the queen is dead

[attofishpi]

She's from Ireland (the Respudlic of Ireland is ruled by a spud).

I suppose it's better than having a fruitcake in charge.

Oooh, unfortunately Veg lives in NZ, so no win there.

[Iwannaplato]

Just out of interest, how is this being covered on American news channels? I assume they have, just curious about the extent.

It's big news.
At least temporarily much bigger than the dying economy.

[Sculptor]

The sycophancy is disgusting.
Not only are the TV schedules fucked up, for this charade, but the reactions are sickening.
This is a shameful and embarrassing display in a so-called democracy.

Miss Trusst, is at heart a republican, and her fawning is the height of hypocrisy.

[attofishpi]

I just received one of the worst phone calls of my life.

This weekends Premier League Football games have been postponed.

My Queen would be turning in her grave (if she was in one, the sooner the better so we can get football back on TV)

Also, all day long there is ONE TV show that I look forward to, and if I have not already just spent the entire day sitting on the couch, I sit on the couch at 1500 hrs, and watch THE CHASE (UK version) - but NOOO!! Apparently Elton John has died (i think, got to tune in a bit more, i could be wrong - I was once, many years ago)

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I would much rather watch a royal funeral than stupid football.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

When the most famous woman (person?) in the world dies then yes, it's going to make the news FFS. It's called history.

[attofishpi]

I would much rather watch a royal funeral than stupid football.

That's because New Zealand can't play football, and you are morbid, possibly a necrophiliac (there are some important questions for you to answer in another thread).

...sorry, but I am in a really bad mood.

[Iwannaplato]

When the most famous woman (person?) in the world dies then yes, it's going to make the news FFS. It's called history.

or football (sports) or entertainment or 'the rich and, well, famous'.......

First 8 of the top 10 most famous people in the world....
Elon Musk. ...
Jeff Bezos. ...
Dwayne Johnson. ...
Joe Biden. ...
Bill Gates. ...
Robert Downey Jr. ...
Cristiano Ronaldo. ...
Lionel Messi.

[attofishpi]

lol

[Maia]

A particularly irritating fact is that the French still hold the world record for longest reigning monarch, Louis XIV, who reigned 72 years. He did cheat though, by coming to the throne at the age of four.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now, philosophically or otherwise, is there a way to pin down how all rational men and women are obligated to react to it?

There is one smallish problem and I think it might contaminate how you are answered. There is no such thing as the 'rational man or woman'. While I agree that we can, say, try our best to think and act rationally the greater truth seems to be that we actually choose things irrationally. What stimulates the love of the English monarchy seems to be anything but classically rational. It is deeply sentimental (and I do not mean this in a negative way).

Frankly I do not really understand what assessment you'd hoped for. I assume that your rational assessment is that a monarchy is completely absurd, is that right? That the love or respect for Old England (and all that the monarchy represents) is outdated and absurd? That fits with a modern perspective, doesn't it?

The question of *obligation* interests me. Given that I have considerable background researching those movements, generally on the political right and also toward the extremes of the right and conservatism, I am aware that there are people who value monarchies because they, let's say ideally, are genuinely rooted in the old structures of their given society. As all are aware they were once understood to be somewhat *divine* and thus all the church rituals when they are installed. At least theoretically they are supposed to act in the best interests of the people they rule.

But the question of defining *best interests* is tremendously fraught is it not? Our present age (the last decades really) is marked by astounding disagreements.

What makes them any more, or less, legitimate than elected politicians who are more often than not corrupt to the core and whose real interests are in their own political careers. Technically, those who validate the monarchy say that because they are not political figures (standing technically outside of politics) they can exert a different sort of influence. A politician is elected for a short term and acts in Machiavellian self-interest. But a royal family, again technically, has influence for an entire lifetime and indeed for generations.

