Queen Elizabeth II 1926 - 2022

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[Beebo Brink]

The BBC are, I think, terrified of being accused, particularly by papers like the Daily Mail, of not showing sufficient deference and respect.

For Britain, the 24/7 coverage at least makes sense, given that Queen Elizabeth was their monarch. It's frankly inappropriate, however, for U.S. news coverage to match that saturation. She is not our monarch and the domination of our news cycle by pearl-clutching journalists is approaching the ridiculous. Then, to add insult to injury, major media outlets ignored an address by OUR president in favor of the funeral procession and other lamentations.

The top story in today's online Washington Post -- plastered across the entire above-the-fold space -- is about King Charles addressing Parliament. Yes, a newsworthy event, but under the International section, unless he happens to be declaring war on us.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

For Britain, the 24/7 coverage at least makes sense, given that Queen Elizabeth was their monarch. It's frankly inappropriate, however, for U.S. news coverage to match that saturation. She is not our monarch and the domination of our news cycle by pearl-clutching journalists is approaching the ridiculous. Then, to add insult to injury, major media outlets ignored an address by OUR president in favor of the funeral procession and other lamentations.

The top story in today's online Washington Post -- plastered across the entire above-the-fold space -- is about King Charles addressing Parliament. Yes, a newsworthy event, but under the International section, unless he happens to be declaring war on us.

I'm willing to bet they've done market research that shows Americans can't look away from the royal family coverage even though many Americans are annoyed by it. Otherwise, I can't imagine why they are spending so much time on it. Most news is a lot more motivated by ratings than what is "newsworthy."

 

[Sid]

For Britain, the 24/7 coverage at least makes sense, given that Queen Elizabeth was their monarch. It's frankly inappropriate, however, for U.S. news coverage to match that saturation. She is not our monarch and the domination of our news cycle by pearl-clutching journalists is approaching the ridiculous. Then, to add insult to injury, major media outlets ignored an address by OUR president in favor of the funeral procession and other lamentations.

The top story in today's online Washington Post -- plastered across the entire above-the-fold space -- is about King Charles addressing Parliament. Yes, a newsworthy event, but under the International section, unless he happens to be declaring war on us.

Over here there were extra news bulletins the day the Queen passed away. And papers had it of course on the front page and several other pages the next morning about it.

Now it is pretty much business as usual on TV and other media.
One or two topics in the news bulletins, maybe one of the talk shows has one of their items around the Queens death. There was a documentary about the Queens life on one of the channels.
Monday next week the ceremonies in London will be live broadcasted on one of the TV channels. And the Tuesday papers of course will have a few pages about the ceremonies.
That's about it.

On the other hand, the weekend that princes Diana died we had all day long coverage for days in a row.
But that was a more unexpected and shocking event I guess.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Yes, there's a big difference between Diana dying suddenly, in dramatic circumstances, at the age of 36 and the Queen dying of natural causes at the age of 96.

Another difference, I think, is that, when Diana died, we didn't have access to multiple online news and entertainment channels from all over the world, so it's now far more difficult for national broadcasters and newspapers to set the news agenda than it was then.

I hardly watch any TV, and get my news from a variety of sources, British, European and US, so because I'm not very interested in the doings of the Royal Family, I'm very disconnected from that part of the news cycle, just as I am for (e.g.) major sports events that don't interest me -- I'm broadly aware of what's happening but I'm not really following it.

It was far more difficult to avoid the coverage of Diana's death, because we had fewer news sources available.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

‘Biden would never ride a bus’: UK and US play down strict rules for Queen’s funeral

Liz Truss’s spokesperson says ‘arrangements will vary’ as more foreign dignitaries confirm attendance

www.theguardian.com

Be interesting to see how our new PM and Foreign Secretary work this one out.

My preference would be to tell the US, sorry, but them's the rules, since otherwise all the other Heads of State are going to be asking, not unreasonably, why Biden gets to ride his car and the rest have to take the bus, but either way it's difficult.

