2 hours ago, IanHarrison said:

It is not an amorphous "they". There is freedom of choice, each individual can choose what they want to do.

 

1 hour ago, Reader said:

For now, it's Reuters for me.

See Reader!  You do have a choice.

As a citizen of one of your former colonies this lifetime event honoring probably the least controversial and most beloved world leader of our time deserves the honor she deserves.  In a time of world and national conflict and unrest a timeout and a pause should be welcome.

So far in my lifetime besides my parents I lost a wife, a daughter, a son, and a brother over the years plus three good friends in just the past year.  I've done lot of mourning and remembering.

Give your queen and this good woman her due.

Noel

2 hours ago, Reader said:

For now, it's Reuters for me.

My friends said exactly what you did , I've had a URL block on the BBC site for years so a mistaken tap doesn't take me to them. Thankfully here in S.E Asia its just a single headline on most news sites. 

One of my friends in the UK is a nurse in a doctors surgery and the TV in the waiting room was on BBC and was just a nonstop torrent of royal-related news.   She said it was like a drill going into her head. The manager came out of her office and turned it off she said.

 

Edited September 17, 20223 yr by ThrottleUp

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

Give your queen and this good woman her due.

Hello Noel,
I absolutely do and like so many of her subjects, I feel like I have lost a relative.
I do not, however, require 24/7 blanket coverage on my normally chosen radio and TV channel
to the exclusion of everything else for 10 consecutive days.
That does not honour the memory of the Queen any more than the more proportionate reporting
that can be seen at, for example, Reuters.

5 hours ago, Reader said:

The freedom of choice that you refer to is down to watch and listen or do not watch or listen.

What about ITV, for example? I suppose the BBC feels it has a special, traditional, responsibility, as it had for other state funerals plus the coronation of Queen Elizabeth. 

43 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

What about ITV, for example?

It's full of advertising and is not my chosen channel.
My point is not that there should not be any coverage.
My point is that it is wall-to-wall blanket coverage to the exclusion of almost everything else.
 

Several times during the seven days since her death was announced I have switched to CNN and their coverage has been pretty continuous too. It’s not just the BBC.

This is the first death of a monarch in over 70 years. There is no precedence on how it should be covered by broadcasters.

If you had said to me a year ago that members of the public would queue for nearly 24 hours to gain entry to Westminster Hall where she’s lying in state I would not have believed you. But it’s happening as I write this. This Queen is probably the most respected head of state this country has had. I feel the coverage is fitting for someone who has reigned for so long. Expect normal service to resume on Tuesday.

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

This is the first death of a monarch in over 70 years. There is no precedence on how it should be covered by broadcasters.

Consider this Ray.  During the Queen's reign there have been 15 Prime Ministers, 14 US Presidents, and 7 Popes.

Think of the history that has been made during that period.  The changes the world and society and culture have gone through.  

Noel

7 hours ago, Reader said:

It's full of advertising and is not my chosen channel.
My point is not that there should not be any coverage.
My point is that it is wall-to-wall blanket coverage to the exclusion of almost everything else.
 

You actually are replying to a point that I did not make. I replied to a comment on the restricting of flights from LHR, which said, "Really they have gone OTT over this." To which I said that it is everyone's choice to remember as they wish. Nothing was said about TV coverage.

1 hour ago, IanHarrison said:

You actually are replying to a point that I did not make.

I was actually replying to a comment from dmwalker, that you did not make, which I also quoted.

Edited September 18, 20223 yr by Reader

5 hours ago, birdguy said:

Consider this Ray.  During the Queen's reign there have been 15 Prime Ministers, 14 US Presidents, and 7 Popes.

Think of the history that has been made during that period.  The changes the world and society and culture have gone through.  

Noel

Those points about presidents and PMs has been made by our media. The U.K. still had some rationing in 1952 after WW2. The Royal family embraced the internet too. They kept abreast with technology helped by William and Harry.

14 hours ago, Reader said:

Hello Noel,
I absolutely do and like so many of her subjects, I feel like I have lost a relative.
I do not, however, require 24/7 blanket coverage on my normally chosen radio and TV channel
to the exclusion of everything else for 10 consecutive days.
That does not honour the memory of the Queen any more than the more proportionate reporting
that can be seen at, for example, Reuters.

I have some sympathy with this view.

On 9/17/2022 at 5:32 AM, Fielder said:

How Scottish are the Royal Family?

This is a good example of why I dropped history at the earliest opportunity. I couldn't handle this level of complexity plus all the dates that go along with it.

Edited September 18, 20223 yr by dmwalker

11 hours ago, birdguy said:

During the Queen's reign there have been 15 Prime Ministers, 14 US Presidents, and 7 Popes.

During her "reign"?  Really?  Are you longing for the good ole days of feudalism, and nobles, princes, dukes, and barons?

I've been reading through the posts in this discussion and it sounds to me like some of you are celebrating or waxing nostalgic about a monarchy.  A monarchy, which is a dictatorial, repressive form of government.

My condolences to her family.  No need to fawn all over the "royalty".

Dave

 

The British monarchy is hardly "dictatorial", and it is not a government.

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

During her "reign"?  Really?  Are you longing for the good ole days of feudalism, and nobles, princes, dukes, and barons?

I've been reading through the posts in this discussion and it sounds to me like some of you are celebrating or waxing nostalgic about a monarchy.  A monarchy, which is a dictatorial, repressive form of government.

My condolences to her family.  No need to fawn all over the "royalty".

Dave

 

 

Her reign, is what it's called, the words to the national anthem say "long to reign over us" so not sure why that should be an issue for you, unless it's just to be argumentative. 
Many people in the world let alone the UK are indeed celebrating her life and her reign and are right to be nostalgic about the monarchy. A monarchy I should add which has no hold over govenment whatsoever.
Maybe you would like to explain how they're dictatorial?
and as regarding fawning over her/them, if thats what people want to do why shouldn't they? you are not the arbiter of what people should and shouldn't do

If you like the royals great. If you don't thats fine as well, neither should be telling the other what they should or shouldn't do

Edited September 18, 20223 yr by BrianT
format