I admit to being very amazed when the younger prince what's-his-name defected in such a blatant manner from the position he would have been asked to uphold. I must admit that his marriage to an African-American woman, and by that I do mean marrying outside of the group that he'd have been expected to marry, is simply an overt symptom of the absurdity of the time we are in. But there we see the tendency, so marked, to undermine hierarchies and to act against them. The entire spectacle of singing Negro-American hymns in the Anglican Church when the marriage was conducted was painful and strange to watch (I watched just a few minutes of the rituals and paid attention to what was written in the NYTs). Hoe embarrassing and painfully ridiculous the entire rehearsal seemed.

But the idea that I am communicating, or the sense of the absurdity, is simply because I am aware that there arises in people, psychologically, a will to undermine and destroy hierarchies. I think that that is far less rational than it is rational to be frank. That is to say it is irrational.

It would be interesting and amazing if now-King Charles could think & speak with the intellectual freedom of a Jonathan Bowden.

Now that would be something! Imagine the upset, imagine the scandal. It would be delicious.

[Iwannaplato]

A particularly irritating fact is that the French still hold the world record for longest reigning monarch, Louis XIV, who reigned 72 years. He did cheat though, by coming to the throne at the age of four.

Though once he took over power from his regents or whatever they were, he actually had some real power. He was government. Elizabeth certainly had influence, but compared to a King or Queen in the traditional sense of the word, well, she wasn't one.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And I've always made it abundantly clear there can be as many paths to reacting to Queen Elizabeth's life and death as there are people.

In fact, only those who insist that how they react to it here themselves is the one and the only true path are instead prime examples of a narrow frame of mind.

Hell, I'm even assuming that free will is the reality here.

First, I would say that in an ideal sense and an ideal world the reaction to her death would not be as open to variability as you imply. There would be reaction, or difference of opinion, but within a relatively and let's say a nationalistic frame.

When you make a statement about "as many paths as there are people" you indicate, I think, that you are not yourself grounded in a sense of belonging to what the monarchy should represent to the English. That all makes sense though, right? I mean given your general orientation.

It is true though that "a narrow frame of mind" would certainly be needed so to be able to see and appreciate the English monarchy in a socially and conservative sense. It would take another frame of mind to cobble together the ideas needed to undermine the 'meaning' contained in the sense of monarchy.

But that frame of mind would also be 'narrow' in focus: simply because it is geared toward the undermining I referred to. How many here, for example, could see the ritual of installment overseen by the Anglican Church as being anything but empty ritual? But certainly that was not the case even a few years back.

"Free will" you say? Free will to do what or to think what? I would say (if I were to speak very broadly and very generally) that the *free will* to think freely is not in great evidence very much (again, generally) on this thread and to a degree on this forum.

What I mean to say is that I think our *modernity* and our *modern perspectives* are simply not really that expansive and free-ranging but rather narrow and to a degree controlled by the politically-correct mood.

What do you think of that statement?

[Immanuel Can]

...themselves?

Not interested. Not even a little.

Absolutely shameless!!!

You don't believe in "shame." It's all , remember?

Well, I'll show why your objection is remarkably dumb. Don't say you didn't ask for it.

You ought to know, if you don't, that not all opinions are obligatory. If one person likes vanilla and another likes chocolate, then neither is logically compelled to say the other is obligated to agree with him. And opinions, left by themselves, have no further implication than that.

But some opinions are also good opinions, and relate to truth, while others are bad, and relate to falsehood. The opinion that you don't know what you're talking about when you talk about "dasein,", is strongly justified by your total inability to define your term, for example. So that's a warranted opinion, and probably everybody should share it. Likely, everybody does.

I'm making no claim about which kind of opinion about the queen mine is.

[Walker]

Just out of interest, how is this being covered on American news channels? I assume they have, just curious about the extent.

The women admire her and like the idea of a woman having the last word. Shortly after Elizabeth took the throne there was an American TV show called Queen for a Day, and the attention to class still persists. Women like the idea of having a staff to do their chores.

I flipped around the channels with the same question, how is it being covered? So far, the only conservative outlet is Fox and they're giving it a lot of attention. The Left-wing outlets are giving it some, but not nearly as much. That's just an impression from watching TV news on a couple of occasions, not at all scientific. It's easy news for the 24/7 endless news hunger. I think the American public likes the queen and will always like her because of her devotion to her duty.