Café Quito: 'pub' thread for general discussions Showing 1,051-1,100 of 1,427

[Cindy]

I appreciate her lack of political power, but I think the role she played in the life of the UK is quite material. I do not in any way minimize the economic problems plaguing the country, but to me this outpouring seems quite genuine and natural and something that should be acknowledged.

[Cindy]

Alwynne wrote: "Also, with all due respect, I'm not sure it's appropriate for those who aren't actually based here - or even British - to attempt to direct the reactions of those of us who are."

I certainly would never attempt to direct the reactions of anyone, British or otherwise. I was just making an observation based on watching hours and hours of BBC coverage and listening to ordinary people, not politicians, expressing their views.

[Alwynne]

Cindy wrote: "I appreciate her lack of political power, but I think the role she played in the life of the UK is quite material. I do not in any way minimize the economic problems plaguing the country, but to me..."

So, by extension, my lack of outpouring is inauthentic and unnatural?

[Cindy]

Alwynne wrote: "Cindy wrote: "I appreciate her lack of political power, but I think the role she played in the life of the UK is quite material. I do not in any way minimize the economic problems plaguing the coun..."

Not at all. As we have demonstrated in countless discussion threads on this forum, people have completely different reactions to the same things. Neither one is right or wrong, I thought we all knew that. Isn't that why we're here, to express a range of views?

[Alwynne]

It couldn't be, perhaps, that mainstream reporting is focused on projecting a particular narrative?

[Cindy]

Alwynne, I lost a 111 year old grandmother earlier this summer. Even though she lived a long and rich life, and even though at the end she had very little quality of life, I was devastated by her passing. I think that there are many people who are feeling similarly about the loss of someone who has been there for 70+ years in some form or another. And I also think there are many people who are completely untouched by her passing. Why isn't there room for the whole range of emotions?

[Alwynne]

Cindy wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "Cindy wrote: "I appreciate her lack of political power, but I think the role she played in the life of the UK is quite material. I do not in any way minimize the economic problems p..."

Fair enough but I would caution against basing your sense of things on the BBC's coverage, because they are a national institution they are slightly tied editorially in terms of how they cover this kind of event - particularly at a time when there is a question mark over their future state funding. They have been criticised in the past for not covering similar royal events in a suitably respectful manner, and need now to apply a specific set of criteria to their reporting of this.

[Cindy]

Thank you for explaining that to me. Are the independent news stations (Sky, etc) covering things differently?

[Alwynne]

Cindy wrote: "Alwynne, I lost a 111 year old grandmother earlier this summer. Even though she lived a long and rich life, and even though at the end she had very little quality of life, I was devastated by her p..."

I'm not aware of denying that, it was you who seemed to insist on applying terms like 'natural' and 'genuine' and insisting on the 'material' nature of the queen's role. I'm really sorry for your loss, I lost five people to Covid at the height of the pandemic, some elderly, two in their early 40s. So, I understand dealing with this kind of loss, I'm not sure for me however the loss of someone whom I've never met, but only experienced as a disembodied image even approaches the same order of magnitude.

[Cindy]

I agree that it is not the same order of magnitude. But I think it's a loss anyway, and a shared loss for some percentage of the world's population (obviously we don't know what percentage), and that makes it have a significant impact, or at least that's how it seems to me. Shared grief, even if of a lesser magnitude than the profound grief of losing someone personally close to you, is meaningful.

[Hugh, Active moderator]

I agree Marc - there is nothing tragic about dying at 96 and the hysteria of the British media is unbelievable - e.g. the Met Office thinking too many weather forecasts is disrespectful. Fortunately I still have friends I can drink with who share my sense of perspective. She was a good queen, but the monarchy is an anachronistic institution.

[Alwynne]

Cindy wrote: "I agree that it is not the same order of magnitude. But I think it's a loss anyway, and a shared loss for some percentage of the world's population (obviously we don't know what percentage), and th..."

