The Last Days, Death, Lying in State and Funeral of Queen Elizabeth II Part 2

[Amabel2]

Why on earth ordinary people would think that the King or the BRF would need financial contributions from ordinary people to go towards the funeral expenses I can?t think. If it was for charities in the name of the late Queen then donors should surely have intimated as much. There?s an old Yorkshire expression ?There?s nowt so queer as folks? and these gestures illustrate it.

so why did people send coupons to the late queen for her wedding gown? 

[Curryong]

so why did people send coupons to the late queen for her wedding gown?

Because in 1947 clothing in Britain was still on rations as was petrol and various kinds of food. All of it did gradually come off ration but very slowly in some cases. I am old enough to remember sweets, lollies, chocolate and some meats still being rationed when I was a small child and my mother having a ration book for them. Clothing came off rationing in 1949 .

The Queen didn?t really need huge amounts of coupons as the royal family had links to many organisations and relatives abroad that would help if needs be but people wanted to contribute from their own ration books (and Norman Hartnell the fashion designer was on a budget and had to hunt out certain things from abroad.) That is very different from the way things were in 2022 when Queen Elizabeth died.


Rationing In WW2 - What You Need To Know | Imperial War Museums

[Amabel2]

yes I know that but surely people knew that the princess did NOT need their ration coupons and that they were being foolsih to send them.

[Curryong]

yes I know that but surely people knew that the princess did NOT need their ration coupons and that they were being foolsih to send them.

Well, People do foolish things all the time, even nowadays! And in those days just after the war, many British people were ultra-patriotic and I suppose felt very close to their King and his family.

[Amabel2]

well that is my point.  Its no more foolish to send money to the RF now than it was to send coupons to the late queen.  Or rahter its very foolish in each case.

[sara8150]

The Queen's funeral and lying-in-state cost nearly ?162M, Treasury reveals  | Daily Mail Online

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65636772

Cost of Queen Elizabeth II's funeral and lying in state revealed | Politics News | Sky News

Events marking Queen Elizabeth?s death cost the public ?161.7m, figures show | Queen Elizabeth II | The Guardian

Queen Elizabeth II's state funeral cost taxpayers ?162million, Treasury reveals | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

https://www.itv.com/news/2023-05-18/the-queens-funeral-cost-the-government-an-estimated-162m

Full cost of Queen Elizabeth's state funeral and mourning period revealed by Treasury - Mirror Online

[HistoryGirl2]

^Totally my opinion, and maybe irrelevant considering I?m not a citizen of the UK, but?I think she was worth it.

[TLLK]

Speaking as a fellow non-citizen of the UK, I agree that the funeral costs were worth it. Especially as the lying-in-state and various services permitted the people of the UK to bid her farewell.

[HistoryGirl2]

^Yep. And for someone who was the epitome of service for 70 plus years? Yeah, I?d say compared to other costs that government accrues and incurs, good bang for your buck on that one.

[Curryong]

^Yep. And for someone who was the epitome of service for 70 plus years? Yeah, I?d say compared to other costs that government accrues and incurs, good bang for your buck on that one.

On the one hand those sort of expenses are expected when a monarch, especially one who reigned for decades, and died in another part of the UK, is to be expected. I don?t begrudge it at all. However, as an Aussie I only contribute to the cost of royals when they tour here, through my and my husband?s taxes.

On the other hand that is an extremely large sum of money for the taxpayer to shoulder, and remember, the costs of the Coronation are to come. That will also run into many millions, and all in a twelve month period, indeed a ten month period. For those Britons who don?t particularly admire the RF or are apathetic about them, and who are struggling with housing and cost of living expenses, the cost may well cause more resentment.

[HistoryGirl2]

^Then they can join any movement that will abolish the monarchy and pay for the lying in state of any elected official they wish to place in that position.

It is a free country, after all. But based on any poll I?ve seen, I don?t think the majority of the English wish to abolish the monarchy. And their feelings about Elizabeth don?t really seem to show that they begrudge costs for her funeral.

But something deep down tells me that this won?t really affect much of anything one way or another. The people who dislike the monarchy will continue to dislike it, those who support it will continue to support it, and the majority won?t give two hoots about it either way.

I think if given the option of cutting government spending, most would have other things to cut in mind before funeral for the late Queen hits the list.

And an excellent way of comparing would be to note the amount of money that shops, restaurants, hotels, and UK-based television and media companies made over that time when people were in town for the funeral. Similar to the coronation.

