MovieChat Forums > The Queen (2006) Discussion > When the Queen dies: how long will it sh...

When the Queen dies: how long will it shut down the UK?

posted 10 years ago by eStreetBeat
12 replies | jump to latest

It's an odd sort of topic, really. (As well as possibly being "OT," as regards this board.) From what I've been able to quite informally and anecdotally gather, those who feel Britain will come to an actual standstill for virtually weeks, outnumber those who think it'll be only for "a day or two," by about 90 to 10... If it should turn out that the majority had it right, on that unfortunately inevitable day, I'm sure Brits must understand how that will leave the rest of the planet in a bit of slack-jawed, glassy eyed shock. Because it will essentially reveal a previously unknown aspect of the British people and, as a result, many outsiders will find such a reaction very hard to comprehend, coming from one of the world's great powers and from a population known to be one of the most savvy, sophisticated, well-traveled and educated. Opinions or comments?

***

On this subject... This article would crack me up one minute, then give me genuine, earnest pause, the next: http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/this-is-what-will-happen-when-the-queen -dies

Here's an example of the former:

Even an ox like Lizzie Windsor can't outrun the reaper forever, as her recent brush with gastroenteritis has shown.

The problem, as ever, is that no one knows exactly when this massive news-asteroid is going to land. You could, for instance, be in the middle of shagging a Latvian prostitute when some madam bursts through the door in tears and splutters: “The Queen, she's dead!”

And here's one from the latter:

The death of the Queen is something many of us have been anticipating all our lives. But are we actually ready for it? Our news glands will probably go numb from the sheer intensity of news-worthiness they're being blasted with, and initially, no one will be able to wrap their heads around it. Britain will go off its nut in a way that will be difficult to imagine...

The public response will be all id and super-ego, nothing in-between. There'll be tonnes of censorious behaviour: a flaying of those not wearing their black armband low enough, some tarring and feathering of the few republicans who dared to point out that she was just an ordinary gal who had a cushy life.

And, at the id end, as with Di a swell of emotion will spill over into a sense that the Royals simply aren't doing enough to express their grief. Unfortunately, unlike 15 years ago, the public of today will have been hardened to the money shots of emotional pornography by years of reality TV. A pleasant little speech just won't cut it any more. William will be hauled out in front of the cameras, and interviewed mercilessly until he blubs his guts out for his dead grandma. The bloodlust sated, William becomes the hero of the hour, almost as if he were a real-life Pinocchio who had suddenly turned from wood into boy.

Quid novi? Vidistine nuper imagines moventes bonas?

[–] tommylawson2 10 years ago

You need to realise that the queen doesn't actually do anything

[–] eStreetBeat 10 years ago

by tommylawson2» 3 days ago (Thu Oct 30 2014 12:51:39)
You need to realise that the queen doesn't actually do anything

Did you intend to reply elsewhere on this board?

Just did a quick read-through of my post... Not a word in there could possibly apply to your response... But if something I wrote somehow seemed to imply something else, then please explain.

Quid novi? Vidistine nuper imagines moventes bonas?

[–] tommylawson2 10 years ago

I'm saying barley anyone will come to a standstill at all. Nobody cares about the queen

[–] eStreetBeat 10 years ago

I'm saying barley anyone will come to a standstill at all. Nobody cares about the queen

Are you possibly an expat?

Were you in the UK last spring when the Queen was hospitalized (in early March)? If so, how could you possibly fail to draw any conclusions from the virtual standstill to which all other news was brought, pending her release from KE VII Hospital?

You needn't have turned to a news channel, either--although, had you done so, it wouldn't have taken too long for you to realize there wasn't going to be coverage on anything else. Had you tuned in ANY channel, at any point during that time, you'd have scarcely made it through the first quarter of a show without some cutaway, however brief, to the full stop mob of reporters encamped outside the hospital... Hmm... There were no exams that I'm aware of, that could have been monopolizing your time. Term 4/Spring Term runs through the end of March/start of April. A-Level exams are/were... when? Oct. though Dec.? Plus another period during May/June?

Perhaps you'd recently been busted for not paying the telly tax and weren't taking any chances? Or... If you were somewhere at her majesty's pleasure, I do hope you've since been released...

Okay, I'm taking the p!$$ here, obviously. But, inasmuch as I'm fairly certain you're one of those committed dozen-or-so-words-or-less posters I feel compelled to belabor that event, since it's a recent and dramatic example of why your reply is so bin-it ready. (Incidentally: to each poster his/her own style--no offense intended, mate. Mine is long winded; but I typically only visit IMDb 2 or 3 times a year, for a week or so at a time.)

