Ivan, rarefied air up there on the moral high ground ??

If you choose to interpret what I wrote as disrespect then there is not much that I can do about it. I have said on numerous occasions that I have great respect for the way the Queen devoted herself to the job that she inherited.

Since we will obviously never agree on this I will not comment further.

deverall11 wrote:

---

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Can someone please explain the significance of the Queen (now passed), the King or any other member of the
British Royal Family in terms of the daily running of England, Australia and for that matter any other nations
of the Commonwealth.
I watched the various coverages of the mourning etc, a lot of English people were expressing the fact that
they will 'miss' her.
Please enlighten me as to how that is. 

In an attempt to answer your question here is something I wrote and posted elsewhere a few days ago when I heard the Queen had passed.

 

"Her passing is a matter of ambivalence for me.

She was Queen my entire life - My Queen - a constant. The rituals of the the Royal family are part of that which informs every Brit who they are, in much the same way that connection to country tells aboriginals who they are. I recall the Queen's Silver Jubilee celebrations, not as a celebration of the queen or of royalty, but as the glue which brought everyone in England together in an outpouring of appreciation of community.

 

English royalty contributes to the poms sense of belonging & of self. An integral part of English culture & a culture which was spread throughout the world.

However outside of the UK many supporters & lovers of royalty perhaps do not understand the English class system, the pervasiveness of which can only be understood by living it, the overriding & restrictive impact & of 'knowing ones place' - something almost completely absent in Australia & indeed much of the world. It is a peculiar hangover from the past that has remained very real in the daily lives of Brits. From a young age I unquestioningly knew some folk were 'better' & more privileged than me either by virtue of the family they were born into or any number of other reasons. I 'doffed my cap' to the Lord of the manor, I called the bank manager 'Sir' or Mr after putting on my best clothes to meet him. The Queen's place in English society was the primary figurehead for the class system. Irreverent Aussies, whilst liking her referred to her as Lizzy, & they called their bank manger by christian name.

As an Australian & ex pat pom I have paid little attention to royalty over the past 35 years. Once in Australia I was no longer was required to be a 'loyal servant' but nevertheless remained happy enough to know that the Queen's existence in some part informed me of my heritage. She was a bit like a distant family member who had always been there & who no-one should ever speak ill of. BUT in reality whilst she had always been there she had never been there for me, it was I who was expected to be there for her as her 'subject'. To not be so was un-english &  unacceptable.

 

Writing this post I expect some reading it, loyal subjects, may be offended at what may be perceived as my less than wholehearted support for her. But I am not 'speaking ill of the dead' - just expressing the ambivalence that I am sure many who see both sides of royalty feel. The institutionalised privilege of a few at the expense of the rest - which the Queen (& now King) represent more than any other figure, & the figurehead who leads & whom we follow because to do so makes us part of the culture that is our heritage.

 

As a head of state she did a pretty good job. Having a head of state is, I think, a useful thing to have. I don't think an elected/appointed head of state would ever engender the same loyalty & it would be a shame to lose that possibility of bringing people together when circumstances require it, in a way politicians seem unable to do. But inherited power, & privilege of aristocracy is something which doesn't sit well with me.

 

All in all quite a conundrum! But I thank her & hope those who are saddened by her passing can somehow utilise those feelings to come together with family, friends & neighbours. I reckon she'd like that"

.

Cuppa

 

Stan Grant has also posted a quite different perspective, respectful of the Queen but rightfully angry at the system she was the figurehead for. I understand that some here may wish to criticise either him or the views he has expressed.  Personally I will not entertain nor respond to anyone who chooses to do so however, viewing any such criticism as inappropriate at this time and in this thread.  I do however feel that his response is important, appropriately timed & a very measured one speaking for many who feel far less measured. It was not something I found easy to read, because of the truths it contains, & because of my fear that there will be those who simply choose to accuse him of speaking ill of the dead. I don't think that is so - if not now -when? 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-18/queen-death-indigenous-australia-colonisation-empire/101445508?fbclid=IwAR2_xQQYCucC9XUqRMWHutipSyVvX-nBQVZm_6pU__UEvYnVoPyyCfKn8uA

 

rgren2 wrote:

---

Your link takes you back to the start of the thread.

