MacMadame
Doing all the things
- Messages
- 58,633
FSU is better than any of them! We all knew the Queen was dead before any news service announced it.
RIP HM Queen Elizabeth II
- Thread starter SHARPIE
- Start date
Cachoo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 10,795
I am glad we don’t have a monarch. That said this woman did a remarkable job even before her father died. I have a feeling she is the last of her kind. Her children are messy unfortunately. She seemed to float above the scandals most of the time. I would question our networks if they didn’t cover this important time in British history. It didn’t crowd the airwaves—there is an endless list of alternatives on the television.
once_upon
Better off than 2020
- Messages
- 30,266
I think, if one really wanted there were ways for Americans and others to avoid the coverage. Just took a little more effect.
My objection, which was not going to be discussed was that not all her reign was above normal, some of which was not in her ultimate control. It is normal to have glowing term for anyone who has died, but I hope that eventually we can acknowledged some of that too.
The Queen has been the only monarch in a country the has a tumultuous past with monarch/United Kingcom and the US. It's normal to feel a bit inconvenienced by everything.
My objection, which was not going to be discussed was that not all her reign was above normal, some of which was not in her ultimate control. It is normal to have glowing term for anyone who has died, but I hope that eventually we can acknowledged some of that too.
The Queen has been the only monarch in a country the has a tumultuous past with monarch/United Kingcom and the US. It's normal to feel a bit inconvenienced by everything.
Susan1
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 12,006
C'mon. You know that is not the point. I don't think anybody is saying that they would have sat and watched t.v. 24 hours a day if only the Queens death wasn't on. I read as much as I usually do. And watched what I usually watch, including DVRd stuff. Except every time I turned on CNN or MSNBC to see what was happening in the US, they were showing an air shot of the car her coffin was in for an hour. Or parades of her guard or whatever marching somewhere. (Everybody is going to have replace their worn out shoes.) I even caught someone with a goat on a leash (Wales?). They may have explained that in the previous or following hour but I missed it. The commentators were all falling all over each other to keep repeating the same things every five minutes.I hear that there is also a portable entertainment device called a "book." Not sure what that is or how to find one.
I've never read any of the Royal/Harry/Megan/Charles/William/Kate/whatever threads on here before. I didn't read this one till everybody was talking about the dogs. Monday morning, I watched our local news on the sister station because the funeral was on all the main networks. Then I watched Grey's Anatomy reruns (where Cristina didn't get the Harper Avery award, went to Switzerland where Burke was, and then quit; I wonder how she is doing now).
I watched The Queen movie a few years ago on t.v. and The Windsors mini-series (did you know their real last name is supposed to be Mountbatten, after Prince Phillip, even though that wasn't his real last name because royals don't have last names <blows the mind>, but they had to keep Windsor because the Queen was THE Queen). But 10 days of "there's Prince Charles King Charles walking/standing/riding/talking" every time I turned on the t.v.? How many days will his Coronation be shown on international t.v.?
marbri
Hey, Kool-Aid!
- Messages
- 16,422
Two years ago I went on a one month retreat. I decided I wasn't going to watch any news and completely detach from that noise. I haven't turned on a 24 hours news station since (especially the US stations) and it has been so incredibly freeing. At 7pm every evening I watch the nightly news, read online news sites (none of which belong to 24 hour news stations) and scan through twitter feeds to see what might be trending and if it's something I want to click onto.
My advice, stay away from 24 hour news stations (even if you aren't watching them for 24 hours a day). Your mental health will thank you. They are incredibly toxic.
My advice, stay away from 24 hour news stations (even if you aren't watching them for 24 hours a day). Your mental health will thank you. They are incredibly toxic.
screech
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 7,412
It actually boggles my mind how many grown adults don't know that other countries still have royalty as well. I lived in another European country for a few years and when I mentioned to a friend back in Canada that I toured the royal palace, they seemed surprised that the country had a monarchy. Maybe it's because we referred to Elizabeth as "THE" Queen, so many thought she was the only?