All I'm saying is that if you're a republican, more power to you. Or if you're simply one of those Brits who feel obliged to give non-Brits like me the hard sell on how all the Royals are no more than irrelevant tourist attractions, that's fine too. As a Yank, I'll readily admit that I have no dog in this race. However, I've spent more than enough time: (1) visiting the UK; (2) living with my Englishwoman wife; and (3) familiarizing myself with British history and the UK system of government, to know a line of complete rubbish when I read it.

Unfortunately, whatever it is that motivates you will never come across with a one or two line reply. Hence my going with the example of HM's hospitalization last year. I figure it's a bit more difficult for you to dismiss--in case you're the type to "out" the loser anoraks like me, with our "TLTR" posts (all of 15 minutes writing this one, BTW). There are obviously many other clear and current facts out there with which I might better debunk your response... But I went with an example requiring no specialized education or that even needed someone to have the slightest interest in the topic of the Queen... Now, can you still hit me back with a personal attack, or encourage me to relax, chill out, etc.? Absolutely--and feel free! But you wrote "Nobody cares about the [Q]ueen[.]," and I put the lie to that with an example to the contrary, that's as plain as day for anyone over 10 years old and present in England, Scotland or Wales last March.

So, not for nothing, but, if I were you, I'd ignore me with a non-response, or go with the aforementioned ad hominem approach, or roll up your sleeves and let us know what's really on your mind. Because, all due respect, should you decide to reiterate your previous response, with similar brevity, you can only end up looking the fool.

Quid novi? Vidistine nuper imagines moventes bonas?

[–] tommylawson2 10 years ago

I actually didn't realise that the queen was hospitalized last year at all. The reason these posts are short is because I'm not trying to threaten anyone right now.

[–] raf-33 10 years ago

I think the dude was just bored, his own posts are akin to a Harlin Ellison short story.

Ya Kirk-loving Spocksucker!

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] teresah233 9 years ago

Have you ever heard it said in newsreels, "The King (or Queen) is dead - Long live the King?" It is the same reason that, until Diana's death, the Royal Standard at Buckingham Palace is never lowered to half mast. When one monarch dies the heir steps in immediately as the new ruler. When the Queen dies, people will slow down for a few days and reflect but nothing will stop.
The Queen is actually only an advisor to the Prime Minister who runs the government, nothing will shut down.
When the Queen dies there will be the funeral at Westminster Abbey and many people will line the streets. To see what it would most resemble, go to YouTube and watch some of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother funeral. It will be very much along strict lines, no celebrities will be on display, people will grieve but it will be absolutely nothing like Diana's funeral. People will not stand around crying and lighting candles - but they will shed a tear here and there and be respectful of a long serving Queen's passing.

[–] shaguniitb 9 years ago

which is a pity, because the queen deserves much more appreciation than Lady Di

[–] eStreetBeat 8 years ago

With all due respect: Brits never cease to crack me up when it comes to their almost unanimously agreed upon "party line," vis-a-vis their sovereign and the underlying nature of the UK's monarchical institution. Ditto for most citizens in the 16-ish Commonwealth states where she still heads up their Westminster style parliaments. (For example, I believe in the most recent, large-sample poll, just over 80% of all Canadians couldn't correctly answer the question "Who is the Canadian head of state?")

BTW, this is coming from an American man who's been happily married for nigh on two decades to a UK national--with whom I visit England and the in-laws for at least a week every year...

Just one example to hopefully explain what exactly I find so amusing. More than that and I hit the Internet threshold for a "novel length" reply. (I believe that, currently, if printed, any online post large enough to fill half an 8.5"x11" sheet of paper is an outrage to the modern attention span...)

Anyway, here's my example... Is there--honest question--a single Brit alive on the planet who is willing to agree that his or her sovereign retains, in point of fact, more REAL and ACTUAL political power than any other head of state (elected or otherwise) in the 1st World? If so, I've yet to meet that person. In fact, before I'd consider so much as even circling that topic from at least 60,000 feet I'd first need to work up a sweat establishing sufficient bonafides as a person who has both a genuine and neutral minded understanding of the UK system of government. THEN, if I was very lucky, I could POSSIBLY find a Brit willing to flip the robotic recitation switch in his/her head, when responding to why absolutely nothing exists that formally (in the way the rest of the world defines "formally") bars their monarch from assuming full, top-down, turnkey, control over every organ of government, civil service, the military, constabulary, judiciary, etc.