---

 Sorry about that , I think I've fixed it now. Not really sure why that happens sometimes.

Cuppa wrote:

---

here is something I wrote and posted elsewhere a few days ago when I heard the Queen had passed.

---

Every society has its cultural norms: if you consider the UK is unique in its intrinsic inequalities and disparities then, I suggest, you haven't experienced a sufficiently diverse range of cultures - *every* culture has a hierarchy, that's just human nature for you - we like to know our place.

Mike Harding wrote:

---

Cuppa wrote:

---

here is something I wrote and posted elsewhere a few days ago when I heard the Queen had passed.

---

Every society has its cultural norms: if you consider the UK is unique in its intrinsic inequalities and disparities then, I suggest, you haven't experienced a sufficiently diverse range of cultures - *every* culture has a hierarchy, that's just human nature for you - we like to know our place.

---

 I wrote what I wrote from the heart to aid making sense of how I was feeling having just heard the news & it helped.

 I shared it here trying add a perspective in answer to a question. A description of my lived experience.

 Why would you you seek to cherry pick a point as you have whilst ignoring the fuller context of the post? Your attitude comes across as dismissive & arrogant. 

 I'm uncertain if you intended that or whether you zipped off a brain fart without too much thought about how you were expressing it. 

 Either way I wish you hadn't & had instead written a little more thoughtfully & respectfully. 

Cuppa wrote:

---

In an attempt to answer your question here is something I wrote and posted elsewhere a few days ago when I heard the Queen had passed.

 Hi Cuppa,

Thank you for your piece. The whole is beginning to make sense and take shape. It is basically as

I thought it was. Primarily a 'pommie' thing and that's fine. Everyone has a culture. I have a certain

affinity to the culture from where my parents came from. That is it. At no stage do I miss that and

certainly do not refer to it as 'back home'. This was left behind when my parents made the move.

 This move was for a good reason which was to come to a better place and give the kids the chance

at a better future. Home is Australia. It was also the case when they were alive. No one in our family

ever waved a flag that was not Australian when living in Australia as permanent residents.

For some, 'go back to where you came from' should be applied.

You are here if you think where you came from is better, by all means go back there.

Went to school with a clown who spent his days telling everyone where he came from was so much better.

Unfortunately he is still here and living the good life. So much better then where he came from.

It is unfortunate that some feel it is OK to call the Bank Manager by his/her first name and to call Queen

Elizabeth Lizzy. Some will dismiss that as being the 'cheeky Aussie'. I think it's the yobbo Aussie who is

so stupid as to not be able to read the room. Queen Elizabeth is/was not your mate at the pub. I even

get annoyed at the nick names National news readers use: Shane Webcke Webby, Gold Coast The Goldy,

Sunshine Coast The Sunny Coast, Bundaberg Bundy, Rockhampton Rocky but to name a few.

National broadcast is just that and in my view requires a level of spoken English above the pub talk.

Laziness or stupidity or ignorance.

As late as early 2000's I spent so time living in WA. Some of the English Gentlemen still think of Australia

as a colony and regularly to down at you in a condescending tone. All very subtle but it's there along with

racism.

As for Stan Grant, don't like him, think he is very opinionated and I feel he uses his position to voice too many

of what sounds like his personal views. However it seems he is allowed to get away with it.

Cuppa wrote:

---

Mike Harding wrote:

---

Cuppa wrote:

---

here is something I wrote and posted elsewhere a few days ago when I heard the Queen had passed.

---

Every society has its cultural norms: if you consider the UK is unique in its intrinsic inequalities and disparities then, I suggest, you haven't experienced a sufficiently diverse range of cultures - *every* culture has a hierarchy, that's just human nature for you - we like to know our place.

