-
ā¹ļø Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.
The Queen dies, aged 96. The future of the monarchy
- Thread starter MattyH
- Start date
Skyscraper
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Nemesis
Glad I won't be the only one who won't be happyIt's taken me six months to get a hygienist appointment on that Monday. If that becomes a public holiday I'll be well annoyed
Matt.GC
TS Member
Monday will be a bank holiday regardless of whether the funeral is on the Sunday or the Monday as it'll be deferred.
I'm working both days anyway but it's much easier to logistically manage a six hour trading day for me than a full 15 hour one. I'd imagine we'll be told to just let people have time off to watch it, no questions asked whereas without the funeral, a bank holiday Monday will just be a normal working day and they'll expected to be in.
I'm working both days anyway but it's much easier to logistically manage a six hour trading day for me than a full 15 hour one. I'd imagine we'll be told to just let people have time off to watch it, no questions asked whereas without the funeral, a bank holiday Monday will just be a normal working day and they'll expected to be in.
Matt.GC
TS Member
As expected, it will be 11am on Monday 19th.
Skyscraper
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Nemesis
Not correct, by the way. The marriage of the Sussex's occurred on a Saturday and as such did not result in a public holiday, neither did the funeral of Prince Phillip last year.
As the funeral will be the final day of mourning it'd be unseemly to have a break occur afterwards.
No doubt the impact and cost of having a day off or not is considered when the timing of these events is determined.
Dave
TS Founding Member
Royal weddings have never really pulled in a bank holiday. This is the first time a royal funeral has done so.
Matt.GC
TS Member
A bank holiday was not called on any of the examples you gave. When a bank holiday occurs on a weekend day, it is defferred to the following Monday. It happens at Christmas most years.
Not true. The marriage of the Cambridge's in 2011 did, as did the marriage of Charles & Diana in 1981.
Indeed, and per the plans no Bank Holiday would be called. I'm not sure why it's suddenly become a Bank Holiday since the funeral being held on Monday would have necessitated it in all but name, but there we are.
Dave
TS Founding Member
Thatās two out of twenty, and the death of the Queens father did not have a bank holiday declared.
Correct, and the others were held on non-working days (other than the wedding of the King and Queen Consort which was deliberately low key). None of this is a contradiction of what I have said.
pluk
TS Member
I think the point was that it had already been conformed before today that the funeral would be a bank holiday, so if the funeral was on a weekend the bank holiday would shift to the next working day.
Anyway, it is a bank holiday. Supposed to be my first day back from leave, which is nice.
Anyway, it is a bank holiday. Supposed to be my first day back from leave, which is nice.
The plan, (that was fully leaked on Politico, and I read most of it), was for "A national holiday, that would not be a bank holiday", and arrangements for the day were to be negotiated between employer and employee.
There was no "right" to a day off in the original planning, made with the Queen, at her request.
After the Queen passed away, Charlie asked for it to be an official public "bank" holiday, and that request was quickly agreed.
Lots and lots of local flack about the footie being cancelled.
Play rugby, cricket, theatre, theme parks, and cinema.
But let your kids play in the local kids league on Sunday...show some respect you ignorant fools.
There was no "right" to a day off in the original planning, made with the Queen, at her request.
After the Queen passed away, Charlie asked for it to be an official public "bank" holiday, and that request was quickly agreed.
Lots and lots of local flack about the footie being cancelled.
Play rugby, cricket, theatre, theme parks, and cinema.
But let your kids play in the local kids league on Sunday...show some respect you ignorant fools.
NuttySquirrel
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Batman: Gotham City Escape
I think that's fair, no one wants their final journey disrupted by rail strikes. Flying seems a lot more reliable these days.
Skyscraper
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Nemesis
The rail and postal strikes have been cancelled.
DistortAMG
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- POTC Disneyland Paris
Taken from FB, worth sharing here.
The British monarchy is worth roughly Ā£73 billion ( one billion is a thousand million) Imagine if this obscene wealth was shared between the 19.3 million famies in the UK? The irony is people will mourn the death of Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as they prepare to face huge financial worries.
Wakey wakey.
I have a suspicion that she might not care at this point tbh.