[Curryong]

Shops, restaurants etc in certain parts of London and, at a stretch, Windsor, might have benefited from visitor numbers, though I actually doubt the notion that millions of tourists rushed to those two locales to see the Queen?s funeral when they could watch it comfortably on TV at home.

However, what few non residents really take into account is ?London is not the UK?. How exactly did residents in towns and cities all over England and Wales benefit from visitors sleeping in a hotel in Knightsbridge or Windsor, and having lunches and dinner in the West End or central London? Residents in Newcastle, Carlisle, Exeter, Norwich, Birmingham, Liverpool, Hartlepool and Dover, and thousands of other cities and towns would just like to know.

[HistoryGirl2]

^I didn?t realize that economic impact had to be felt by every individual in a country for it to have been real. But since we?re going by individuals, how many pounds did each individual pay for this funeral? It was always my absolute favorite thing to have some tax payer proudly tell me they ?paid for my salary? when I worked in the public sector. Then I?d ponder how much this particular individual actually contributed to it?

I don?t know whether the monarchy will survive Charles, but I don?t think I?m going on a limb by saying the late Queen?s funeral wouldn?t be one of the things they?d hold against him if they did rid themselves of him. I think the last I checked, her approval numbers are still in the 80s? Pretty good for a dead woman, I?d say.

[Curryong]

I would just say in my own defence here that one of the things that people who live away from London and the Home Counties in general do roll their eyes a bit about is when London-based media and personalities burble on about what a great benefit to ?the country? (Britain) this and that is, in a national sense, when they are in fact talking about the capital city and its environs, not Yorkshire or Somerset, or East Anglia or anywhere else. There are different feelings about the RF in fact, the further north you go, and over the border into Scotland. The people there are, shall we say, less effusive.

[HistoryGirl2]

And they?re welcome to do something about it at any moment. Yet?they didn?t during the Queen?s reign. Scotland could also have left the UK altogether. Most didn?t want that either.

Out of all the members of the family, the Queen has always had the majority of the public?s support. Deserved? I would say do; others would disagree. But the truth is, it doesn?t really matter whether it was deserved or not, it was and remains true.

I?d wager there were more people upset that Charles didn?t pay for his own coronation than would begrudge the Queen a state funeral or more that would want Andrew tossed out on his behind or literally anything else that could be taken from the royal coffers than anger at the Queen?s funeral. I think even the staunchest Republicans could see that attacks on her aren?t the winning strategy.

[sara8150]

Cost of Queen's funeral & lying-in-state revealed | The Sun

Queen Elizabeth II?s funeral and lying-in-state cost the government ?162m ? Royal Central

[Curryong]

On the one hand those sort of expenses are expected when a monarch, especially one who reigned for decades, and died in another part of the UK, is to be expected. I don?t begrudge it at all. However, as an Aussie I only contribute to the cost of royals when they tour here, through my and my husband?s taxes.

On the other hand that is an extremely large sum of money for the taxpayer to shoulder, and remember, the costs of the Coronation are to come. That will also run into many millions, and all in a twelve month period, indeed a ten month period. For those Britons who don?t particularly admire the RF or are apathetic about them, and who are struggling with housing and cost of living expenses, the cost may well cause more resentment.

I stated in my original post above that I didn?t and don?t begrudge the cost of the Queen?s funeral at all. However, the fact that Britons dont rush off to man the barricades and join Republic when enormous costs like this are revealed doesn?t mean that these expenses are universally applauded and approved of by people in Britain.
Indeed there was a bit of a backlash on the day of the Queen?s funeral as seen in the article below. And I will be interested in the reaction to the costs of King Charles?s Coronation when they are revealed in a few months.

Backlash as food banks announce they'll close for Queen's funeral

[HistoryGirl2]

I don?t think anything in this world is universally applauded. You could probably ask if curing cancer is a good idea and receive a small percentage of the population that disagree. I think overwhelmingly, there was an outpouring of gratitude for her service when the Queen died. It?s clear there are people in Britain and around the realm that do not want a monarchy and resent its cost. However, when asked individually about the Queen herself, which is what this specific topic is about, that resentment is not as high. Never was and wasn?t there when she died.

[Amabel2]

was there a lot of negative protest about the cost of Diana's funeral? 

[HistoryGirl2]

^I can?t say, but I think Chris Hitchens hit the nail on the head on that one lol common sense would say maybe because there?s always someone, but I doubt they would be vocal about it after the hysteria that gripped the country after her death.