---

 I wrote what I wrote from the heart to aid making sense of how I was feeling having just heard the news & it helped.

 I shared it here trying add a perspective in answer to a question. A description of my lived experience.

 Why would you you seek to cherry pick a point as you have whilst ignoring the fuller context of the post? Your attitude comes across as dismissive & arrogant. 

 I'm uncertain if you intended that or whether you zipped off a brain fart without too much thought about how you were expressing it. 

 Either way I wish you hadn't & had instead written a little more thoughtfully & respectfully. 

-- Edited by Cuppa on Monday 19th of September 2022 04:06:11 PM

---

 Cherry picking is a bit rich.

What makes you entitled to provide your view and in the same breath Mike Harding is not. (As you might indicate by your comments)

Then to top it all off you mention Stan Grant and his views. 

Ivan 01 wrote:

---

 Cherry picking is a bit rich.

What makes you entitled to provide your view and in the same breath Mike Harding is not. (As you might indicate by your comments)

Then to top it all off you mention Stan Grant and his views. 

 

---

More antagonism!

I did not 'provide', I offered my thoughts in regard to the topic. A contribution made in good faith . As an individual I have the right to express my thoughts, so long as I do so respectfully. 

No-one has to either like or agree with anything I say, but it is reasonable for me to expect that any response I receive will be made  respectfully. 

I am very happy to read Mr Hardings views (or yours) about anything I write if expressed in a respectful manner. If however the best on offer is the sort of negativity which has been 'thrown into the ring' here, my choice is to side step the disrespect & comment upon it, but ignore the content in my reply

You & Mr Harding appear to be ready to play the man & not the ball. 

My 'cherry picking' response stands - he took one small point out of the entire post & criticised it without any reference to the rest of the post whatsoever. That is the definition of cherry picking & it was rude & disrespectful. 

I'm beginning to think that among the small number of regulars on this forum there are a cohort of grumpy old men who like nothing better than picking a fight. 

Cuppa wrote:

---

Ivan 01 wrote:

---

 Cherry picking is a bit rich.

What makes you entitled to provide your view and in the same breath Mike Harding is not. (As you might indicate by your comments)

Then to top it all off you mention Stan Grant and his views. 

 

---

More antagonism!

I did not 'provide', I offered my thoughts in regard to the topic. A contribution made in good faith . As an individual I have the right to express my thoughts, so long as I do so respectfully. 

No-one has to either like or agree with anything I say, but it is reasonable for me to expect that any response I receive will be made  respectfully. 

I am very happy to read Mr Hardings views (or yours) about anything I write if expressed in a respectful manner. If however the best on offer is the sort of negativity which has been 'thrown into the ring' here, my choice is to side step the disrespect & comment upon it, but ignore the content in my reply

You & Mr Harding appear to be ready to play the man & not the ball. 

My 'cherry picking' response stands - he took one small point out of the entire post & criticised it without any reference to the rest of the post whatsoever. That is the definition of cherry picking & it was rude & disrespectful. 

I'm beginning to think that among the small number of regulars on this forum there are a cohort of grumpy old men who like nothing better than picking a fight. 

 

-- Edited by Cuppa on Monday 19th of September 2022 06:17:02 PM

---

 I might suggest that in fact, you decided to post your ramblings to antagonise those who have been asking for respect until the Queen is buried for the three pages that is this topic.

I dont observe Mike Harding or anyone taking one small point of your post. The way I see it MHs post stated his observations with respect as his view.

I do observe your antagonistic reply but considering your original post in this topic was to instigate antagonism, it is to be expected.

You said this:

I'm beginning to think that among the small number of regulars on this forum there are a cohort of grumpy old men who like nothing better than picking a fight.

And you are here for what reason?
You achieved what you wanted to achieve and that was to create more angst in what was an already conflicting topic.

In this case a *holier than thou* claim is easily noted as extremely transparent.