But I'm not saying, nor have I said, that people who want to shouldn't grieve, just that I'm not on board with 'mourning' being enshrined in a lengthy, official programme of disruptive national mourning that is then imposed on everyone regardless of their investment, or lack of, in the event. That is not the same thing.

It is clearly perceived as a loss for you, and others like you, but for many others it's just not. As for it being the end of an era, for many of us that era was primarily marked by racism and colonialist violence. And being conscious of that is also a valid response. As Washington Post writer Karen Attiah recently tweeted:

"Black and brown people around the world who were subject to horrendous cruelties and economic deprivation under British colonialism are allowed to have feelings about the Queen Elizabeth.

After all, they were her "subjects" too."

And I also take issue with any notion that grief is the 'natural' response here. Although I'm also not sure how 'genuine' some of the public response can be said to be when it's often been used as the basis for countless, gurning Facebook and Insta posts promoting their posters supposed sensitivity.

[Janet]

It’s true, that at 96 she had, as the French say, a good score, and wasn’t plagued with dementia, a blessing for anyone. As a Yank, she doesn’t hold for me the same cultural cachet as she does for (many but not all) citizens of the UK, but she was always there, my entire life, I suppose more of a symbol than a real personage.

Since this forum is about books, I’m reminded of one of my favorites, The Uncommon Readerin which a character called Queen Elizabeth appears as a late in life discoverer of a love of reading. I would say the story is less about the queen than about the subversive power of reading, but the author did play with attributes associated with her public persona, such as her corgis, for example. And like me, he relied on an idea of the queen rather than the reality of her. Now I’m wondering how many works of fiction have the queen as a character. I can think of one other, a work by John Banville/ Benjamin Black called The Secret Guests

[Cindy]

I loved The Uncommon Reader, and we actually read it in one of the book clubs that I facilitate. It was, I thought, quite damning of most of the people working for the Monarch but quite charmingly kind to the Queen herself. There is also Mrs Queen Takes the Train by William Kuhn which I enjoyed very much.

[LindaJ^]

I also enjoyed The Uncommon Reader. Will have to think some about books in which she was a character.

[WndyJW]

Then England is doing it wrong. When our Queen Betty White died the nation mourned, but we weren’t gloomy, we celebrated her almost 100 years of life and animal shelters received record donations in her honor.

Is the media hysterical over her death in the UK? I haven’t watched the news since yesterday afternoon.

When my own dad died at age 84 I felt it was sad, but not tragic. Dying at 96, with a sound mind and body, incredible wealth, having the fascinating life she had and having her husband share that life almost to the very end is not tragic!

News coverage is to be expected and flags at half mast, but what would be lovely is if the wealthy Brits who are mourning her, like Sting, would make huge donations to British food banks and set up funds for low income Brits to cover their heating costs and make those donations in the Queen’s name.

Is it possible that some of the hysteria over her death is because now icky Charles is king?

[Sonia]

The issue of 'national grief' is not a one size fits all. For some people it will be directly related to their sadness over the death of the Queen. For me it has reminded me of the death of my parents and has triggered a wave of grief. For others it is the loss of a constant presence in this country as we grapple with the effects of Brexit, Covid, economic uncertainty.... Having a little cry doesn't seem to be a bad idea.

[Alwynne]

WndyJW wrote: "Then England is doing it wrong. When our Queen Betty White died the nation mourned, but we weren’t gloomy, we celebrated her almost 100 years of life and animal shelters received record donations i..."

I agree donations would be at least be a positive outcome. Although people in a relatively rich country should not have to be reliant on charity. But there will be a lot of vulnerable people struggling so news pieces around the billion-pound estate passed on from Charles to William also a bit distasteful. There is also the enormous cost of security for the body lying in state, the funeral and the coronation to come. Charles so far in a honeymoon period as far as media reporting go, so don't think that's driving things.

