That’s because the national anthem is called “God Save the Queen.” Or rather it has been for the past 70 years.
That's actually really crazy, there are a lot of little things that seemingly don't matter but are huge changes that people haven't really talked about.
Elizabeth’s family had several corgis when she was a girl, and her father gave her one named Susan when she was 18 years old.
This is more obituary like than anything I have seen about her to be honest. It is more personal like something you would see at a normal funeral.
The United States had 14 presidents during the queen’s reign. France had 10. So the queen provided a sense of stability as politics changed.
I think this is a really important point and something a lot of people are forgetting to mention. Not that the change in other countries is necessarily bad, but there are very few people still alive who have witnessed a change in monarch in Britain which is huge, so there is a lot of questioning about what to expect.
Queen Elizabeth had regular meetings with the country’s highest political leader, the prime minister. She could advise that person, but she couldn’t propose new laws, for example, and she was expected to not tell the public her opinions about political matters.
This is really interesting, I don't think this has really been taught to a lot of people.
You might wonder why so many people are saddened by the queen’s death, including people who never met her and even those who didn’t live in Britain or any of its current or former territories.
Valid, it is kind of weird. I don't think there is any larger presence and world changing death that could be had right now.
As a psychologist who applies personality theories to the pursuit of authentic leadership, I have analyzed the personality profile that best describes Elizabeth II’s character.
This is a loaded statement and already shows that there is a lot of opinion and bias in this article.
show the essence of the personality of the Queen of the United Kingdom, one of the cornerstones on which British identity has been built over the past 70 years. It is no coincidence that the phrase “London Bridge has fallen” was the code for announcing her death.
This is really interesting, I did not know that is what happened. This does show much support for the queen though, the title of the article sets it up.
“Why shouldn’t this be the end of the line rather than a continuation?”
This is rough, I mean honestly, where is Britain supposed to go with a drop of the hat? This would have had to be planned before her death not during the aftermath of it, that is most likely going to be too much chaos, especially for regions that have historically been one of the biggest world super powers.
Conversations about the legacies of the empire, slavery and violence, and also a discussion on these nations’ own self-identity, can’t be evaded or submerged in a nostalgia that many millions of people do not share for very good reasons
I think this is probably one of the more true and honest statements that I have seen since starting to read all these articles, and this is one of the last ones for me to read.
While support for the monarchy has been on the decline in Britain, Elizabeth herself was highly popular until her death. Will King Charles have the same strength and appeal globally?
I think this is going to be a very important part of my essay, specifically pertaining to how the focus is so quickly shifting to those who are alive. In doing all this reading, I have learned so much less about what the queen has done compared to what the rest of the royal family has done so I think this really does show what people are talking about and thinking about.
Not necessarily correctly, the queen was often seen as someone who stayed out of politics, Charles doesn’t have that cloak. So people will pay more attention.
This is interesting, so she just put on a better face than Charles and acted like she didn't do anything so maybe that is one more reason.
He has engaged in financial conduct, for example, that has raised questions, trying to shape the laws in a way that will be beneficial to his personal tax.
I also feel like this implies that the queen has not tried to do anything for the 70 years she has been queen.
Over a number of years, there have been a fairly drawn-out issues around Charles attempting to intervene or influence in government.
This is interesting, this could also be another reason there is not much about what the queen has done, because so many other people were influencing it rather than in the U.S. government it is the president, his cabinet, Congress, and HOR, so it is a lot easier to talk about.
Why are the individual stories out there instead of media pieces on money, power, race and empire? Those are issues that are not so easy to televise.
This is kind of what I was wondering when it comes to reading everything from after the queen's death so I feel like this has really answered a lot of questions about everything else I had been reading. It really has seemed like everyone supports the queen but is not talking about important things she has done and this really explains it.
That’s very different from media representation in the past. In the ’80s, there was a lot of focus on constitutional issues, even with the scandalous side around Charles and Diana, etc.
This is really fair, I had not thought about this. I think this is honestly a good explanation of why obituaries have mainly been talking about her and her personal relationships rather than what she has done as a queen.
The Museum will be closed on Monday 19 September 2022 in respect of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s state funeral.
