God Save The King

[OttoVonBismarck]

Also fun fact there are rumors that the Stone was at least twice replaced by a copy and the "real" stone hidden. It's possible that the currently known Stone was a fake from 1300 because the Scots hid the real one when they knew King Edward was going to steal it (and the real one in this theory is now lost to history.) Further, in the 1950s a group of Scottish school boys broke into Westminster Abbey and stole the Stone, and also accidentally broke it in half during the theft. There are rumors to this day that the stone that eventually was given back to the authorities was itself a counterfeit, and that they had hidden the real stone yet again.

The Stone of Scone is essentially peak "stupid British shit", embrace it deeply as the cultural heritage of your adopted nation, Tamas.

[The Brain]

It sounds delicious, which has probably helped its popularity.

[viper37]

Here is a comment you won't be surprised to learn I agree with:

So my thought for the day. I have no problem celebrating the life of a monarch who has played a huge role in public life for over 70 years. However days and days of mourning with no other news, soporific music all over the radio, no comedy allowed and events being cancelled "out of respect" is just ludicrous. Secondly and even more ludicrous is the pageantry, the arcane customs, the ridiculous outfits and sycophantic commentators (step forward James Naughtie, "she didn't put a foot wrong"). Some people love all that stuff, for me this is Britain at its absolute worst.

The British either want monarchy or they do not want monarchy.  There is no "in between". 

Colonials have been stuck with it for a while now.  CBC is all about the Queen, in both official languages.  It's like there's no election going on anymore.  FFS, give me a fucking break.  Isn't it some kind of cultural appropriation anyway?  It's the British Queen, we're not supposed to be British subjects, let them their playthings.

[Sheilbh]

Also I say that - and oppose all this on principle and think it is mad (but I think humans are mad and irrational creatures so maybe we all need an outlet)...But I saw Emperor Naruhito is coming to the funeral, and I did think that's very exciting

So what's the Stone of Destiny? It was mentioned at the start of the Scottish church rememberance thing.

The Stone of Scone - as OvB says. But I lived in Scotland in the 90s when the Stone was returned to Scotland so have a bit more of a romantic attachment to it. It was a stone that was used for the crowning of Kenneth MacAlpine the first King of Scots and used for every subsequent King of Scots. I have a feeling but I can't remember any details that it was often a feature in Scotland's (many) internal disputed successions with different parties trying to capture the Stone.

Then in Edward Longshanks monstrous war on Scotland it got stolen by the English who started using it in their coronations. And it stayed in Westminster Abbey for the next 600 years or so. In the 50s I think a group of Scottish Nationalists broke into the Abbey, kidnapped the Stone and tried to return it to Scotland.

When I was a kid in the 90s it was regularly brought up that the Stone of Destiny was in England and it was restored to Scotland in the mid-90s to much rejoicing. But it still gets used for coronations so when that happens the Stone will be ceremoniously transported from Edinburgh Castle to London.

And also I don't know how representative it is, but the most upvoted comments (hundreds of upvotes) under the daily Guardian live politics coverage are all about being fed up with the whole series of grieving events. I wonder how representative this is.

I also wonder if this will serve to highlight to the public just how out of touch by now these monarchy-related customs are with modern times.

Perhaps but Guardian commentators and voters is not where I would naturally go to get in touch with modern Britain

It's the Guardian. It's Guardian readers. They normally have a widget to "turn off" royal news on big events like weddings etc. I think they don't for this because it is a new head of state so it is newsy. I would also add that my understanding is these are absolute record days for readership for British news sites (especially free and open ones like the Guardian) - so they may, and will grumble, but I suspect it's pretty good for them overall.

[Maladict]

Here is a comment you won't be surprised to learn I agree with:

So my thought for the day. I have no problem celebrating the life of a monarch who has played a huge role in public life for over 70 years. However days and days of mourning with no other news, soporific music all over the radio, no comedy allowed and events being cancelled "out of respect" is just ludicrous. Secondly and even more ludicrous is the pageantry, the arcane customs, the ridiculous outfits and sycophantic commentators (step forward James Naughtie, "she didn't put a foot wrong"). Some people love all that stuff, for me this is Britain at its absolute worst.

