Popewatch finally over

[chrishansenhome]

Well, thank God it's over.

The question in my mind is this: for the UK, where a General Election is imminent, political news will vie with news first about the Pope's funeral, and then the election and coronation of the new one. If my recollection is correct, John Paul II's funeral will be sometime towards the end of next week (Thursday or Friday). The Conclave begins 15 days after the pope's death, or 20 days at the latest. That would mean April 17 or 18th for the start of the Conclave, and probably an election by the 20th. The Coronation (perhaps they don't call it that any more) will then happen sometime toward the 25th to the 30th of April.

Parliament is probably going to be dissolved by the end of next week, and an election will probably happen on May 5th, when local elections for most of the local councils in England and Wales are set. So people's attention will be divided between the two elections, one Papal, the other Presidential...er...Parliamentary (sorry for the slip; it's so easy...) It will be difficult for the political parties to capture the mood and mind of the electorate when the media will be full of Roman Catholic pomp and ceremony.

This is probably one of the worst things that could happen to UK politics short of an assassination or the death of the monarch.

Oh, and that little soirée in Windsor? Who cares about that any more?!!

Comments

[rsc.livejournal.com]

The Coronation (perhaps they don't call it that any more) will then happen sometime toward the 25th to the 30th of April.

While we're in Italy! (Not in Rome, fortunately.)

Oh, and that little soirée in Windsor? Who cares about that any more?!!

Somebody cared about it?

[besskeloid.livejournal.com]

Oh, and that little soirée in Windsor? Who cares about that any more?!!

Piers Morgan.

Exactly.

[spwebdesign.livejournal.com]

Oh, and that little soirée in Windsor? Who cares about that any more?!!

Somebody cared about that? Charles is so irrelevant.

[chrishansenhome.livejournal.com]

Well, that may be true over there, but when you get here, you will find that the doings of the Royal Family are quite important. Remember, we've got a fairly shrewd Queen at the moment (not me, unfortunately) but a |Prince of Wales who is a total idiot, who can't keep his mouth shut, nor his zipper for that matter, who cannot stand the media, and who will ascend the throne at some time in the medium term (his mother turns 79 this month so she's not going to be around forever). In the general scheme of things, it's irrelevant. However, in British public life, the doings of that pack of layabouts is pretty important.

[chrishansenhome.livejournal.com]

Glad to hear you're taking an Italian holiday. Perhaps next year I'll even get up the gumption to bid for the .con, assuming that the dollar recovers somewhat against the pound, and I'll see you both there. We don't have any US travel plans this year.

As for caring about Charles and Camilla, see my comment to spwebdesign further down--there is a lot of media interest here for the obvious reason that, since Charles is so gaffe-prone (as he proved this week when he called the BBC royal correspondent names under his breath, but had his words picked up by the microphones) the media can write nasty stories about him. And, of course, he will be king someday--his ma is about to turn 79 and she won't live forever (see: hooha about the Pope, in all newspapers today, for proof). He is also the future Defender of the Faith and Head of the Church of England (of which I am a communicant). This is also important, as any marriage problems now might make it easier to disestablish the church once he's king--that's something I'm definitely in favour of.

[spwebdesign.livejournal.com]

I think perhaps irrelevant was the wrong word. Sure, we follow the doings of the royal family too, even if not to the same extent. And Charles is a realy schmo. Elizabeth II is a great queen, but I don't think very highly of Charles. His behavior is quite common, not royal at all. I would be thrilled if the throne managed to skip over him, to elude him altogether. Hey, the Queen Mum is still around...maybe QE2 will outlive Charles.

[besskeloid.livejournal.com]

Charles is so gaffe-prone (as he proved this week when he called the BBC royal correspondent names under his breath, but had his words picked up by the microphones)

This time I'm kind of on his side. That Nicholas Witchell, sitting on dykes in the news room - terrible man!

[chrishansenhome.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't like him much either, but Charles should know better than to say things like that in public. He is definitely his father's son (even if the facial resemblance didn't clinch it).

[rsc.livejournal.com]

his ma is about to turn 79 and she won't live forever

Well, her ma lived to be 101. Charles might have to wait a while yet.

[rsc.livejournal.com]

Hey, the Queen Mum is still around

She isn't, actually. But she lived a good long time.

[chrishansenhome.livejournal.com]

I think he meant HM the current Queen, rather than HLM the Queen Mother. I wondered about that too. After all, the current Queen is his mum.

HWMBO and I walked past the Queen Mother Leisure Centre in Victoria this afternoon, the the way back from the Tate. He thought it was nice that they'd commemmorated her in this way, and I commented, "Yes; they've filled the swimming pool with gin in her honour."

I had to explain it, I fear.

[spwebdesign.livejournal.com]

No, I meant the Queen Mother. I now vaguely remember getting a memo about her passing, but I had forgotten. The point I was trying to make is that since QEII's mom lived so long, there's some hope QEII will outlive Chuckie.