Not saying that they are not doing anything for the queen and I realize that it takes time to set up a museum exhibit but I'm surprised they're not looking forward to doing that or talking about it, even if just to say they will be doing it in five years, it is kind of weird to not be planning anything for the woman who ruled for 70 years.
Her Majesty departed the Museum via the Main entrance, to a backdrop of giant projections of objects from the Hotung gallery onto the Museum.
It is so odd that they decided to talk about where she left. It makes me feel like this article isn't really to honor the death of her, just to talk about times she has come to the museum and say that if she did, maybe other people should too because you could go to a place the queen has been.
Her Majesty opened the show on 29 March and received a tour of the exhibition.
Is this saying that she was one of the first people to come see the exhibit?
The Queen took the opportunity to make a further gift – The Royal Music Library – which had been on loan to the British Museum since 1911.
This is really interesting, I know that they aren't implying that they don't like the queen, but I find it really interesting how when someone famous dedicates something to a museum or something like that, typically no matter what the situation unless it is really bad, they praise the fact that someone famous gave them something.
hey're shown in the illustration above with Museum Director Sir John Forsdyke looking at the Rosetta Stone, which was displayed outside of a case at this time. The Illustrated London News records that the Princesses received an hour-and-a-half tour of the Assyrian and Egyptian galleries with the Director.
This is really cool.
hese are questions that we’ll be asking over the next few days and weeks.
Curious if these questions have already been answered because I don't think it is as easy as that. Even being around it your whole life, you can't just jump into ruling a country especially when dealing with the death of your mother.
Is the monarchy a modern thing? Well, now that the Queen has sadly passed away, is this an opportunity for countries to step away and devolve themselves further in a way that they would not have done while she was alive, as a matter of respect? Yeah, I think so.
I'm curious how other countries feel about this because a monarchy, to a lot of other governments, seems like a downgrade, and while it is working for them, it can easily go wrong. I want to know if a man taking the throne now will make people dislike the monarchy more because it will feel even more medieval than having a king and queen already may have felt.
think the way that he’s viewed throughout the Commonwealth is dependent on the different countries, and the way that they’ve been treated with decolonization and then the aftereffects.
I wish they touched on this more because I feel like this is really important information.
I think that people in Britain do not have the same feeling towards Charles that Americans do. Knowing people that have worked in his household, that is not the view of people that have worked side by side with him or with Camilla [his wife].
That's really interesting. I am curious to know if they actually like Camilla. Especially considering how everyone considered Diana the "people's princess" how did they so easily forgive Charles? And was it because of Camilla because people thought there was no reason to hate her?
For the most part, Queen Elizabeth was able to rise above, stay above the fray, but certainly her offspring were not immune.
That is because they were causing all of the drama people wanted to hear, whereas she was causing drama that made people uncomfortable.
With Meghan [Markle] particularly, I think more of a stand could have been taken, but she had her reasons and she had age and sagacity on her side as well.
This is a really unclear statement. It sounds like there should have been a stand taken against Meghan Markle when there is no reason to. No matter what Meghan and Harry's reasoning to do anything, it's valid if it is real to them and what they want, it is not her place to fight that. Especially when her brother doing the same thing is what made her queen in the first place.
Being the leader and head of the Church of England is just as important as being the head of state, I think. Sometimes it’s just the way that you carry yourself, and that demeanor that makes people know that they’re safe, and they’re looked after, and that there is something bigger out there than themselves.
All about her demeanor not actually the things she did.
She did something similar with her very comforting speech during COVID-19.
This feels very honoring of her.
Succeeding to the throne at age 73, he is the oldest recorded person to become a British monarch.
Interesting there is so much talk that is not about Elizabeth thus far considering the article is "What Will Queen Elizabeth II's Legacy Be?"
In an explosive March 2021 interview with Oprah Winfrey, the couple revealed that Markle and their infant son, Archie, had been subjected to racist treatment by members of the royal family, although they were careful to clear the Queen and Prince Philip of any wrongdoing.
WHAT EVEN?? This is horrible! They have no reason to be up in arms for Meghan and Harry moving to California.
American divorcée Wallis Simpson
I don't get why everyone refers to her as American divorcee Wallis Simpson like it is such a disgrace to 1) have married an American, especially when Harry did later, 2) like the fact that she is divorced is just THAT bad. Especially when, once again, Charles and Diana got divorced and Charles even remarried.