The British monarchy is worth roughly Ā£73 billion ( one billion is a thousand million) Imagine if this obscene wealth was shared between the 19.3 million famies in the UK? The irony is people will mourn the death of Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as they prepare to face huge financial worries.
Wakey wakey.
I have a suspicion that she might not care at this point tbh.
Last edited:
Matt N
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Mako (SeaWorld Orlando)
One thing I did think is; now that Queen Elizabeth II has died, do we feel that support for the monarchy might decline in the long term? Not immediately, of course, but over time, might support for the British monarchy fall?
I apologise if this comes across as an insensitive question to ask when the late Queen has not even been buried yet, but I only ask it because I get the impression that a lot of support for the royal system in Britain is support for Queen Elizabeth II rather than support for the monarchy in general.
Rightly or wrongly, I think that the Queen did have a certain level of prestige and status surrounding her, and even people who werenāt massively into the monarchy as a principle had a certain level of respect for her as an individual. She took on royal duties impeccably for 70 years, she didnāt really barge in too far with her opinions and she was generally quite a benign, steady presence whom people greatly respected. When she inherited the throne, the monarchy was thought of very differently and the world was a very different place, and the fact that sheās been a constant kindly presence throughout all of the changes the UK has undergone during her 70-year reign seems to have garnered her a lot of respect.
By comparison, some of the younger members of the Royal Family have slightly more individual spirits and are a bit more outspoken. From the outside looking in, it does seem as though the Queen was the glue holding the firm together; she has been fairly benign and respected throughout her reign, whereas others within the firm are slightly more divisive and have caused great scandal at times, so I do wonder whether any future monarch will be able to match the Queenās great prestige and reputation.
Itās also worth noting that part of the Queenās appeal was arguably how her long reign allowed her to almost become a constant presence and form a rapport with multiple different generationsā¦ which may not be a privilege that any of the upcoming heirs have. King Charles III is already close to 74, so unless healthcare advances significantly, I do not see him reigning for the same amount of time as his mother. And even the heirs below him will be knocking on a bit by the time they come to the throne; if Charles dies at the same age as the Queen, he will have a 22 year reign, and William will be 62 upon inheriting the throne. If William also dies at 96, then George will be 65 upon inheriting the throne. I know this is very crude, as not everyone dies at 96, but my point still stands; forbidding a monarch or heir dying very prematurely or a similarly unprecedented event (e.g. an abdication), none of the future heirs are likely to have anywhere near the same length of reign as the Queen did.
What do we think?
I apologise if this comes across as an insensitive question to ask when the late Queen has not even been buried yet, but I only ask it because I get the impression that a lot of support for the royal system in Britain is support for Queen Elizabeth II rather than support for the monarchy in general.
Rightly or wrongly, I think that the Queen did have a certain level of prestige and status surrounding her, and even people who werenāt massively into the monarchy as a principle had a certain level of respect for her as an individual. She took on royal duties impeccably for 70 years, she didnāt really barge in too far with her opinions and she was generally quite a benign, steady presence whom people greatly respected. When she inherited the throne, the monarchy was thought of very differently and the world was a very different place, and the fact that sheās been a constant kindly presence throughout all of the changes the UK has undergone during her 70-year reign seems to have garnered her a lot of respect.
By comparison, some of the younger members of the Royal Family have slightly more individual spirits and are a bit more outspoken. From the outside looking in, it does seem as though the Queen was the glue holding the firm together; she has been fairly benign and respected throughout her reign, whereas others within the firm are slightly more divisive and have caused great scandal at times, so I do wonder whether any future monarch will be able to match the Queenās great prestige and reputation.
Itās also worth noting that part of the Queenās appeal was arguably how her long reign allowed her to almost become a constant presence and form a rapport with multiple different generationsā¦ which may not be a privilege that any of the upcoming heirs have. King Charles III is already close to 74, so unless healthcare advances significantly, I do not see him reigning for the same amount of time as his mother. And even the heirs below him will be knocking on a bit by the time they come to the throne; if Charles dies at the same age as the Queen, he will have a 22 year reign, and William will be 62 upon inheriting the throne. If William also dies at 96, then George will be 65 upon inheriting the throne. I know this is very crude, as not everyone dies at 96, but my point still stands; forbidding a monarch or heir dying very prematurely or a similarly unprecedented event (e.g. an abdication), none of the future heirs are likely to have anywhere near the same length of reign as the Queen did.
