RIP HM Queen Elizabeth II

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.
 
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.
 
Vagabond said:
I hear that there is also a portable entertainment device called a "book." Not sure what that is or how to find one. :unsure:
Click to expand...
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'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.?
 
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.
 
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?
 
screech said:
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?
Click to expand...
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!
 
screech said:
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?
Click to expand...
And many of the other royalty members around Europe are related, even if somewhat distantly, to Queen Elizabeth II and King Charles III.
 
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.
 
screech said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
Coco said:
So Queen Margarethe tested positive for the crud after being at the funeral :(
Click to expand...
Oh no :(

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.
 
Dai's Blues for Klook said:
I'm very sorry, this is a bit tasteless, but I laughed when I saw this tweet
https://twitter.com/x/status/1572458328894087168
I hope it makes people on here laugh and lighten up a bit too.
Click to expand...

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 said:
Much as it was a big news story worldwide I don’t find those numbers believable at all.
Click to expand...

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.
 
allezfred said:
Much as it was a big news story worldwide I don’t find those numbers believable at all.
Click to expand...
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
https://twitter.com/x/status/1572632620441423872

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:
Those numbers are not saying that more people watched Princess Diana's funeral.

Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral was watched by 27M people in the UK alone.

In contrast, Princess Diana’s funeral was watched by 32.1M in 1997.
Click to expand...

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.
 
gkelly said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Did the world go from 5 billion to 8 billion really quickly or does it just seem that way? Am I old? LOL
 
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.
 
allezfred said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :lol:.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

SkateGuard
Artifactually Podcast: Interview with Elizabeth Manley
Replies
0
Views
708
SkateGuard
SkateGuard
SkateFanBerlin
International Chopin Competition: Prelims
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
SkateFanBerlin
SkateFanBerlin
Cachoo
Brian Wilson Has Passed: Were you a fan of the Beach Boys?
Replies
20
Views
2K
three fingered jack
T
Sylvia
RIP Maggie Smith - share favourite/memorable roles & quotes
2
Replies
51
Views
8K
Sylvia
Sylvia
BlueRidge
Christmas Market attack in Germany
Replies
8
Views
1K
Private Citizen
P
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information