The queen, who appointed her 15th British prime minister, Liz Truss, on September 6—just two days before her death—never expected to reign.
Wow, I wonder if this was on purpose or it was just a coincidence.
Despite her age and having just sustained a case of COVID-19, the Queen, dressed in pearls and a light blue dress, coat and hat, wore a broad grin.
That's crazy. I'm also shocked that this was the last thing they decided to cover and not talk about anything that happened right before her death.
Photos of the queen sitting alone in St. George's Chapel struck many as a symbol of her loneliness and grief.
That is actually so so sad.
For more than a half-century, Prince Philip supported his wife in her royal duties and took on an ambitious slate of obligations of his own.
An oddly neutral, if not, vaguely positive, few of Phillip after everything they have been saying previously.
. Though the queen reportedly gave her quick approval to the match, the relationship between the couple and the British media—as well as the rest of the royal family—grew increasingly tense after their marriage.
I am really curious as to what made the queen give quick approval to the match. This also kind of frames it like it is Meghan's fault that all of this happened.
, George is widely expected to become king one day. His birth marked the first time since Victoria’s reign that three generations of direct heirs to the British throne were alive at the same time.
That's absolutely crazy, he is just a baby. Even now, he is only 10, that is a ridiculous thing to expect of a 10 year old and try and force him into growing up. That is literally unreal.
her “sincere thoughts and deep sympathy” for the victims of the troubled Anglo-Irish past, was widely celebrated as the beginning of a new era of friendship.
I wonder if she actually did anything or just said that and people let it slide and decided it was okay, because from everything I have read, it seems like the second is more likely.
As the first British monarch since Queen Victoria to celebrate a Golden Jubilee, Elizabeth traveled more than 40,000 miles that year, including visits to the Caribbean, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. She also visited 70 cities and towns in 50 counties in the United Kingdom.
It seems like they are framing this as something we should be proud of and amazed by and that this is what made her a good queen in their eyes.
The queen initially remained at her estate in Balmoral, Scotland, and refused to allow the flag to fly at half-mast over Buckingham Palace or address the grieving nation.
This is crazy, and something interesting they decided to include. Even if you have bad relationships with someone, how can you not choose to acknowledge their death in the proper way? She is dead, why is there still a feud being held out?
Queen Elizabeth remarked that 1992 “has turned out to be an 'Annus Horribilis'”: Latin for “a horrible year.”
This is a good explanation of Elizabeth's "annus horibilis". The way this is framed it also makes sense to put in something about her death even though it is negative.
For the press, the diplomatic importance of the queen’s visit was outweighed by her husband’s characteristic (and sometimes racist) gaffes: Philip called Beijing “ghastly” and told a group of British students they would get “slitty eyes” if they stayed in China too long.
1) uhhhhh that's so not cool what even?? 2) Really interesting thing to include in an article about her death, especially considering how much she seemed to have loved her husband.
But while Diana earned the adoration of the public, her marriage to Charles (and her relationship with the royal family) was troubled from the beginning.
Interesting place to put this piece of information, especially considering it is a story about the queen's life after her passing, why is there so much mention of Diana's poor relationship with the royal family in most articles?
"Although that vow was made in my salad days when I was green in judgement, I do not regret nor retract one word of it.”
Almost every article has talked about her "salad days"
Though Prince Philip arrived in Aberfan a day after the disaster, the queen herself delayed her visit for over a week, fearing her presence would distract from rescue and recovery efforts
This feels very messy in so many ways. One that feels like she is not actually worried about helping because first of all Phillip went so her not going had to have caused more talk, she also has more power to do stuff there than not because there would be more focus and she could provide said focus.
. Her visit marked the 20-year anniversary of the end of World War II, helping to symbolize the reconciliation between the two countries and recognize Germany’s reemergence as a power in Europe and on the world stage.
Interesting that this is one thing she has done but on the other hand there has been a lot of talk of repression that has come from her so the idea that she can repress so much but also do such a large thing that is marking the end of one oppression.
Afterward, some 3 million people lined the route as the queen and her entourage made their slow procession back to Buckingham Palace.
So far this is a very neutral sounding article.
