Ronald Reagan Dies

Oh Indeed, but needs must. Ends rather than the means - in the end it paid off (however it came about).

The same COULD have perhaps been said with George Bush, but progress seems very minimal. Many people would have forgiven the run up to war, had the handover and follow-up stratergy been there and military control been more succesful, but since its slowly descending into chaos - Im sure that will be seen in the coming US Election.

VERY WELL put. Very True as well. The flags only come out for England matches, and the general population actually think our team has a chance. We should take more pride in England and be proud! - starting with you p_c_u_k.[/quote]

Yes I'm going to take a lot of pride in England. Us Scots tend to do that. You dimwit :p. (and before you take that too seriously, that was a joke, calm down dear). Still, you weren't to know, the ITV and BBC regions beside my name weren't a clue at all...

Maybe you've picked me up wrong, or maybe I put it wrongly, but I didn't say that the country shouldn't care at all about the passing of the head of state. As much as I don't, I appreciate that she is head of state and that a lot of people do. What I did say was that I don't see why it should result in the country going into some sort of mourning period. Far more tragic things have happened than the expected death of an old woman. If the Queen lives to ripe old age and dies, then it's hardly news. "Old woman dies shock". It's hardly worthy of ripping up all the schedules and forcing the general public to feel as if they've suffered some sort of terrible bereavement. And before you suggest it, this isn't me being concerned that I'm going to miss whatever crap ITV are showing any night of the week, it's just a matter of principle.

Interesting you raise the point of the D-Day soldiers. They were men who put their lives on the line for their country, and in my opinion deserve far more recognition than the Queen.

I'll save my mourning for people who have achieved something in their lives and have been cut down in their prime, rather than someone who has lived in a privileged position and has had a full and healthy life.

I'm not going to get into a debate about the merits of the monarchy here - this is a TV presentation forum, lest we forget - but suffice to say I don't entirely agree with your views on the Royal Family, and I have a very low opinion of the British/English national anthem, and those who, as you say, go to football matches and sing it despite 99% of the time not caring about the Royal Family, or even being against it.

Hhmm...I like the idea that all republicans are Blairites (could be argued that no-one is more sycophantic towards the monarchy than Blair, but that's another subject).

Point being that you've said what there is to cover, and there's not much - lying in state (she's dead in a coffin in an old church - not much to cover there) and Charles becoming King (no difference, except someone more incompetent ruling over us by virtue of birth). That takes all of twenty minutes to cover and if people want more analysis, they can go to news channels.

It's not being disrespectful towards the Royals (though query what they've done to deserve my respect). It's simply stating that in an era where a large number of people couldn't actually care less about the royals, why should they have such unctous, tedious coverage rammed down their throats? I personally was bored by the fawning nature of the coverage of the Queen Mother's death and don't want a repeat of it when the Queen dies.

Just remember - people can be proud to be British without warming to the Royals - I certainly am. And Britain's not a monarchy; it's a democracy. So get off the Daily Mail high-horse.

And as for Thatcher - will her death really get the black tie treatment? It certainly shouldn't. It should receive the same coverage as Wilson dying - if I remember it was top story on all news programmes and a short obit programme, but nothing more. It'll leave the broadcasters open to accusations of political bias if they do any more, surely?

Thatcher will be an awkward one - without bringing my own feelings into it, a lot of people have absolutely no time for her and despise her, so as you say, fawning coverage and Queen Mother treatment will lead to accusations of political bias.

Feel free to correct me on this one, but I'm sure someone told me a few years ago, that when Prince Charles accends the throne, he will be known as King George. Something to do with him not wanting to be named after a dog with big ears...apparantly!

TBH I think unless there are implications for the whole country, all that should be done is an announcement, an obit, a sombre mood at junctions for the rest of the day, maybe slotting in a deidcated obit programme into the schedules. No crass studio analysis or anything.

Of course, if there are implications for the whole country (such as if the PM or Queen died), then switching to news for a lengthy period would be more appropriate to discuss and inform of the implications of the event.

All of that only realy applies for expected (for want of a better word) deaths. Where you have a drip of news (a la Diana) then things would obviously be different.

This reply applies to both yourself beefqueen, and p_c_u_k. Firstly I have always maintained that we should be proud of being British rather than of being English. Although why you Scots feel resentment towards the English when we play footie is beyond me. After all at least we qualify! I was referring to pride of the flag during special occasions such as football matches (yes, that bit does apply to England)or Jubilee or olympics etc.

Secondly I do not believe all Republicans to be Blairites. I find them decent enough people with their own entitled opinions. However, it IS NOT the majority of people who oppose the Monarchy. Over 60% of the public still support the Royal Family and despite bad press the Queen is still hugely popular. Prince Charles may well change the perception of the public views when he becomes king but I do believe Prince William will restore the confidence of the public and make a terrific King.

Thirdly, yes we are a democracy. So is France. The difference being France is a Republic and we are a monarchy. It is only republicans who refuse to accept the fact that Britain is a monarchy.

Fourthly, I appreciate that people are against Royalty but what would we replace it with? An elected president would have the same powers as the Queen and we would still need a Prime Minister. The PM would still run the country and the President would just be an ambassador as head of state. We would still pay for it. They would not live in a semi detached council house would they? So we get rid of the Queen (who is respected by heads of state all over the world, and actually works very hard) and replace her with someone who does exactly the same job. Great idea!

