UKH

I don't believe it!

They're doing a post-mortem on the funeral. How very tedious and odious...

I caught some of the funeral on TV. The organ pieces and choral music were excellent (not so much the hymns). The drill work and general pomp and ceremony were also excellent, stirring stuff - and the pall bearers did an incredible job.

But the thought of post-event analysis on radio....nope. Not for me.

One idiot on BBC described the coffin passing the tomb of the unknown 'warrior', you'd think they'd be better briefed. 

i'm not sure what you're saying, what was wrong with that comment. Please explain.

This one?

https://www.westminster-abbey.org/abbey-commemorations/commemorations/unkno...

Better briefed than the Australians!

https://twitter.com/Shahryar_Sultan/status/1571811768946642946

Yeah, but entirely forgiveable, since she is a complete non-entity...

'Soldier', not some random tribal warrior, they were ww1 soldiers.

They should know better 

I've had a week and a bit off R4. Couldn't handle this:

youtube.com/watch?v=1Ve36hq2tRU&

Looking forward to the resumption of normal service tomorrow.

Should the person who carved the gravestone itself have known better? Because if you follow the link, 'warrior' is the actual term used on it.

Your doubling down on being called out on your own error is hilarious, but 'not some random tribal warrior' came across nasty and condescending to me.

I don't doubt that the organ and choral works were great. I love church/cathedral music, and have a dilemma, as I don't believe in god, and relevant in this case, I do not believe in the monarchy.

Yes let's hope that tomorrow brings back sensibility and sanity on the radio, as well as the rest of the BBC.

I've appreciated the funeral but the BBC commentary and virtual dramatisation has been very irritating! I was in Spain when she passed away and could only get BBC news but even then it was nauseating....

I love choral music ( youtube.com/watch?v=36Y_ztEW1NE&), and a penchant for 70's prog Hammond organ is rooted in my grandfather's playing of Bach.

But much of what we saw today doesn't need a monarch - or god/s and religion. I certainly with you on the issue of Crown & Cross. 

Aye!

I saw somewhere that the BBC had been dubbed "mourn hub". Seems apt. 

What, you think they're not real? That they don't exist? Cause that's what unbelievable is.

Sorry, just couldn't resist the pedantry there 😁, of course I know exactly what you mean

It's what the memorial has always been called, and is still called. It's what's engraved on the tomb.

Google it. Or just read the link I posted.

The whole edifice of the state, Parliament, constituencies, Lords, regiments, the Royal Navy, judiciary; the lot, is a construct. It's only real because we all agree that it's real. And it's the same in our private lives with birthdays, marriage vows, deeds and contracts.  

If we believe then it's real. 

I’ve heard it mooted that UKC has been dubbed ‘Whinge Hub’.  Normal service was resumed on most of their channels most of the time. Anyway, it will never happen again - 70 years as top monarch will never be repeated. 

Well, in a practical sense, the Queen did not have to do it. She could have stepped down long ago. In fact my mother, a royalist, said multiple times, "I think that she should hand over to Charles". My mother has been dead for 13-14 years, and she had been saying this for 10 plus years.

Whatever you might say, we did not need a program, especially not almost immediately after the funeral, giving a breakdown of how it had been run, and evaluation of the performances. It was and is unnecessary.

Hopefully there will not be another reign beyond this one of Charles. Certainly now that the official public mourning has come to its end: Then I would hope that there can be a real and truly objective consultation and discussion about the monarchy, and of peerages of both types.

How every predictable.

We get it.  You're not a monarchist.

It could happen again but (unless life expectancy goes up significantly) it requires succession when relatively young which means the relevant parent dying fairly young, which probably means that parent dying whilst still being heir to the throne.

For example, if something happened to William now, then George might have a very long reign.

But, given that the royal family have better access to medical care (I don't think they have to wait to see their GP), and that people like Charles probably have regular medical screening, this is less likely to happen than in a typical family.

That's truly excellent - thanks

Yet even if I were of a royal bent, or a monarchist, I would still question the need to go through the individual parts of the funeral, only a few hours after the Queen had been buried. Apart from the fact that the "critics" were not particularly objective (since they were all obviously chosen for their known royalist stances), it actually seemed to detract from the mood of having experienced a funeral, by minutely repeating the order of events, so that you didn't have chance to recall the service in a more steady, settled and peaceful way

It repeat: It was tedious, and to me odious. An ill-conceived radio program.

A Radio show does a review of the biggest event that has happened in the UK in living memory.
What do you expect would happen?  Nothing? 
Obviously to you it's a total non-event, but I think it should be pointed out, that you're very much in the minority in that respect...
 

I'm sorry, but you're just waffling. Quite embarrassing really. To use your own words, very tedious.

Why did you bother listening to it? It was only half an hour, stick classic fm on or something, nothings ever repeated there  

Review on the same day is the objection. Plus anything else would have been reviewed, and given some examples, but it sounded as if they were  going through every single thing, rather giving a general view.

I didn't listen to it all. Yet I could not get to change the program as quickly as I would like, due to what I was doing at the time, and the problems with the radio that I have in that room.

Well it's hardly fair to blame that on Radio 4 is it?

I was hoping for some respite from the onslaught of the total blitz of media by the event over the last week, so I hoped that programming would have been a little lighter than the review. I just got the radio to work, and then when doing my chore, I realised what was being talked about.

I thought that it would be an overall review and swiftly move onto something of the future, of whatever subject.. At least it would have been a little different.

You do go on, lad. 'No Point Knowingly Unlaboured.'

It's fair to blame Radio 4 for the quality of there output whetther you listen to it or not.

I can't stand the Archers and it irks me to have to ensure I don't hear it!

I think it was aimed at people who hadn't been able to watch the funeral because of work etc. Radio / tv is often very repetitive for big events

I think it would have been reasonable for the broadcasting networks to realise and acknowledge that not everyone was gripped by the passing of Elisabeth II.