She was also very much herself — familiar and a mystery at the same time. It is that which we may miss, most of all.
She spent over 70 years on the throne, and this is all the article chooses to mention which I think says a lot. There is a lot missing from here, and no recognition of actual bad things, just brushing them off saying she learned how to deal with it.
While the world indulges occasional clowning in leaders, it ultimately craves respectability — and that was a quality Elizabeth had in abundance.
While this might be true, it seems to forget about some really not cool things she has done, so it seems like it is more of an heir of respectability which can also show up in not taking responsibility for her actions because she "just needed to show respectability".
The Queen always thought she had “to be seen to be believed.”
Bringing up things that make her seem more real and down to earth.
Yet every attempt to chart her inner life results in telling you more about the writer than the subject.
Interesting, maybe this is something to note.
Yet Elizabeth would become the most recognizable human being on the planet.
Comparing her to all these people shows how highly they think of her. Specifically Winston Churchill and Nelson Mandela because those are two vey prominent figures who did a lot.
Elizabeth II belonged to the world. It’s moving how the peoples of so many nations embraced this quiet, emotionally reticent woman who reigned in a country that once bestrode the world as an empire.
This is a very positive light
I would like to see a more open discussion in Britain about what actually happened during the decades of Queen Elizabeth II’s reign, which remains extremely opaque and little-known to most British people, massively politicized, and very difficult to discuss
I am curious how much this has affected what people are writing about her after death such as obituaries.
Charles takes his mother’s example very seriously by all accounts. I would assume he would strive to do exactly the same with respect to impartiality and lack of overt political gestures.”
The first sentence is fact, the second is opinion. I think this is really interesting and shows that Britain is not feeling the full effects of this yet. I also think that this says something about how bad it was if they are already cleaning house four days after she has died.
Much was made of the impartiality of the queen and her studious avoidance of getting mixed up in politics
This makes a lot of sense based on what I have been reading in other articles so this is probably accurate in some sense.
As a result of the lawsuit brought by victims of British torture in Kenya, the then-foreign secretary, William Hague, delivered an apology on the floor of the House of Commons.
Wow this is crazy.
“The other question is to what extent either British governments or agents of the monarchy will weigh in on the discussions about delivering apologies or offering reparations” for atrocities committed in the name of maintaining colonial rule
Curious if there has been any talk about this specifically. Also noting that this article is referring to Queen Elizabeth, but there are points where it is referring to Britain as a whole which is an interesting differentiation that they are not making.
and I’ve heard people commenting on her enthusiasm at welcoming Nelson Mandela when he was president of the Republic of South Africa,”
I am curious as to what they mean about this because there is little explanation on this, I'm assuming they mean this in a negative way but there really is no further explanation on this.
be peaceful transfers of power, but, behind the scenes, the transfers were anything but peaceful in a number of places and anything but willing on the part of the British,
This is really interesting. I'm curious what they consider to be behind the scenes and how hidden they believe that is.
castration committed by the British.”
This is a really bold statement considering it is not saying that they weren't stopping these things but that they were actually committing them.
Gilding the queen’s legacy threatens to cover up a much more oppressive and often violent transition, Jasanoff said.
This is really interesting specifically considering all the oppression that the Irish had come out with after her death. This shows a possible pattern in her actions.
For Justin Trudeau, Canada's prime minister, the Queen was a constant in Canadians' lives and one of his "favourite people in the world".
Only talking about people who were on good terms with the queen. There were many who weren't on good terms with the queen but this article never mentioned any of that.
William's wife, Catherine, remained at Windsor with their children - George, Charlotte and Louis - as it has been their first full day at a new school.
Interesting bit of information to add.
"No institution… should expect to be free from the scrutiny of those who give it their loyalty and support, not to mention those who don't," she acknowledged.
This is a really interesting quote and considering this, which is something most people wouldn't say I'm surprised with Charles' quotes.
After the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in a car accident in Paris in 1997, the Queen drew criticism for appearing reluctant to respond publicly.
Back to talking about negative things or things that don't pertain to her again.
Her commitment to the Commonwealth was a constant - she visited every Commonwealth country at least once.
This is starting to just talk about her and what she did.