What do we think?
Shaggy_Dog_
TS Member
Thatās a good question Matt and I think itās very possible that support for the monarchy may dip following the Queenās death.
Weāve had a period of 70 years with one Monarch on the throne (with Philip alongside her) and they were overall a very stable presence in that period. Thereās not really too much you can say about thatās negative about the Queen and how she conducted herself over those seven decades, except perhaps for that period in the 90s from the Annus Horribilis and the divorce of her children through to the funeral of Diana and some criticisms of how the monarchy dealt with that. But by and large she has been much loved by many of the public both here and abroad because she simply got on with her job for an incredibly long period of time, usually with a smile on her face, a pleasant manner, and avoiding saying anything controversial (compare that to Philip and some of his gaffes).
The Queen hasnāt really appeared to get involved too much politically, yet there were times when she did some things that were actually quite remarkable, such as in 2012 when she made the first visit to Ireland by a British Monarch in almost 100 years and laid a wreath in Dublinās Garden Of Remembrance (a place dedicated to those who died fighting British Rule) and then later on in Northern Ireland shaking the hand of Sinn Fein politician and former IRA leader Martin MacGuinnes which was groundbreaking when you consider that Lord Mountbatten, her second cousin and Charlesā great uncle and mentor, was assassinated by the IRA in Ireland in 1979.
I think that going forward the monarchy now will be rather different to what had preceded with The Queen and Prince Philip. King Charles will never have the same sort of appeal as the Queen, not only because of his past with the divorce of Diana (the tragic āPeopleās Princessā who was much loved), but also because he wonāt have a period like the Queen had, a massive amount to time to build up a relationship with the people before the mass media age and the scrutiny that comes with it. The Queen would have gained a lot of respect from the people due to her active role in the Second World War and how she became the Monarch at such a young age and conducted herself well. By contrast Charles isnāt so loveable and may well be seen as a bit of a grumpy old man that did the dirty on a national icon. I think people may well see the reign of Charles as a bit of a downer compared to what came before and be looking on to William and Catherine as a more appealing King and Queen consort.
Weāve had a period of 70 years with one Monarch on the throne (with Philip alongside her) and they were overall a very stable presence in that period. Thereās not really too much you can say about thatās negative about the Queen and how she conducted herself over those seven decades, except perhaps for that period in the 90s from the Annus Horribilis and the divorce of her children through to the funeral of Diana and some criticisms of how the monarchy dealt with that. But by and large she has been much loved by many of the public both here and abroad because she simply got on with her job for an incredibly long period of time, usually with a smile on her face, a pleasant manner, and avoiding saying anything controversial (compare that to Philip and some of his gaffes).
The Queen hasnāt really appeared to get involved too much politically, yet there were times when she did some things that were actually quite remarkable, such as in 2012 when she made the first visit to Ireland by a British Monarch in almost 100 years and laid a wreath in Dublinās Garden Of Remembrance (a place dedicated to those who died fighting British Rule) and then later on in Northern Ireland shaking the hand of Sinn Fein politician and former IRA leader Martin MacGuinnes which was groundbreaking when you consider that Lord Mountbatten, her second cousin and Charlesā great uncle and mentor, was assassinated by the IRA in Ireland in 1979.
I think that going forward the monarchy now will be rather different to what had preceded with The Queen and Prince Philip. King Charles will never have the same sort of appeal as the Queen, not only because of his past with the divorce of Diana (the tragic āPeopleās Princessā who was much loved), but also because he wonāt have a period like the Queen had, a massive amount to time to build up a relationship with the people before the mass media age and the scrutiny that comes with it. The Queen would have gained a lot of respect from the people due to her active role in the Second World War and how she became the Monarch at such a young age and conducted herself well. By contrast Charles isnāt so loveable and may well be seen as a bit of a grumpy old man that did the dirty on a national icon. I think people may well see the reign of Charles as a bit of a downer compared to what came before and be looking on to William and Catherine as a more appealing King and Queen consort.
Last edited: