h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The public's reaction to Di's death scared the living bejaysus out of me. But this time I don't get the feeling that I'll be lynched in the street if I'm not clutching my breast in sorrow. I think everyone feels like they've been rehearsing this for the last ten years, and especially since she turned 100. Even people I know who actually did give some sort of stuff about the QM are fed up with the amount of coverage. The Daily Mail is in its element of course, and seems to produce a new 'unique' souvenir booklet to treasure every day. Today's cartoon depicted angelic lackeys rolling out a red carpet to the pearly gates, and if that doesn't tell you something about the Mail's mentality, nothing will. Jeezum, as Marge's sisters say, Crow.

I had just the same thoughts about feeling genuinely sad when slebs who've had a positive influence on one's life die. Those people have provided something and, if they hadn't done much in recent times, it rends the heart to know there will be no more. That sounds selfish, perhaps, but what other raison d'etre can there be for feelings of grief towards those one doesn't know? And what has the QM done for me lately?

So I don't think you need to feel guilty about not feeling anything for her but if you must, then at least do yourself the favour of feeling good about it afterwards.

Oh, and enjoy your hols.

Yes. Enjoy your holidays Ormy and thanks for an excellent read.

My hubby is a royalist and asked me (albeit nicely) to keep my disrespectful opinions to myself, so it is refreshing to read yours, which I whole heartedly agree with.

I'm kinda new to reading the Post, so this was a pleasant surprise. I have to say I agree with the views stated, but I have something to add: wherever you are, there will be a group that is elevated and apparently useless. In America, for example, there are those that win Oscars (particularly lifetime achievements). What has the Queen Mother done for you? Well, it may not have been for you, but she was a patron or president of over 300 charities. Not a bad way to spend the money that we all pay her every year. Everywhere needs a "representative" of sorts, and the problem with this job is that, much like ruling the universe, no- one who wants to do it can be allowed to do it. The Royals were born into this position so you can be pretty sure that they weren't lobbying for it into the womb. And there's a human tendency to form dynasties anyway: two Roosevelts, and two Bushs have become president. This whole post is sort of choppy- changy but I agree, if I could sort of tie it all up, that it is absurd to have such a lot of news coverage devoted to the death to the Queen Mother.

Roadkill, when I said 'what has the QM done for me' I meant it as a justification for my lack of sadness rather than a reason for abolishing the Royals. I don't think they should be abolished and nor do I think they should do work for charity; let's have more swanning around flaunting their wealth and less shameless toadying to the masses. Who rules whom after all?

Good point and well made. But the royals don't acutally /rule/ as such, do they? That all happens at no. 10.

Well quite, but the general public seems to think it voted the Royal Family in and thus has the right to, say, complain self righteously when the flags at half mast for Di went back up after a scant fortnight. And look at the ridiculous term People's Princess. Oxymoronic to the extreme methinks.

True. I came down, switched on TV, heard about the news, and thought 'oh'. It was a bit over the top, the mourning and all.