And the hysteria that Hugh notes - and I agree with him - mainly linked to institutional/media reporting, and the people they chose to interview, none of my neighbours, friends, family, colleagues really that bothered other than the disruption. Negative reactions not really being covered or sought - although the Daily Mail did do a piece on 'woke liberals' who dared to criticise the queen and the monarchy.

But the potential icky-ness of who takes over is an interesting point, points out the absurdity of a head of state based on bloodlines, could have ended up with someone like 'lock-up-your-daughters' Andrew, that would have been an interesting development. And the fact that technically the government will now have to negotiate with the offices of the crown in order to have a window of time in which to officially finalise the lowering of energy prices also highlights the absurdity of the whole thing.

[Alwynne]

Janet wrote: "It’s true, that at 96 she had, as the French say, a good score, and wasn’t plagued with dementia, a blessing for anyone. As a Yank, she doesn’t hold for me the same cultural cachet as she does for ..."

There are a number of children's books Horrid Henry Meets the Queen; The Queen's Knickers etc Also things like Sue Townsend's The Queen and I

[WndyJW]

I had the same thought about Andrew. He probably would have abdicated for the next in line.

When King Charlie talks about all the countries, near and far, that England invaded, colonized, and brutalized owing a debt of gratitude for the Queen’s service, what exactly is he talking about? What did she do that was of benefit? I know the kids travel and do fund raising events, but surely if they turned over all the land, jewels, and castles they really have no moral right to that would create enough national income to solve many of the problems facing the UK now.

Other than being a living tourist attraction what is the benefit to others from their self-imposed duties?

I don’t know how the royals and everyone in the room kept a straight face when Charles announced all the titles William and Kate now have. It’s all so much pomp and ritual that means nothing to anyone except them. William is now Prince of Wales, does Wales want that? If they did want a Prince wouldn’t they want a Welsh guy to be their prince?

I felt it appropriate to give Elizabeth her day, but I agree with Alwynne, the royal family is interesting in a genealogical historical sense, but a reigning monarchy is an absurd anachronism that needs to be limited to one castle with a gift shop for history buffs. Full disclosure, I would take a tour of that castle and buy some royal tchotchkes, probably a mug and sweatshirt, or tartan throw.

[Arun]

I wish to put down here what my cousin, Priyamvada Gopal ( who is a Cambridge Professor working on Imperialism and Postcoloniaalism), recently posted:

Some things need to be said in the midst of left-ish cliché spouting re Elizabeth II R's passing.

1. You *cannot* separate the queen as 'individual' from 'monarchy'. We have no access to the 'individual'. Our only understanding of her, our only lens through which to view her was and is the institution she represented very ably. Lauding that very ability and the 'duty' that we should apparently celebrate separately from the monarchy and the Crown makes no sense. I repeat: you have NO knowledge of her as a person, you cannot separate her from the institution ('whatever you think about the monarchy') and, frankly, I doubt she would wish you to. Her 'duty' was to embody the Crown. If you think she did it well, then it's UTTERLY INCOHERENT to separate her 'duty' and what the Crown does

2. No, you cannot 'mourn the queen but not her empire'. Again, this is someone who came to the throne when India was independent but most other British colonies were not. 1952 was the year of a BRUTAL counter-insurgency in Kenya where she received the news of her father's passing. You cannot, again, conveniently separate her from the horrific violence being enacted in the name of the British Crown even at the very moment she ascended the throne.

3. No, she didn't oversee a kindly decolonisation initiated by Britain any more than Britain should be known for abolition rather than enslavement. She was head of state as Britain was forced, colony by colony, to abandon the imperial project though not without tremendous violence in many places including Malaya, Kenya and Cyprus. (Ireland too, though differently). On the contrary, she embraced the face-saving fudge of the 'Commonwealth', made it her personal passion (to the extent that the Crown can be 'personal') and ensured her son would remain head of this bonkers organisation, full of postcolonial elites, kindly maternal and paternal figures respectively.