Princess Elizabeth was in Kenya in 1952, representing the ailing King, when Philip broke the news that her father had died. She immediately returned to London as the new Queen.
This article definitely talks about Queen Elizabeth but focuses more on the men in her life and how they affected her. This article is not talking much about what she did but what the men in her life did. It doesn't seem like Britain sees her as much of in power as other countries might.
Through the war, she exchanged letters with her third cousin, Philip, Prince of Greece, who was serving in the Royal Navy. Their romance blossomed and the couple married at Westminster Abbey on 20 November 1947, with the prince taking the title of Duke of Edinburgh.
That's pretty messed up and I know that they got married around 70 years ago, but I'm surprised that their marriage lasted into 2021 because that is icky and especially as a leader later in time, I can't believe everyone let that fly.
Elizabeth and her younger sister, Princess Margaret, spent much of wartime at Windsor Castle after their parents rejected suggestions they be evacuated to Canada.
Says a lot about how Elizabeth grew up and why she acts the way that she does now.
Few could have foreseen she would become monarch but in December 1936 her uncle, Edward VIII, abdicated from the throne to marry the twice-divorced American, Wallis Simpson.
I didn't realize this is how she became queen.
"We offer him our loyalty and devotion, just as his mother devoted so much, to so many, for so long.
A very positive quote toward the previous queen and the current king especially considering the rockiness that they have faced, specifically King Charles because he is widely hated due to everything with Diana.
"I know her loss will be deeply felt throughout the country, the realms and the Commonwealth, and by countless people around the world."
They used the quote later but decided to shorten it earlier in the article, that kind of doesn't make sense.
Her son King Charles III said the death of his beloved mother was a "moment of great sadness" for him and his family and that her loss would be "deeply felt" around the world.
Same quote that the New York Times used but didn't actually use the whole thing, why?
In 2020, in a move that was perhaps as humiliating as any family convulsion the queen had confronted, her grandson Prince Harry, the sixth in line to the throne, caught her and the rest of the family off guard when he and his American wife, Meghan Markle, announced plans to “step back” from royal duties
This paints this event worse than it had to be. There is not anything humiliating about someone wanting to take a step back from what is basically a family business.
Accused of sexual impropriety with a teenage girl introduced to him by Mr. Epstein — an allegation he has denied
This is talking negatively about Prince Andrew here, but it seems odd that it is within an article about her death. So is it blaming her or no?
the prince, also known as the Duke of York, withdrew from public life that November.
Interesting, I was wondering why I hadn't heard of this.
In 2019, Elizabeth was dragged unceremoniously and against all previous rules of protocol into political machinations over Brexit, as Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union was known, a debate from which she would once have remained remote.
What does this mean? Look into it a little more.
In 1997, the death of Diana in a car crash in Paris wrote some of the darkest chapters of Elizabeth’s reign, and for a while the monarchy itself seemed threatened by a huge wave of public support for Diana that left the queen seeming cold and emotionally estranged from her subjects.
This is showing a different side. This sentence still isn't necessarily talking about her negatively just saying that the death of Diana was harder on her reign but they didn't necessarily talk about anyone being against the queen, just more with Diana.
Elizabeth’s own children seemed less immune to marital calamity.
This is a really interesting sentence. What does it mean?
But she surprised many by re-emerging as a spry presence in public life, entertaining world leaders at a summit meeting in Cornwall in June 2021 and playing host to Bill Gates and other businesspeople at Windsor Castle after a climate-change investment conference.
Once again, looking at her in a positive light. Kind of framing everything Elizabeth did as shocking in a good way.
Philip had settled into an unusual role, usually two steps behind his wife, providing her with stoic support, even if his occasional tactless comments hurt his image.
Almost comes off as a nod to Elizabeth in form of a diss to Phillip. Shows her strength and power in a good way but the way it is worded kind of looks down on Phillip
On April 5, 2020, in a televised address that evoked her 1940 broadcast, she urged her subjects to fight the virus with the same bulldog tenacity that wartime Britons had shown.
Once again, this shows a side of the queen being strong and working together through a really hard time, and once again even comparing it to a time of war. This showed she was with everyone in fighting whatever they needed to fight.
