag in one hand, posy wrapped in petrol station cellophane in the other, getting so flushed with excitement as their monarchical heroes exchange a few cursory words. Coo, ain't she lovely, gawd bless 'er!

All I see is the stark contrast between them and the haute couture-draped, expensively-coiffed people who are addressing them.
And I imagine them going home, cold and damp .... "Should I put the fire on? Nah, better not, gas has gone up again ..."

Yep - my thinking exactly AG.

I`ve never understood why people go along with all the bowing and curtseying - makes it seem as if these people they bow to are somehow `higher`. I hate it when my dog does his submissive bit too. I`m no higher or better than him.

I was working at a school a few years ago that was planning for a visit by Prince Edward. The pupils planned and rehearsed every day for weeks. When he turned up, landing on the playing fields in a helicopter, lots of kids were standing formally to welcome him. After all that, he whizzed round the school in about 20 minutes and then zoomed off in his helicopter to have lunch and spend the afternoon at the local private school.

I had been told that he would be coming into my room, but I said that if I was required to bend the knee, he should miss me out! I don't bend the knee! I wasn't required to and ended up with him breezing in and out with his entourage. Awful, pompous man.