Displaying emotions

Thank you Jane, at least we were spared rolling news and Google mad Internet sofa experts, but it was very distressing.

What limit Eleothan?

I feel it started with Diana's death, we seemed to change as a nation at that point. However, social media has exacerbated "public grieving" greatly, everyone wants to add their two cents worth and sometimes in a "very look at me" kind of way. Example, when Amy Winehouse's death was announced, Kelly Osbourne tweeted something along the lines of "so upset can't breath right now", but had a enough breath to get on her phone, to briefly deflect the attention on to her, she is of course not alone in that sort of announcement and as I said just an example. Sadly George Michael is no longer with us, he was the antithesis to all of that, and I had so much respect for his quiet, anonymous magnanimty, it gave us a glimpse of what a kind soul he was.

Turning to the Queen, I think we should remember she grew up in a time of stoicism she was moved enough to put in a very "soon after" visit to the victims in hospital in the aftermath of the Ariana Grande concert. She is of her time, her life has been constrained by protocols, but that doesn't mean she doesn't care. William and Harry belong to a different tactile age.

Nowadays there are piles of flowers all over the place marking a tragic event, although I'm of the opinion all that's kind of futile, never more so than in the case of Baby P were teddies and other soft toys were added, possibly a cathartic effect for some, but nothing changed the fact that poor little baby died in pain at the hands of people who should have cared for him, so maybe the money would be better spent in donations to RSPCC.

Grenfell Tower was an unprecedented horror and the reaction of public grief by those affected is understandable, as is the feelings for all those who witnessed recent terrorist acts. I did at the time think the heads of state marching through Paris after the Charlie Hebdo attack was gratuitous posteruring.

Good post TerriBull
I think the survivors of the fire ( and residents of nearby tower blocks) actually want to be heard and not hugged by strangers.They want fears allayed and reassurances, on the safety of their homes, and where they will be living.That's the more important thing.

I agree roses, hugging and wailing don't get the job done. In a crisis it is the practical things that matter.

Logistically trying to get on an do stuff when VIP's keep turning up gives you more to do, if the Queen visits, then the Mayor, the the PM it is all time that people have to find to meet and greet etc.

I don't say that I warm to Teresa, but honestly what she has had to see and hear about in her time as PM is harrowing, she must have PTSD herself, she isn't prepared for anything like that (not many people are) but at least emergency services are clued up.

The great touchy feelies, like Eva Peron.......Jimmy Saville etc have had their own motives for being so 'huggy'. It is not a new phenomenon.........but I think it is ghastly. Just as I cringe everytime Macrom kissed his missus full on the lips at state events........why can't people just get on with their jobs and leave their emotions at home, unless, that is part of their role.

I suspect we will have some sort of 'hug o meter' in future party manifestos as it seems that this is what matters to the electorate.........seems to me a strnge way to evaluate people but very on trend.

I give up, Corbyn has now said in an interview - I feel their pain. Nooooooo you do not, why oh why do people say this

I agree with you Anniebach. The song for Grenfell Tower comes out on Wednesday (produced by Simon Cowell)...Bridge Over Troubled Water...I know it will raise money which will go directly to the survivors after admininstrative fees have been taken out, but they need homes....money isn't always the answer.

Interesting comment that there are many ways to show our emotions - not in the public domain, Teresa May was lambasted for her 'robotic' response, so even if she had met those poor angry, grief-stricken relatives, I am sure she would have found it difficult to respond in another fashion.
Society is seemingly less tolerant of the actual behaviours that make us individual. - we must all be the same. Many tears will have been shed in private - as a retired nurse, patients in those days they never saw me cry as my role was to soothe, act and respond with empathy, not sympathy: but I did cry over events in the privacy of my own home. It was a professionalism that we were schooled in - doesn't mean we had no feelings.

I'm always quite impressed when celebs use their celebrity to support the rest of us in times of trouble. Arianna Grande has no doubt enhanced her career after Manchester, but she did a lot of emotion and financial good. I don't think she did it for her own gain. Rita Ora was an immigrant, wasn't she? Adele grew up poor. They kept the problems in the spotlight. Lily Allen grew up round there, not particularly privileged, and lives there now, just in a much bigger house. She was very articulate on Channel4 News. Good on her. Let's focus on the positive

Finally Hugh Grant has kept Hacked Off in the media eye, when plenty of media would really like it to go away. OK he was a victim, but so were many many others

I do not have issues of royalty or for those in the public eye showing sympathy, in person, to those suffering from the recent terrible events.
It will not change anything for those poor souls affected but at least it shows, contrary to the belief of so many with their heads stuck in the sand, that what ever their status who ever they may be these persons too are capable of emotion.

But the original question was - do the public have a right to demand people show their emotions publicly ,not should people have or not have emotions

I never doubted that people in the public eye or just ordinary citizens lack emotion. I don't look for proof!

Creepy Corbyn is everywhere............

I am pleased that the Queen went to Manchester - she is a representative for every one of us and it is therefore acceptable and proper for her to do that.

Celebrities on the other hand represent only themselves and should not use their status to comment on such tragedies, apart from an expression of sympathy etc. They often start to make assumptions of events which have no basis in fact but are then expressed as true by their media followers.

W11girl.
Money will not bring back a life.
What money will do is to assist those in replacing the material things that have been lost and however provided should not be an issue

I think we forget celebs are people too and may have links with the area I ve no love for Branson but I think Adele does do a lot for charity and I think ( me included) sometimes underestimate how much some of the celebs do give to charities I didn't realise how involved George Michael was until after his death
Not being a Diane fan I thought what happened around her was way over the top and got quite nauseating and I do think things have change since then I tend to think a bit practically and think of all the thousands of pounds of money the bouquets cost to just die and whither
I think it's up to each and everyone to get comfort in whatever way they can and to your question ......do the public have the right to demand people show their emotions publicly I don't actually understand as I don't know who has demanded this of anyone ?

Well as the OP has broken her stipulation about "No politics" and I have just seen people standing in silence for the people killed in Grenfell Tower here's a consideration. All this public demonstration of feeling is in fact a way of forgetting about the awful effects austerity has had on the poor and the vulnerable, about the outcome of our interference in the Middle East and generally a way of deflecting public outrage. It is in fact another way of pacifying the population, much like Marx referred to religion as the "opiate of the masses" it stops any real radical action. People used to go to church and sing hymns to make them feel better now they stand about weeping. I expect to be shot down in flames, but I can't see how standing in silence helps anyone and I'm afraid it deflects those who were so angry about what has happened and who might hold those responsible to account.

trisher I beg to differ, in that I think there is a place for both showing respect/empathy AND addressing underlying social issues, I don't feel there is any conflict there and both should be happening.

"My thoughts are with the people...” When my daughter was injured in the King's Cross bombing, and Tony Blair said "My thoughts are with the families...” , it meant a tremendous amount to me. I too had always felt it was a trite way to begin, but if you are one of the families, it means a lot.

Wrong trisher, it was Jen who brought her hero Corbyn into this thread ,

Bluebell, you obviously haven't read the thread

Not everybody likes or admires 'celebs', but some do, particularly younger people. So if seeing one of their favourites gives someone a bit of cheer at a dreadful time, then I'm all for it.

People still go to church trisher, the numbers have dropped but the churches are packed when disasters strike , it is a built in need in people

People who come out with trite phrases and those who stand silent are surely trying to show empathy, solidarity some kind of kinship with those directly affected. What are we supposed to do, just carry on as if nothing's happening?

Me, I'm fed up with the 'No words' expression. But nevertheless I acknowledge what they're trying to do.

Language can be so limiting in these dreadful situations.