Brits being self absorbed and stuck in the past?

And also I don't know how representative it is, but the most upvoted comments (hundreds of upvotes) under the daily Guardian live politics coverage are all about being fed up with the whole series of grieving events.

Brits complaining about self-inflicted inconveniences? 

[Richard Hakluyt]

The way I see it is that the minority of royal-obsessives are like the chief mourners at any other death. They deserve to take priority in our thoughts, even though it looks very OTT to normal people. It is our duty to look respectful, try not to drink too much and tell any jokes quietly.

[crazy canuck]

There is are big differences between our two countries. One appears to be the ability to understand how other countries are governed.

Disagree that that is one of the big differences.  Canada is not far behind the US when it comes to understanding how other countries are governed.  Still a little naïve, but only a little.

Rim shot.  Rick Mercer had a great show a few years back called "Talking to Americans".  You should watch it some time, the whole theme was Americans being completely ignorant about the world around them, and particularly Canada.  Otto would have definitely had a spot on the show.

[crazy canuck]

Here is a comment you won't be surprised to learn I agree with:

So my thought for the day. I have no problem celebrating the life of a monarch who has played a huge role in public life for over 70 years. However days and days of mourning with no other news, soporific music all over the radio, no comedy allowed and events being cancelled "out of respect" is just ludicrous. Secondly and even more ludicrous is the pageantry, the arcane customs, the ridiculous outfits and sycophantic commentators (step forward James Naughtie, "she didn't put a foot wrong"). Some people love all that stuff, for me this is Britain at its absolute worst.

The British either want monarchy or they do not want monarchy.  There is no "in between". 

Colonials have been stuck with it for a while now.  CBC is all about the Queen, in both official languages.  It's like there's no election going on anymore.  FFS, give me a fucking break.  Isn't it some kind of cultural appropriation anyway?  It's the British Queen, we're not supposed to be British subjects, let them their playthings.

She was the Queen of Canada - separate and apart from the crown she held in the UK.

[Malthus]

Also I say that - and oppose all this on principle and think it is mad (but I think humans are mad and irrational creatures so maybe we all need an outlet)...But I saw Emperor Naruhito is coming to the funeral, and I did think that's very exciting

So what's the Stone of Destiny? It was mentioned at the start of the Scottish church rememberance thing.

The Stone of Scone - as OvB says. But I lived in Scotland in the 90s when the Stone was returned to Scotland so have a bit more of a romantic attachment to it. It was a stone that was used for the crowning of Kenneth MacAlpine the first King of Scots and used for every subsequent King of Scots. I have a feeling but I can't remember any details that it was often a feature in Scotland's (many) internal disputed successions with different parties trying to capture the Stone.

Then in Edward Longshanks monstrous war on Scotland it got stolen by the English who started using it in their coronations. And it stayed in Westminster Abbey for the next 600 years or so. In the 50s I think a group of Scottish Nationalists broke into the Abbey, kidnapped the Stone and tried to return it to Scotland.

When I was a kid in the 90s it was regularly brought up that the Stone of Destiny was in England and it was restored to Scotland in the mid-90s to much rejoicing. But it still gets used for coronations so when that happens the Stone will be ceremoniously transported from Edinburgh Castle to London.

And also I don't know how representative it is, but the most upvoted comments (hundreds of upvotes) under the daily Guardian live politics coverage are all about being fed up with the whole series of grieving events. I wonder how representative this is.

I also wonder if this will serve to highlight to the public just how out of touch by now these monarchy-related customs are with modern times.

Perhaps but Guardian commentators and voters is not where I would naturally go to get in touch with modern Britain

It's the Guardian. It's Guardian readers. They normally have a widget to "turn off" royal news on big events like weddings etc. I think they don't for this because it is a new head of state so it is newsy. I would also add that my understanding is these are absolute record days for readership for British news sites (especially free and open ones like the Guardian) - so they may, and will grumble, but I suspect it's pretty good for them overall.

One of my favorite might-have-beens in history: when Edward Longshanks lay dying, he (according to one account) asked that his funeral be having the flesh stripped from his bones and his skeleton put in armour and led on his horse against the Scots.