No great hysteria after Elizabeth died, but she was kind of like an institution onto herself. I don?t think the majority of Britain remembered a time when she wasn?t around. There was Republican sentiment during her reign, but I think it?s telling that they noted a rise in interest in the group *after* Elizabeth?s death. There was support for her. What happens now, is anybody?s guess, but I don?t think costs for her funeral is what sends people over the edge.

And if I were advising Republicans on their public campaign, I would say don?t choose Elizabeth as the target. That?s a nonstarter.

[Curryong]

I don?t think republicans ever did make a target of the elderly Elizabeth II as a focus for the Republican movement, to my knowledge anyway, not in Aus nor in Britain. On the contrary they were waiting for the inevitable end of her long reign when Charles (who does not command half the respect his elderly mother had in the last two decades of her reign) would accede and  when they sensed that the winds of change may begin to blow, especially among the young.

I will say this,  though. Non English people may not realise it, not having lived in the UK, but there were points in the late Queen?s reign when people were not terribly enthused about her.

I grew up in the very deferential Britain of the 1950s when all the RF were supposed to be absolutely perfect in every way as far as the general population was concerned. Yet, Elizabeth was even then not considered inviolate. There was always criticism among some of the working classes towards the Royal Family?s privileged lifestyle. Jacqueline Bouvier (Kennedy) came over as a young journalist for the Coronation and was astonished by the dislike she found among people in the East End of London towards the young Queen and her family.

  In the early 1960s Queen Elizabeth was criticised by the then Lord Altringham for her high pitched schoolgirl like voice over-careful advisers and seeming priggish attitudes. It caused a furore at the time, but she must have taken note. Her voice changed and her speeches became a bit more engaging.

In the 1960s she caused criticism in some circles by her dowdiness, insularity, the feeling that her Court and advisers were deeply out of touch with modern day Britain. Therefore in reaction the Queen and her advisers made the ill advised Royal Family doco that only once saw the light of day on British TV (I happen to have viewed it) and then was tucked away, never to be seen again for ever more.

The nadir in the latter part of her reign happened after Diana died. People became very annoyed, even angry, about the Queen and her family?s attitude to Diana?s death. Elizabeth?s advisers read the room, she unbent, made a nice speech about Diana (though what she really thought about her is unlikely to be the same as what she said in her speech to the nation)  and things settled down once more.

So in my long life I have seen many attitudes change. Towards authority figures of all sorts, police, judiciary, aristocracy whom people used to admire and yes, including the BRF, and I have to say that speaking now in 2023 history is not going to reverse itself and go back to attitudes circa 1956, especially among young British people. So Charles is going to have to move very carefully. The tide of history is against monarchies of all sorts and mere gestures are unlikely to make much difference.

[Curryong]

was there a lot of negative protest about the cost of Diana's funeral?

The Spencers wanted a private funeral for Diana. They were going to bury her at Altringham. It was the BP advisers that decided that the RF should be more involved. I don?t believe the Queen was eager but for once I think she was over ruled by the men in grey.

Palace denies argument over Diana's funeral ? The Irish Times

Nearly 40 per cent of British people feel less favourable to the royal family since the death of Diana, according to a poll in today's Sun.

Some 39 per cent have a less favourable impression, 15 per cent more favourable and 43 per cent stayed the same, according to a MORI survey. However, 73 per cent said Britain should remain a monarchy.

The queen's broadcast and lowering of the flag for Diana were too late to avoid damage to the family, according to 44 per cent, while 42 per said it was timely and helped improve the royal image.

A massive 77 per cent agreed strongly that Earl Spencer's tribute had reflected the mood of the nation.

[Curryong]

How Lord Altringham changed the monarchy forever.

How Lord Altrincham Changed the Monarchy Forever,%22a%20priggish%20school%20girl.%22

[HistoryGirl2]

Yes, exactly, *points* in her extensively long reign. And she adjusted as any good monarch would and regained public opinion in her favor. This topic is about her funeral, which is the end of her life. At the end of her life, she was more popular than any politician or member of the family. I don?t think the majority of the country objected or currently objects to the costs of her funeral, but if they do, I would like to see those numbers.

[wannable]

?Cruel? Prince Harry Betrayed Dying Queen Elizabeth, Friend Says

This story tells more of the Queen's bone cancer and couldn't see, hear well since the Jubilee weekend than the  cruel betrayal of Harry and Meghan.