4. The enormous private wealth of her family and the enormous assets of the Crown cannot be separated from the projects of enslavement and colonisation. Period. Start an inquiry into how this wealth came to be and it will become apparent. Yes, both the Crown and individual monarchs have benefitted from enslavement and expropriation.

5. Please stop saying 'whatever you think about the monarchy' followed by vapid clichés about duty and grace. The monarchy represents the right of the wealthy and privileged, a small number, to rule. That said, those who announce themselves republicans should acknowledge that it is perfectly possibly, indeed currently normal, to have elected heads of state and heads of government while maintaining precisely as unequal and grotesque a system as any monarchy. Abolish monarchy by all means, but that is meaningless without abolishing billionaires and trillionares and the plutocracy that rules across the world, whether formally monarchist or not.

[Alwynne]

WndyJW wrote: "I had the same thought about Andrew. He probably would have abdicated for the next in line.

When King Charlie talks about all the countries, near and far, that England invaded, colonized, and brut..."

I think in terms of benefit - apart from tourism - the Queen was seen as fulfilling a kind of ambassadorial role, related to 'soft power' there have been some interesting articles about that recently. Part of which relates to Britain's image globally, part to an idea of a figure uniting the disparate parts of the UK - again a bit contentious too - for instance many Welsh people not keen on the title Prince of Wales being used in the way it has been, that's not to mention objections from other parts of the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...

I think the points Arun posted are very relevant, one thing that stood out watching the first season of 'The Crown' was the episode set partly in Kenya during the time when the King was in decline - no Black actors given any substantial role, very much apart from a very blink-and-you'd-miss-it scene filled with images naturalising white colonialism, smiling Black figures waiting on Elizabeth and her husband. And interestingly unlike many other episodes that had an added note at the end outlining historical contexts/developments, nothing noting that Kenya was then brutalised by the British forces, who set up concentration camps and engaged in rape and torture to subdue independence groups. Caroline Elkins's Britain's Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya is very good at outlining events.

And, although I'd agree with the main thrust of Gopal's arguments, I'd want to modify the final section which is that the Royal Family here doesn't solely represent wealth but is also a symbol of a very particular notion of whiteness and the idea of superior white purity, God-given through their bloodline. And this has been a rallying point for white nationalists/s And the Royal Household upheld that image of whiteness in all areas for many years,

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...

Not to say I'm equating all royalists/supporters of the queen with upholding or supporting that position

But, I think, one of the reasons that Meghan was such a disruptive figure here was that she was regarded as 'tainting' that line, the explicit and more veiled racism, the threats from white nationalist groups all stemmed from that notion. It was clear that for a substantial constituency the Royal Family enabled, and continues to enable, a particular kind of dangerous, white nostalgia that many are desperate to hold onto, some consciously, some not.

There's also a whole other conversation to be had about the Royal Family and heterosexuality, interesting that King Charles emphasised his ties to the Church of England which recently came out with a decidedly homophobic position where gay marriage is concerned.

[WndyJW]

Professor Gopal’s statement needs to read on air in the UK.
I’ve seen many of the headlines covering Kate as a wife and mother contrasted with headlines covering Meghan as a wife and mother and anyone who tries to say there is no racism is willing ignorant. My sympathies are with Harry. Yes, he is privileged, he inherited loads of money from his mother and from the monarchy, but as much as he can, it seems he has moved away from that and is trying to use his fame and position for something useful.

Did anyone see that Donald Trump tweeted, “I never told anybody but she knighted me in private.” That came from the Truth social media thing, but it was red checked authentic account.

[Alwynne]

WndyJW wrote: "Professor Gopal’s statement needs to read on air in the UK.
I’ve seen many of the headlines covering Kate as a wife and mother contrasted with headlines covering Meghan as a wife and mother and any..."

