Displaying emotions

I read that Lily Allen had a school friend she visitedin that tower block which was why she went there to see the people.

I think some people who could help maybe went to assess the situation for themselves and will maybe do something to help the people. I am sure the people appreciated the visit from the Queen - her parents went to see bamb sites and the people who had lost their homes during the war. In fact when Buckingham Palace was hit the Queen mother, as she later became, said she felt a bit more like one of them now - although of course she had not lost her home.

I have watched the Lily Allen interview now, and no way was she doing it for self-promotion. She was looking anywhere but at the camera.

Celebs will always muscle in where public emotion is concerned.Genuine or not, they can't seem to keep their gobs shut.All must listen to their words of wisdom, even when usually they know nothing about it.
Yes ab there is more emotion openly displayed nowadays.If you are not openly shouting or weeping you are 'uncaring' when in fact a person may be deeply affected by something.

I'm thinking of George Michael, who said little, but did a lot. Never spoke to anyone about the charities he donated to, or the causes that he supported. He just quietly gone on with it, needing no cameras or fanfare. If he hadn't died, I doubt we'd even know now.

Yes, an excellent example of giving without feeling the need to go on about it, Chewbacca.

Overt display of emotion is fine if that's what is right for you but it should not be compulsory, as seems to be the case these days.

Some people easily show their emotions, others less so. I am not a fan of Theresa May, but I do not agree with all the criticism she is getting for not being sympathetic towards the victims of the fire. Her job is to ensure that kind of thing never happens again and to as quickly as possible provide the means to help the survivors with accommodation, trauma counceling etc. I am sure she is truly shocked but just not very good at demonstrating it, but she needs to show that she does what she is supposed to do as Prime Minister. I do hope that this catastrophe will not be used by political opportunists.

And this is why I asked the question tidyskatemum,

And who is to decide what is or is not an overt display of emotion?

What is wrong with someone well known adding their voice in support of those less able or fortunate?

Who are we to judge the wealthy by what charitable works they do or don't make public?

Honestly, some of you could do with being less judgemental and more tolerant in these difficult times.

As you get older, do you not find it better to give someone the benefit of the doubt? To bite your tongue before saying something negative? I find as I get older I am less sure about judging others than I was. Am I alone?

And I love hugging family and friends. I love telling my Mum and brothers I love them. As a child we did neither.

We're all different aren't we Wilma? Everyone who has posted on this thread has given their own personal opinion, which is what the OP asked for. Job done.

Indeed.

A very good (and brave) thread Anniebach . I totally agree with what you are saying and feel that public tears and hugging seem to count for so much these days.

I too love hugging my family Wilma even though I was brought up by "non hugging" parents. But I don't normally hug strangers.

I felt quite ashamed when we found out how quietly kind and charitable George Michael had been. I had never been particularly fond of him or his music and especially not his escapades with drink, drugs and public loos. A good example of someone doing good, for no publicity.

No Wilma, you aren't alone in being less sure about judging others as we age. like you, my close family and friends hug and express love to each other. I enjoy the way my children and their friends all greet each other with hugs.

Thank you Gillybob, I am part of a rather large extended family , four generations of us, cousins who live about two miles apart hug each other every time they call on each other, second cousins now do the same. For me criticising people who do not display their emotions publicly is so judgemental and this is why I spoke of queenie as an example of this,.i don't think anyone has taken more flack for not publicly showing emotion.

We are a tiny family Annie.

Working from the oldest member; my dad a non hugger (but mellowing with age), me and my sister (another non hugger) my DH, who was a non hugger due to strict parents but getting better, my 2 children, both huggers and my three grandchildren totally huggable.

I also have 2 younger girl cousins that I see now and again and we do hug when we meet.
A lot of how we all behave is to do with our upbringing although some of us fight to change, others (like my sister) find it very difficult. She never hugs and tends to shakes hands with even close family.

For me, a hug from the Queen, a so-called celebrity or any politician would be a meaningless invasion of privacy. They are strangers to me and have no right to invade my personal space. I suspect the Queen and Theresa May would feel as uncomfortable hugging a stranger as many people would by being hugged. We should accept that. Of course the problem is, how can you tell if hugging someone would make them uncomfortable? Tee shirt with, "If you don't know me, please don't hug me!" on the front? ?

I imagine Annie would probably hit Corbyn if he tried to comfort her - except that he wouldn't get close enough to her!
However, the woman he comforted obviously needed it, and did not stiffen up at all. Corbyn is good with ordinary people.

It's an interesting topic Annie. As you say, queenie quietly just gets on with doing her job. She has little choice in having a barrage of cameras following her; newspapers commenting on her every move and a general public who all expect something different from her. Her advisors are there to prompt her on what the public "expect" and, as we all know from what happened after Diana died, she wasn't advised very well in the beginning.
I have no problem with "famous" people coming forward, at any national fund raising event, if there aim is to raise awareness of that event, and not their own profile. George Michael; Sir Tom Hunter; JK Rowling are all huge supporters of very worthwhile causes, but they do so quietly and without fuss and without the need of a camera team to catch their every kind words or deed. They are the ones that I admire. Others may not though!

Following this terrible disaster it was individuals from the local community and other parts of London, charities, churches, community groups, etc., that came to the aid of the residents of the tower block. Some well known people who had links to the area also came to assist.

Isn't it strange that instead of focusing on the way the views of the residents - expressing their well-founded fears regarding safety - were apparently ignored over a period of years, those that have come to give comfort and practical help are now being criticised for being too "touchy feely" "over emotional" or "playing to the cameras".

Nobody knows how George Michael would have responded if he were alive - he was a Londoner and he may well have felt the need to give his support.

I don't know why you feel it necessary to keep having a go at Diana all these years after her death Anniebach. Just because you are a great fan of Charles doesn't give you the right to ridicule other people's feelings about her death. And "queenie" would hardly be expected to give anybody a hug - since she was reported to have proferred a gloved hand to her little son Charles on her return from a trip abroad. I think I prefer a little emotional warmth myself.

William comforting an old woman separated from her husband during the evacuation
Her husband is missing. William reached out to comfort her. I'm no Royalist, but I do admire him for doing the right thing at the right moment here. Some people just need to feel that others do care.

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

For my taste its necessary for some heads of state or government to visit physically and show solidarity with the victims, but hugging and kissing from celebs doesn't seem caring to me, it looks like virtue signalling.

Lets not forget the publicity means cold cash for some people....

Sorry Wilma I love your sentiments but I'm a bit of a cynic!!

As a nation I think we are moving away from the stiff upper lip, and dignity first, towards the American style of let it all hang out.

And in answer to your question no WE don't need it, but I suspect the victims would feel moved that someone took the time and trouble to come and hug them and recognised their plight.
We cant deny how powerful the human touch is, whether its genuine or for show.

I pity the young royals fitting into this brave new world.

There we are then, some want the - I feel your pain approach , others think public demands for displays of tears and hugs are not acceptable, myself I am in the latter, I have no right to demand anyone expresses their emotions publicly , but new have been a controller

I will add a personal comment since Eleothan for some reason thought the public was Londoners not all people of the U.K. . Following the Aberfan disaster we had coach tours from London bringing sightseers , children were asked if they had brothers or sisters who had died. the sightseers munched on food as they read the inscriptions on the graves, could be this caused me to feel as I do about the - I feel your pain lot.

You really are the limit anniebach.

That sort of tragedy tourism sounds appalling anniebach. No wonder you feel as you do.