Badams
ฯ
- Messages
- 5,887
I honestly thought that there was like a "Royal Network" where there were "kings" and "queens" etc... But they all worked under THE Queen, Elizabeth. She was like the Royal head honcho, in my mind. Although, to be fair to myself, I was in high school. LOL!
victorskid
Happily ignoring ultracrepidarians (& trolls)!
- Messages
- 12,299
And many of the other royalty members around Europe are related, even if somewhat distantly, to Queen Elizabeth II and King Charles III.
screech
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 7,412
When I was living overseas almost a decade ago, I'd made a comment on my social media saying that I was watching the royal wedding. People commented wondering if they'd missed that Prince Harry was getting married, and if not, who the heck it would be.
Also people even in Canada who I've seen confused when they heard Elizabeth referred to as "Queen of Canada", which was one of her official titles. She's always kind of thought of as the Queen of England, so people don't make the connection that yes, she's was the Queen of our country too, so of course she's called that. When representing Canada, Charles will be referred to as King of Canada as well.
Also people even in Canada who I've seen confused when they heard Elizabeth referred to as "Queen of Canada", which was one of her official titles. She's always kind of thought of as the Queen of England, so people don't make the connection that yes, she's was the Queen of our country too, so of course she's called that. When representing Canada, Charles will be referred to as King of Canada as well.
MsZem
I see the sea
- Messages
- 18,495
I started a new royalty thread for those of us who are aware of this
Royalty thread #15: A New Era
There's a lot of discussion about the British royals in the RIP Queen Elizabeth thread and the Harry/Meghan thread; this is meant as a general royalty thread :) In the Netherlands, the Princess of Orange started University (colleague who used to work there: "And not at Leiden!!")...
www.fsuniverse.net
Susan1
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 12,006
Last one here, since it is about the Queen
www.dailymail.co.uk
Trump, Obama, Bush and Clinton skip DC memorial service for the Queen
Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton and Carter were all invited to the service after missing out on invitations to the Queen's State Funeral in London earlier this week but none chose to attend.
Coco
Rotating while Russian!
- Messages
- 18,571
So Queen Margarethe tested positive for the crud after being at the funeral 
misskarne
Handy Emergency Backup Mode
- Messages
- 23,470
Oh noSo Queen Margarethe tested positive for the crud after being at the funeral
The Australian official Memorial is currently being streamed on ABC News on Youtube, if anyone is interested. Currently the politicians and diplomatic folk are all placing a sprig of wattle in a wreath.
There are two Venturer Scouts at the head of the room holding the baskets with the wattle sprigs, and it has struck me - no more will they be trying to be Queen's Scouts. Now they will be King's Scouts. It doesn't sound quite right. I remember that it used to be a sign of how old a Scout Hall was, if it had King's Scouts on its honour board.
D
Deleted member 221
Guest
It's inaccurate and either very poor data analysis or (more likely) deliberate distortion. QE2's funeral was watched on TV by 37.5 million people in the UK. The 27 million number is for BBC only, and excludes both other stations that broadcast the funeral and streaming (another 25 million). Worldwide estimates of viewership, tv and streaming, are in the 4 to 5 billion range. Diana's funeral was estimated in the 2.5 billion range.
Diana's funeral did beat QE2's funeral in the U.S. ratings, again excluding streaming, which is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
allezfred
In A Fake Snowball Fight
- Messages
- 65,501
Much as it was a big news story worldwide I don’t find those numbers believable at all.
D
Deleted member 221
Guest
I suspect the definition of watch the funeral is loose and probably includes people who watched a few minutes of it, including in shared or public settings (thinking in particular in India). Even so, I tend to agree with you that these numbers are likely inflated.
That said, I would expect both numbers (the Queen's and Diana's) to be inflated to more or less the same degree, and that 1.6x to 2 times as many people watched the Queen's funeral as compared to Diana's funeral. The claims that more people watched Diana's funeral are baseless, as far as I can tell. (If someone wants to make that argument using data, I'm happy to listen.)
As silly as it is, I do think we should point out inaccurate and potentially manipulative data analysis even when likely innocuous or done in jest. Politicians / political groups use techniques like this all the time, and people need to be able to recognize biased and incomplete data.