Gopal and similar commentators have been heavily featured by sections of the American and Canadian media but not so much here, think there might be too much of a backlash.

https://www.democracynow.org/2022/9/9...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/...

https://www.commondreams.org/news/202...

The only other thing I'd like to add is that I wish people wouldn't leave marmalade sandwiches as tributes - inspired by Jubilee Queen and Paddington Bear skit - outside Buckingham Palace. Clearly. they haven't thought through the likely impact in a city overrun by rats! For obvious reasons, not that keen on all the plastic-wrapped flowers either

[Emmeline]

I'm just pleased that the Canadian embassy hasn't emailed me their "condolences" yet, which they did on the death of Prince Philip. One of the few times I've replied and asked them if they were for real, why would any of us need condoling on someone who wasn't even the symbolic head of state, just her husband, especially given the kind of person he was?

[Alwynne]

Emily wrote: "I'm just pleased that the Canadian embassy hasn't emailed me their "condolences" yet, which they did on the death of Prince Philip. One of the few times I've replied and asked them if they were for..."

Weird! Although I've had a few from fashion websites, supermarkets etc all of which seemed very curious. Some of the tributes are slightly surreal, I read online that the mass-market lingerie brand Ann Summers put a banner up on their site unfortunately the image of the queen was juxtaposed with pictures of their latest brand of dildo!

[WndyJW]

I’m surprised by the more left leaning organizations and people that are offering condolences, people that I’m fairly certain would never do the same if Trump died. I think it’s because the Queen was able to separate herself from the brutal imperialism of the Brits, as Professor Gopal stated. She was all grace and fine china while other heads of state are closely linked to their politics.

[Alwynne]

Sonia wrote: "The issue of 'national grief' is not a one size fits all. For some people it will be directly related to their sadness over the death of the Queen. For me it has reminded me of the death of my pare..."

I'm sorry about your loss Sonia, and I agree with you about the way that responses tie to the general uncertainty about the future of the country, and the way so much seems to be in flux.

[Hugh, Active moderator]

I think perhaps it is time we drew a line under the discussion about the monarchy, interesting though it has been.

[Alwynne]

Hugh wrote: "I think perhaps it is time we drew a line under the discussion about the monarchy, interesting though it has been."

Message received and understood, I temporarily forgot that I was in a minority here, thanks for the reminder. Further discussion is probably better suited to groups within my own community.

[Paul]

It's been a fascinating discussion, thanks Alwynne and Arun particularly - and my reluctance to join in is more as I post on here under my name, and it doesn't seem a topic where an open discussion is exactly being encouraged in the national media.

Arun's cousin is at my old college - Churchill - and a similar phenomenon happened when she questioned the legacy of that name.

And to link this to books (although it is the non-book thread) - here's a former Booker judge: https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...

[Emmeline]

I've enjoyed the discussion. And I'll just say I reread "The Loneliness of the Long-distance Runner," last night, which was a nice, erm, counterpoint to all of this.

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer]

If I could recommended an about to be published book

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6...

It’s a non fiction book which I know does not appeal to all on here but (to hopefully interest you) it’s written by a Goldsmith shortlisted author and later judge and among other content contains interviews with two Nobel Prize winners (one of who was at the same college as Arun’s cousin) and a very recent Booker Prize chair, has a foreword by a very recent Booker winner and very strong links to two of the books on this year’s Booker shortlist.

I found it really interesting also and hope others might. I should say the author contacted me and asked if I would be interested in reviewing but I normally decline those requests unless the book looks appealing and I was far from disappointed here.

[Cindy]

Sounds fascinating GY.

[David]

Alwynne wrote: "Gopal and similar commentators have been heavily featured by sections of the American and Canadian media but not so much here, think there might be too much of a backlash."

I follow Dr. Gopal on twitter. I didn't realize the connection.

The Smithsonian article is very good, as are the other links.

[Debra]

Sounds interesting, GY.