Now that would have been very metal.

Unfortunately, his wishes were not heeded, and instead he was buried in a solid black stone coffin with "here lies the hammer of the Scots, keep the vow" written on it in Latin (still metal, but not as much).

[Sheilbh]

Saw a clip of the service in Edinburgh and very pleased to see that the Kirk had an appropriately dour minister to preside over the service - he's very Revd I M Jolly

[OttoVonBismarck]

There is are big differences between our two countries. One appears to be the ability to understand how other countries are governed.

Disagree that that is one of the big differences.  Canada is not far behind the US when it comes to understanding how other countries are governed.  Still a little naïve, but only a little.

Rim shot.  Rick Mercer had a great show a few years back called "Talking to Americans".  You should watch it some time, the whole theme was Americans being completely ignorant about the world around them, and particularly Canada.  Otto would have definitely had a spot on the show.

I mean I'm not "ignorant" about Canada, all I have said is I would have thought a mighty polity like Canada would be able to figure out how to amend a legal document when a tiny Caribbean nation like Barbados did it with zero trouble. If it is your position that the matter is simply too hard to figure out for Canadian legislators then I of course defer to your opinion on your own people. A strange position to hold, though.

[Barrister]

I mean I'm not "ignorant" about Canada, all I have said is I would have thought a mighty polity like Canada would be able to figure out how to amend a legal document when a tiny Caribbean nation like Barbados did it with zero trouble. If it is your position that the matter is simply too hard to figure out for Canadian legislators then I of course defer to your opinion on your own people. A strange position to hold, though.

Amending the constitution of a small unitary state like Barbados would almost certainly be easier than amending the constitution on a large and diverse federal state like Canada.

Wiki says that the Barbadian constitution can be amended by a 2/3 vote of each house.

Amendments to the Canadian constitution require the approval of both parliament, but 7 out of 10 provinces representing at least 50% of the population.  And as a practical matter Quebec holds a virtual veto over any amendments as well.

Like I said last week, I figure a team of lawyers could draft up a new republican Constitution Act over the weekend.  Getting it approved would be an entirely different matter.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Right but CC is talking about that like it is some insane concept that no one but a well-educated Canadian lawyer could understand. Most countries have relatively higher hurdles for constitutional amendments than regular legislation. The idea this is some complicated thing non-Canadians are too stupid to understand is..highly ignorant in and of itself.

[viper37]

Meh.  Doesn't matter much to me.  I'm not interested in some colonial relic's life.  She has not done anything for Canada except being born in a family where it was long ago decided that she would reign over Canada because it was either that or confront the British Empire the way the Americans did a century earlier, without any outside help.  

There is no way the British would have let Canada go quietly and peacefully out of the Empire in 1867.  A responsible government firmly controlled by White Anglo-Saxon Protestant interests was the furthest they would go.  Even in 1931, they retained the right to overturn the laws of our parliament.

As such, it is still a powerful symbol of colonialism for all the conquered people of this country, and a powerful reminder of whom this country was built for.  It's a shame really, that so many people would call themselves "progressives" and support such institutions.  They're more attached to inclusive writing, gender neutral speak and forced diversity than anything really meaningful.

[viper37]

The first part is true, the second is utterly false, as demonstrated by the 1982 Constitution.

Charlottetown was rejected by the Western provinces as well as Quebec in 1992, while Meech was firmly rejected by Manitoba and Newfoundland in 1990.  Mulroney had insisted on a unanimous approval by all province, and all provinces had first agreed to sign the document, but after the elections, two provincial governments decided to renege their signature. In the end, Elijah Harper from Manitoba decided to reject it because First Nations weren't included in this document.  Which was just a bullshit excuse to show his anti French racism, of course.  Rejecting the province that always tried to include its First Nations in all Constitutional negotiations despite the Feds attempts at isolating them was just dumb.  Had he been of good faith, he could have spearheaded a new round of negotiations between all first nations and the Federal government.  Or he could have spoken before the 11th hour.  In the end, he was either a racist, or he was manipulated by racist.  Either way, that was a dumb move, and 32 years later, the First Nation cause in Canada hasn't advanced one iota.