Aceon6
Wrangling the duvet into the cover
- Messages
- 29,891
The problem with any numbers that purport to measure people is they don’t account for “having it on because it’s on” vs. active watching. We had one TV on BBC during the services in Scotland, again for the procession to the lying in state, and again for the full day of the funeral. DH “watched” when he passed that TV. If he counts, I believe 4-5 billion is as good a number as any.
Maybe it would have been better to post this to get my point across
But also, if we're really going to talk about number inflation or whatever, I'd point out that fewer people had means to be "watching" Diana's funeral worldwide in the first place. Many would have listened to commentary about it on radio, if it was broadcast like that. (ETA: And a larger proportion of people compared to now wouldn't have had the luxury at all)
And the population was lower back then. The number comparison is meaningless. Not just because it's like a kpop fanwar.
ETA: But one good thing out of the 5 billion number (if at all real) is that 5 billion out of 7.75 billion CAN watch it one way or the other. Good progress.
But also, if we're really going to talk about number inflation or whatever, I'd point out that fewer people had means to be "watching" Diana's funeral worldwide in the first place. Many would have listened to commentary about it on radio, if it was broadcast like that. (ETA: And a larger proportion of people compared to now wouldn't have had the luxury at all)
And the population was lower back then. The number comparison is meaningless. Not just because it's like a kpop fanwar.
ETA: But one good thing out of the 5 billion number (if at all real) is that 5 billion out of 7.75 billion CAN watch it one way or the other. Good progress.
Last edited:
gkelly
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 16,465
Those numbers are not saying that more people watched Princess Diana's funeral.
Is the implication that the numbers for Princess Diana's watchers were worldwide numbers?
If you compare UK-only numbers to worldwide numbers, naturally the latter will be higher.
But it's not much larger here, so I'm not sure what point is being made.
If UK-only numbers were given for the two funerals, or worldwide numbers for both, then there could be a meaningful comparison between the two.
Is the implication that the numbers for Princess Diana's watchers were worldwide numbers?
If you compare UK-only numbers to worldwide numbers, naturally the latter will be higher.
But it's not much larger here, so I'm not sure what point is being made.
If UK-only numbers were given for the two funerals, or worldwide numbers for both, then there could be a meaningful comparison between the two.
allezfred
In A Fake Snowball Fight
- Messages
- 65,501
There are 8 billion people on the planet. I would be surprised if a quarter of them had a TV set and/or a reliable internet connection for streaming. That’s even before taking into account time differences and interest to watch etc.
No, they are both UK numbers. https://inews.co.uk/news/the-queen-...-figures-elizabeth-ii-state-explained-1869790
Although that link says it's 29m vs 32m.
VGThuy
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 41,023
Are these just tv numbers? If so, then it's pretty well-known and an established fact that TV viewers are much lower than they are twenty-thirty years ago. Look at the numbers that constitute a "hit" network show now and what those numbers were back in the 1990s and before. It's a lot like how much an album has to sell to hit the no. 1 on the hot Billboard chart compared to what it took in the past.
Coco
Rotating while Russian!
- Messages
- 18,571
Did the world go from 5 billion to 8 billion really quickly or does it just seem that way? Am I old? LOL
Vagabond
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 25,479
I find it very sad that a quarter century after Diana died, people still need to bolster her reputation with statistics and one-upsmanship. Let it go, folks.
manhn
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 14,799
Wait, "only" 32 million people viewed Diana's funeral worldwide? That seems low. Back in those days, an episode of Friends or ER could get those numbers from the US alone.
MsZem
I see the sea
- Messages
- 18,495
I have to say that discussing TV ratings for funerals strikes me as rather crass.
D
Deleted member 221
Guest
There are more smartphones than people on the planet (I think by a factor of 2x now), and estimates are that at least half of the world's population has a smartphone. The funeral took place in the world's most central time zone, plus it lasted all day
.I don't find it entirely unbelievable that 63% of the world's population watched at least a few minutes of the Queen's funeral, especially given that the Commonwealth represents 33% of the world's population.