Next, I do not read the Daily Mail. I just appreciate britains history, the culture, the pomp the exemplary way we conduct ourselves during national events. The royal family represent Britain to the world and that makes me proud. Also if they were, in your opinions, a minority love, why did some 2 million flock the streets of London to see them (particularly the Queen)during the 2002 golden Jubilee celebrations?
Also why did thousands and thousands of people queue to see the coffin of the queen Mother? This was not a display of fake mourning. this was a genuine reflection of the feelings of the british public.

So, imagine the scene. My Family is on BBC1. A Continuity announcer says " We interrupt this programme for a news report". We have a vision of a union Flag with the national anthem playing. Afterwards Huw Edwards says "Her Majesty the Queen died this afternoon and tributes have been paid". Then the CA tells us we are now returning to MY Family.
What next? Jonathan Ross being crude and telling jokes? Wholly inappropriate. It is proper and right that TV changes it's schedules to accommodate the news. It is news that will be about for some time. The BBC have now limited the blanket coverage to just The Queen, Prince Phillip, Prince Charles and William and Harry. That is totally fair and just. I am sure ITV have made the same decision. There is no country on earth (at least in our Western society) that would not honour their Head of State in this way.
I think that people need to understand things clearer nowadays. Read up on our history, understand our traditions and values and then the UK would start to be a better place to live. People know more about Big Brother and Soap Opera characters than they do about history and heritage.

Scotland has some magnificent historical characters and certainly, some Scottish kings have also ruled England.
People are not dimwits just because their views differ to yours. But their views should be equally as respected. I like the Royal family because of what they tell the rest of the world about our country. Most people overseas adore the Royal family. Do you think a non entity such as Ken Livingstone as elected president would have the same effect? I don't think so.

24 Hours of tributes to our head of state is not going to hurt anyone.

With the point about Margaret Thatcher. I never suggested that she should get blanket coverage. I just said it would be sad. Yes she was loathed by many. But she was equally adored. Mainly for her strength and determination. She said what she meant and did what she said she would do. Popular or not she was a memorable Prime Minister.

Today is D-Day plus 60. The Queen is present and is being applauded by the veterans. Sums it all up really. She said "Today belongs to the veterans." The Veterans still want to adore her. There, rant over!

I completely agree with you. The monarch is our head of state no matter how people try to delude themselves, and as such, deserves continuous coverage on the television upon her death. She has served our country for over fifty years - yes, she lives in a nice big palace and gets lots of money, but she's certainly given more than her fair share back to the country.

And just to clarify, there is no such thing as a "democracy". As with everything, it can be broken down into many subdivisions. Our government type, according to the CIA World Factbook, is a constitutional monarchy.

Hmm.

I think, Robert, the point you're trying to make is that there is more than one definition of the 'democracy' concept - liberal, etc.

But you are confusing the concept and the entity. Britain is a democracy that happens to run under a constitutional monarchy. The type of democracy we are under is that of a liberal democratic one.

Yes, but by putting "a" before the word democracy, I was referring to democracy as an entity. Had I said "there is no such thing as democracy", then I would have been talking about the concept. I was trying to point out that you cannot say that a country is "a democracy" full stop. You can in terms of the concept, but as an entity, it is broken down into many subdivisions.

Well, again, I would dispute. By refering to it as an entity, you define it as a concept.

As an entity, it is 'a democratic state'.

'Democracy' as we know and understand it today equates to liberal democracy. Attempt to get your head around the likes of the Westphalian Order and you'll understand my point - it is taxing and pointless to attempt to consider democracy today to be anything other than liberal.

Your original point was that Britain wasn't just "a democracy", because there's no such thing, that democracy is an umbrella term. The argument that you're missing is that to all intents and purposes, democracy no longer is an umbrella term because really there is only one form of it operating around the world.

God, these posts are getting long, but I can't work how to selectively quote.

Anyway, just to clarify: I never said that the monarchy is a minority love; I fully accept that the majority of people want a monarchy. Though, to be complete about it, that number is falling every day, especially as older people, like the D-Day veterans, who tend to be more supportive of the Royal Family, die out.

Also, I never mentioned being Scottish. Being a Scot in London gives me a different perspective; I happen to be one of the only ones who'll be supporting England in Euro 2004. My Scottishness is nothing to do with the opinion I posted.

Oh - and don't patronise me by telling me to read up on "our history, traditions and values". I'm quite aware of them. I just believe in adaptation.

My difficulty is that her death will not be "24 hours of tributes"; the coverage will drag on and it won't be representative of how the whole of the country feels. I couldn't care less when she dies - to be honest, the closer we become to a republic (and Charles becoming King will certainly help do that) the better. Will that type of opinion be reflected? Of course not. In the same way that people who thought that the Queen Mother was a [insert your own derogatory opinion here] were not quoted on the TV at all.

A bit of perspective in the coverage would be appreciated. Yes, it's sad that anyone dies. But why shouldn't Jonathan Ross be on TV the night she dies? If any TV channel thinks that playing sombre music and a flag at half-mast will make me cry into my dinner, they can think again.

And as there seems to have been a bit of a republican debate on here, and the comment was made, let me explain why I'm a republican. I believe in democracy, and that includes the right to choose my head of state. Yes, we may end up with an ineffectual President, but it would have been the choice of the people. At present, IMHO, we have an ineffectual head of state. Problem being - she's there not because she was chosen to be there. She's there because she popped out of the Queen Mother's womb. No other reason. If the people love the Queen so much, she can be elected president.

Still interested in how Thatcher will be treated...