They've been planning the event for years, we're told, so why on earth did no one anticipate the problems that would be caused by asking all the heads of state to take the bus?

 

[Arkady Arkright]

You wait ages for one head-of-state and they suddenly all arrive together.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

FAQ about the Monarch’s Passing

Q: How many important issues in the news will be sidelined by vanity coverage of the Queen’s passing? A: All of them. Thanks for your patience. Q: ...

www.mcsweeneys.net

 

[Sid]

The BBC is getting desperate I believe.
I peeked in for a few minutes this afternoon. Now they are airing interviews with people who have met the former Queen or the King in their lives.
If they keep up that pace, by Friday it will be people who once waived at the royals in their lifetime.
Maybe they will end up interviewing me on Sunday. You know, the Queen was at home when I visited Windsor Castle thirty years or so ago.

 

[Soen Eber]

I wouldn't have any issues with Biden riding a bus. I mean after all, this is Britain. They know security. And any opportunity for world leaders to mingle out of the sight of cameras gives them an opportunity to hammer out a few preliminary agreements or at least get to know each other a bit more.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

The BBC is getting desperate I believe.
I peeked in for a few minutes this afternoon. Now they are airing interviews with people who have met the former Queen or the King in their lives.
If they keep up that pace, by Friday it will be people who once waived at the royals in their lifetime.
Maybe they will end up interviewing me on Sunday. You know, the Queen was at home when I visited Windsor Castle thirty years or so ago.

I flipped off Ronald Regan once.

 

[Beebo Brink]

Somehow I knew it was you, even before glancing at the user name on your post.

 

[Free]

For Britain, the 24/7 coverage at least makes sense, given that Queen Elizabeth was their monarch. It's frankly inappropriate, however, for U.S. news coverage to match that saturation.

Quexit!

 

[Free]

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Beebo Brink]

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Health Service Twitter has been discussing this a lot over the last few days -- there's a genuine dilemma here (and not just about cancer treatment) since public holidays are normally known well in advance, so clinics can be scheduled round them.

The Queen's funeral has thrown a massive spanner in the works, public holiday or not, since there's an understandable fear that a substantial number of patients won't want to attend non-urgent appointments either because they want to attend the funeral events in person or, more likely, they want to watch them on TV, as will a number of Health Service staff, meaning there would be enough missed appointments (which would need to be rescheduled) and problems with staffing to present a major headache, and there's only a week to plan for it.

Biting the bullet and cancelling non-urgent chemo/radiotherapy appointments, while still very disruptive, seems to be the lesser of the two evils, since it simply prolongs everyone's course of treatment by one day rather than necessitating massive rescheduling needed to accommodate all the missed appointments and unexpected staff absences that would result from trying to carry on as normal.

At least there are agreed protocols, both for medical and non-medical staffing and for urgent and non-urgent treatment, to cover public holidays, so putting these in place, albeit at very short notice, is probably the best thing they could have done.

It's not very satisfactory but the alternatives would be a lot worse, it seems.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

King Charles’s staff notified of redundancies during church service for Queen

Exclusive: Employees said to be livid and shaken as up to 100 Clarence House employees told they could lose jobs

www.theguardian.com

 

[Veritable Quandry]

King Charles’s staff notified of redundancies during church service for Queen

Exclusive: Employees said to be livid and shaken as up to 100 Clarence House employees told they could lose jobs

www.theguardian.com

It seems this could have waited until at least after the funeral. On the bright side, they didn't just decide to bury the household staff with her.
Or did they?

 

[Beebo Brink]

King Charles’s staff notified of redundancies during church service for Queen

Exclusive: Employees said to be livid and shaken as up to 100 Clarence House employees told they could lose jobs

www.theguardian.com

They should have unionized.

It seems this could have waited until at least after the funeral.

Given the long tenure of these employees and the circumstances of their departure (the Queen's death), at the very least I would have expected the news to be given out in a series of personal meetings with staff. You'd expect more class from the Royals.... okay, maybe not...