IF such a Brit was still engaged in this conversation, the rote response always goes something like this: "You fail to grasp the fact that our unwritten constitution [magically] affords us more protection than does your written Constitution. So much so that, were any monarch to ever seriously overstep his/her constitutional duties, the ensuing constitutional crisis would culminate with the immediate and irrevocable end to the entire institution."

At which point, us non-Brits can really only blink and focus on not letting our mouths fall agape... Because... Really? That's what would happen?

OK: but I continue to wait for the Brit who can paint me a mental image of exactly how that plays out? And, if possible, please include some hypothetical anecdotes describing the military officers who will [naturally] consider the oaths they swore as merely symbolic--while they await word from Number 10 on when they are to unleash their troops upon the palace and slap HRM in irons?

[–] eStreetBeat 8 years ago

ADDENDUM:

Not too very hopeful over my prospects of getting any new feedback here (per my previous post of this date)... That said, it's only fair that I point out my existing grasp of these bits in the UK system:
1. 1689's "Bill of Rights"
2. The Coronation Oath
3. The Civil List
4. "EU supremacy" over certain domestic legal/governmental matters
5. The Settlement Act
6. The "Acts of Union" passed in 1800
7. Yadda, yadda.... all the way back tot he Magna Carta

PLEASE don't misunderstand... Although not an Anglophile, I fully understand and I am wholly grateful for ALL that this world would lack, were it not for the many edifying influences of British culture since Britain inaugurated the modern era. However, it's ridiculous to ignore the ongoing and inherent dangers to the UK citizenry that are part and parcel with the Royal Prerogative and the fact that it continues in full force. Ending it is quite different from co-opting it. Simply because Westminster-Parliament and especially PM's throughout history have been loathe to lose those powers after having de facto control over them for so long. Let them continue, at their own peril, to feel so confident in their capacity to maintain control over the actual Crown--in the person of the Sovereign; as opposed to the Crown as a legal construct/concept. I can completely understand why some Brits might accept and even feel grateful for the "safety net" afforded them by this reality--because they consider the sovereign to be a real and present control over the unchecked power that, for example, our President could potentially unleash at any time.

I guess I find it difficult to decide who makes me feel more uneasy... The disingenuous nouveau-Oxbridge type Brit, whose newly minted middle class status is ever tenuous--meaning he/she won't speak plainly on hardly any topic until safely pensioned in Spain or Down Under? Or the ever beleaguered working class Brit who actually buys into that old "mere figurehead" chestnut after having to regurgitate it on so many MoE standardized test--tests that had him/her earmarked for vocational training before being even a decade on this earth?

(Not saying it's much better over here! But our oligarchy endeavors to serve us up a brand new type of *beep* sandwich every day. Better to baffle and bewilder us with an ever changing menu of deceptions. Meanwhile, although the UK may be the most culturally diverse European state--it's clearly still far more homogeneous than the US. Or else it couldn't continue to perpetuate a true Big Lie for such a long time with such a unified front, so to speak... The ruling 0.5%'s of our country at least has to work a lot harder at keeping us down than your 0.5% does...)

[–] ib011f9545i 8 years ago

Do you really want an answer to your question or are you just wanting to provoke a general discussion about British society and government?

All your talk here but you don't seem to get the fact that since the restoration we have not had a absolute monarch,despite the fact that we restored the monarchy.

The monarch is a symbol,I am British,if I went to court it would be me versus the Crown,in America it is the people of the United States but either way it is symbolic.

We have a constitutional monarchy,you shout you don't have a constitution ,well we do but it is complicated,I refer you to the work of Professor Peter Hennessy who is an expert on this complicated subject.

You can't of course give an example of the last time a monarch tried to run the country because it has not happened for hundreds of years.

I agree that the idea of monarchy is silly but despite not being a monarchist I greatly admire our current Queen.
I think a lot of people feel the same.

When the current Queen dies events will follow an agreed,but of course currently secret plan.

I was not alive in the 1950s when the King died but I understand from family stories that people wept in the streets and public entertainment was cancelled.
Was there a national holiday? I expect so.

What will happen when this monarch dies?

Britain is a lot less formal than it was in the 1950s and society has changed a lot.

But a lot of people like the idea of monarchy and the Queen is loved as a individual so I expect huge amounts of public grief and world class public ceremonies.

The message of the film THE QUEEN was that the British Royal family is able to adapt to change although it was slow to react to events around the death of Diana.