“Many of us will need to find new ways of staying in touch with each other and making sure that loved ones are safe,”
This article is kind of showing good things and viewing the queen in a positive light, which is important to me because there are plenty of people who didn't and don't like the queen.
It was to Windsor that she and her younger sister, Margaret, were sent to escape the threat of German bombing after the outbreak of World War II in 1939
This is crazy. I think that the idea of doing this during COVID is a huge statement, and it almost feels like it is a bad one.
the queen left Buckingham Palace, in central London, for Windsor Castle, west of the capital, a move that recalled the decades she had spent inspiring genuine affection among many Britons.
How does this affect how people viewed her?
remained determinedly committed to the hallmark aloofness, formality and pageantry by which the monarchy has long sought to preserve the mystique that underpinned its existence and survival
I think this says a lot about her personality and what she valued as a queen. Similar idea as other things in this article, I want to know how people feel about this and if it is taken as good, bad, or neutral.
Her coronation was the first royal event of its kind to be broadcast almost in full on television. But it was a token of the changes — and global fascination
A huge step for the world, specifically in being aware of politics further than the bounds of their own country, if not state. This is definitely really important, especially in her life.
in which she sought to project and protect the royal family as a rare bastion of permanence in a world of shifting values.
This is interesting, I want to know if people actually thought she was doing this or not and if they thought it was good or bad. Specifically the rest of the royal family, and those such as Harry and Meghan who have removed themselves a little further.
I know her loss will be deeply felt throughout the country, the Realms and the Commonwealth, and by countless people around the world
I think this is a really interesting quote. Specifically because as a politician, plenty of people love her but plenty of people definitely don't. I know that he would not want to talk about people hating her right now but it is interesting that despite that he decided to talk about the thoughts of a lot of people around the world. It just makes more sense to be talking about the family right now, or he is trying to put on a show for everyone else.
sures the level of precision, and polls of smaller demographic groups will be less precise. Read more in the methodology below.
you can look at the demographics
The two-day national poll
poll was open for two days
Every poll has a minimum total sample size of 1,000 adults.
This poll has a minimum of 1000 adults
With a headline you’ll read like the “Kombucha Girl” meme in reverse
Simile
“This was the initial intention; the director is Jewish and our intention has always been to include this casting preference, as it is fundamental.”
The director being Jewish doesn't just make it okay, but how could they even let this get this far if they are.
“two households, both alike in dignity”—long-feuding families who nevertheless had much in common. To equate that to the plight of the Jewish people in Nazi Germany is just a fundamentally erroneous and problematic idea.
I am shocked, it is so unfair to call these groups similar.
reimagine Juliet as a persecuted young Jewish woman who nevertheless falls for Romeo, a member of the Hitler Youth, during the height of the Third Reich.
This is actually insane, I really want to know where this idea came from because wow.
had to apologize for omitting Jewish actors from its casting call. Seriously, was no one involved concerned at any point during this process?
This is absolutely insane to me, how did this even happen?
Honestly, we’re still wrapping our heads around this one
Metaphor
Great way to get people to read and re-read about her strength, talent, and courageousness. ❤️ Happy Halloween! 🎃"
Interesting that the article itself didn't say anything about this being a strong costume for Mariska Hargitay to wear, but they chose quotes that reference that.
eaving Parade to wonder what else the star has planned.
I feel like it's interesting that they said "leaving parade" rather than leaving us, like why use your name specifically in the article?
Her costume was so accurate our editors almost didn't believe their eyes. Eerie!
Her costume looks really good, the costume is basically perfect
similar to the iconic crown Kahlo wore in many of her self-portraits.
This is an example of an informed opinion
LuPone did not directly comment on the controversy, aside from referencing her name being mentioned over the past week.
Seems like there is a lot of speculation in this article
some of it so vicious that the audience member whom White called out pleaded with people on social media to “stop harassing” the actress.
These are very persuasive and leading words to use, definitely showing the writer's opinion.
This is not the first time LuPone has talked about leaving Broadway. In 2015, after making headlines for snatching an audience member’s cellphone out of their hands during a performance of
This makes it hard to believe that she actually left due to something else and not this incident.
“Gave up my Equity card; no longer part of that circus. Figure it out.”
Very strong quote to use, has a lot of emotion and meaning and exclamation for a news story.