The age of those flocking to see the cortege of the Queen and to the lying in state.

I think the Royal family's PR department know well that the late Queen was regarded like a sacred icon of duty, wisdom, and stability.

Princess Diana was a slightly different sort of goddess .

I did not see anyone beaming and waving when tv cameras wentnnear the queue. It included people of all ages but mainly younger people, the under 40s, but with plenty of people from other age groups as well. All looking thoughtful and generally ignoring the cameras.

I would say that 99% came because they felt some link in some way with or through the Queen, which was broen by her death.

Are they the same young people that always start beaming and waving when a TV camera goes past, hoping that that shot will be the one on all the news programmes. It's another 5 minutes of fame thing for most. The older generations would have been more appreciative of what the Royal famiy did for them.

MN is a younger demographic and they currently have a thread going asking if it's ok to hang washing out tomorrow, it's very funny. There seems to be a good mix of views ranging from sadness to the world has gone mad. It's good to hear a range of views even on the monarchy.

Just read that Boris has been in the queue for 15 hours but media not covering this. Security issues? Don't know. Surely, as other MPs are allowed to queue jump, he could be too unless he just wants to do the right thing like David Beckham?

I think you may have missed my last paragraph Normandygirl. I did think there would be different views as I say there.

Just before I went out this afternoon, they interviewed the Australian President. They are now taking sound bites from it but when asked about the republican movement in his country, he said, "now is not the time" - wise man

DaisyAnne

You are right about the question asked on this particular thread, Normandygirl. It was a poor choice to use to comment on the overpowering of threads by Republicans. However, far from saying "please only post if you agree with me", I did ask if I was the only one feeling that way.

As I said, it has not been just this thread which, on its own, would make some sense. It has been on every thread about the death of the Queen.

You think I am wrong. I did ask if anyone did as I do like to be even-handed. So, thank you for your reply.

If you ask "Am I the only one feeling that way" you are inviting comments from posters whose feelings do not mirror your own surely?
Anyway, I understand and agree with your comments about some threads being diverted but this is not one of them.

I just did a 12 hour queue to see her laying in state and I agree, there were a lot of young people there. It was heartening to see how many different ages and races there were. It seems everyone loved the Queen.

You are right about the question asked on this particular thread, Normandygirl. It was a poor choice to use to comment on the overpowering of threads by Republicans. However, far from saying "please only post if you agree with me", I did ask if I was the only one feeling that way.

As I said, it has not been just this thread which, on its own, would make some sense. It has been on every thread about the death of the Queen.

You think I am wrong. I did ask if anyone did as I do like to be even-handed. So, thank you for your reply.

DaisyAnne

Is there a single thread that hasn't been taken over by the small minority of republicans?

Why not start you own. "Constitutional Monarchy v Republic" and you can talk about it between you to your hearts content.

This constant diversion of thread topic is very, very, boring (or maybe that's only me)

The OP , which I presume has been posted to invite discussion states,
"From many commentators there has been an assumption that monarchy is something we are growing out of and young people today have no interest in it.

The crowds I have seen over the last few days seem to suggest that this is wishful thinking."

"Are we growing out of the monarchy "is the subject under discussion and no one has " diverted" anything. Perhaps I have missed the bit that says, " Please only post if you agree with me"?

And of course I would be delighted to take part on a serious thread about constitutional monarchy compared to republics.

Although that doesn't mean I'll stay off any other threads, like a dog distracted by a squirrel.

Where, oh where, has anyone asked you about republics without a republican already having switched the topic.

Just about every thread DaisyAnne. You seem to be having trouble finding threads today.

So, if I start a "Constitutional Monarchy v Republic" would you just stick to that volver and not distract from other threads? It would be nice to wait until the queen has actually been buried though. Just a bit of thought for the feelings of others, even those you don't agree with.

Where, oh where, has anyone asked you about republics without a republican already having switched the topic. People do want to talk about "things", i.e., what is happening currently. They are talking about them in answer to various OPs. Some threads wander which is, of course, okay.

However, the republican seems like a person who walks into a conversation going on in a group and simply starts talking about, well, republicanism. It would be very odd, even inappropriate, in real life and is very odd that it is happening on every thread relative to the current event in this country.

Is there a single thread that hasn't been taken over by the small minority of republicans?

Yes, there are many. You're just not looking in the right place.

And as I said yesterday, if people ask about republics, I'll answer them, provided it's a serious post. And if you don't want us to talk about things, not sure about the point of joining a discussion forum

Now, where's my fur hat and snow shoes?

Aveline

It's not just you DaisyAnne. I don't know why they go on and on saying the same things and wondering why we don't all just agree with them. Bottom line is that we don't and won't no matter how they try to hammer home their point. Wouldn't be allowed in eg Russia, of course they are 'lucky' enough to have an 'elected' president.

It's not just you DaisyAnne. I don't know why they go on and on saying the same things and wondering why we don't all just agree with them. Bottom line is that we don't and won't no matter how they try to hammer home their point. Wouldn't be allowed in eg Russia, of course they are 'lucky' enough to have an 'elected' president.

Is there a single thread that hasn't been taken over by the small minority of republicans?

Why not start you own. "Constitutional Monarchy v Republic" and you can talk about it between you to your hearts content.

This constant diversion of thread topic is very, very, boring (or maybe that's only me)

What, the point that we tried something 350 years ago, when there was no universal suffrage and a dictator was installed who tried to establish his own dynasty? And that's a good reason for not adopting modern democracy?

It's not a serious point.

volver any reason you're ignoring all my points?

Aveline

I suppose the elections of Hitler, Putin and Trump may have put some people off!

???

I heard that the Spanish Queen did a lot to stop the corrida.

One might be wondering why you seem to want to discount the Thai monarchy and the Thai people Aveline. There might be many reasons.

Ooh is that the sound of the barrel scraping?
I would remind you that like other countries the UK tried a republic but went back to a monarchy.

Thailand has a monarchy too.

How's that going?

People will always argue. Some people really enjoy it apparently. Doesn't mean it will make any difference.
Interesting that the Scandinavian and Dutch countries all have monarchies. So many countries with elected presidents run into difficulties.