Do we have a non-fiction thread? If not, where would be the best place to put it? Or should we only focus on fiction? Personally, I would love to see one and would be happy to add it, if there is interest.

[Hugh, Active moderator]

I don't see any problem with having non-fiction discussions in Book Chat.

[Marc]

Paul wrote: "...and my reluctance to join in is more as I post on here under my name, and it doesn't seem a topic where an open discussion is exactly being encouraged in the national media.."

I've seen a small handful of accounts saying protestors have been arrested under the Public Order Act. As I've seen these on Twitter, I'm not sure of their veracity or how widespread such occurrences are. This seems more than just a media reaction, yes/no? I only have a cursory understanding of freedom of speech in the UK (or lack thereof as enshrined specifically in law).

[WndyJW]

Why do we need to stop this discussion of the monarchy? This is a non-book thread and it’s historically and currently interesting and important topic. It’s not as if this group doesn’t discuss other topics, books, authors, etc., ad nauseum.
The discussion has been civil and polite and since, as Paul said, discussions are being discouraged in the media and public sphere it seems like stopping our discussion is falling in line with the monarchy and the powers that be.

[Alwynne]

Marc wrote: "Paul wrote: "...and my reluctance to join in is more as I post on here under my name, and it doesn't seem a topic where an open discussion is exactly being encouraged in the national media.."

I've..."

It's true unfortunately and definitely seems, from the cases reported to be overkill:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/202...

[Alwynne]

Paul wrote: "It's been a fascinating discussion, thanks Alwynne and Arun particularly - and my reluctance to join in is more as I post on here under my name, and it doesn't seem a topic where an open discussion..."

Thanks Paul, I liked the Hirsch article too, very much in line with my own reactions, and I thought it was fairly restrained - despite my feelings I wasn't at all supportive of the tweets wishing for a painful death etc

[Marc]

Alwynne wrote: "It's true unfortunately and definitely seems, from the cases reported to be overkill."
Definitely seems like an over-reaction. Thanks for the links and clarification--much appreciated.

[LindaJ^]

I want to echo Paul on this discussion. It was enlightening for me and, thanks to Alwynne, I was able to quickly understand the point of view of a young man I had a discussion with yesterday while buying a gift card at a local brewery. He is a British citizen married to an American, hence his job at the brewery. His mother was Irish and insisted he learn both sides of that story. And he lived many years in Argentina. His thoughts on the Queen's death and the monarchy echoed those of Alwynne.

[WndyJW]

I watched a a couple episodes of The Me You Can’t See, a series on mental health Harry and Oprah produced. They feature people struggling with depression, PTSD, OCD, anxiety, etc. It’s pretty good. Harry talked about comforting strangers in the crowd outside the palace at age 12 when his mum died and how triggered he was when the attacks started on Meghan. My heart went out to him. He said he has felt since a very young age that the royal life was wrong for him and he longed to be normal.

[Hugh, Active moderator]

I didn't mean to stifle the discussion - I am very bored with the UK media's North Korea-like obsession with national mourning, but I am aware that not everyone feels like I do, and most of the obvious arguments have been aired already.

[WndyJW]

If this was a real pub and not a virtual pub I would be buying a round of shots for everyone to celebrate the news of my youngest son and his partner being pregnant. I am over the moon.

[David]

WndyJW wrote: "If this was a real pub and not a virtual pub I would be buying a round of shots for everyone to celebrate the news of my youngest son and his partner being pregnant. I am over the moon."

Yay! Congrats Wendy (and family)!

[Roman Clodia]

Congratulations Wendy - tequila slammers for everyone, thanks!

[WndyJW]

Thank you. It’s number 6 for me, but still very exciting. If it’s a girl they’re naming her Penelope. I heartily endorsed that name! I don’t think I’ll be able to talk them into Odysseus if they have a boy after that.

[Paul]

Cpngrarulations!!