MUCH has been said and much more will be said in the coming days in the lead-up to the Queen’s funeral. In addition, we have the coronation to look forward to, presumably sometime in spring of 2023. My social media is already littered with offers of commemorative coins, books and assorted souvenirs. One family’s loss is a business opportunity for others, it seems.
I have watched a lot less TV in the past few days than I normally would. The wall-to-wall coverage of the Queen’s passing, especially by the BBC, at the expense of almost all other news items does them no credit. A so-called global news organisation has reduced itself to peering down a very narrow lens at a very lengthy funeral. It reminds me of people who would attend the funeral of a stranger in order to partake of the free meal after the service.
READ MORE: Protest outside St Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh as Queen lies in state
I briefly turned on the TV to find the motorcade from Balmoral to Edinburgh being followed by a helicopter. At one of the so-called “sparsely populated areas” of the journey the commentator, clearly struggling to find something to fill the silence, remarked that the monarchy probably knew more about democracy than elected politicians. I turned off the TV and went for a walk in the autumn sun to calm down.
It should be noted that should the Queen have passed away at one of her several English residences – Buckingham Palace, Windsor or Sandringham – there would be no mention in the news of Holyrood Palace, the Scottish Parliament, or St Giles’ Cathedral. There would have been no involvement of Scotland in proceedings except for the attendance of the First Minister and a select band of others at the London events.
Much has been made of the crowds of people on the streets of Edinburgh, many of them foreign tourists. “Thousands” lining the streets and queuing overnight to pay their respects. The last time I looked, the population of Scotland was over five-and-a-half million. The vast majority of us are not queuing or lining the streets of Edinburgh but carrying on with our lives as best we can.
READ MORE: Support for monarchy at 'new low' as Charles takes crown, John Curtice says
Most of us respect the many years of work carried out by the late Queen, literally to her dying day. She did the best to carry out a role she did not apply for but was handed to her by accident of birth. If I had happened to be in Edinburgh on the day I might have lined the street to briefly glimpse the spectacle.
King Charles’s visit to the Scottish Parliament was worthy of watching briefly on TV. As he marched in, escorted by bowmen and several gentlemen in heraldic costumes, I could not help but be reminded of the visit of his ancestor Charles I to the then English parliament in an attempt to arrest five MPs which led, in part, to the English civil war.
Who knows where Charles’s reign will take us. Hopefully it will not interfere with the progression of Scotland to being an independent nation – with or without a monarchy.
John Baird
Largs
THIS may seem irrelevant, even a bit inappropriate, in the present circumstances, but it may draw a line in the sand in the great tug o’war between Scotland and England. Like many viewers I was happy to watch the livestream of the Braemar Gathering on Saturday September 3. However I was surprised to see Prince Charles (in his mother’s absence and on her behalf) open the HM Queen Elizabeth II Platinum Jubilee Arch.
Has the Braemar park become an English embassy? If simple ER was deemed appropriate for postboxes in Scotland, why not the same for archways, or “Elizabeth Queen of Scots”, which would be better?
READ MORE: Karen Matheson praised for 'beautiful' Gaelic performance of Psalm at St Giles' Cathedral
Her Majesty did, after all, attend an event in Edinburgh in 1953 to receive the Crown of Scotland as distinct from that of England and Wales which she had earlier received at the coronation in London. There is a constant confusion by the media, who strive to shape public opinion by undermining history, between the Union of the Crowns and the Union of the Parliaments.
C Walker
via email
I REFER to Dr Lindsay Neil’s letter (Sep 13) and his/her castigation of a BBC reporter using the correct pronunciation of Holyrood.
As every schoolchild knows, “holy” refers to the biblical – of all the various sacred texts worldwide – and theology, and “holly” refers to an evergreen bush with red berries. “Rood” is an old word referring to a cross, and in particular the cross that Jesus was crucified on.
As such, Holyrood refers to the holy cross that Jesus was crucified on, and the pronunciation is as the BBC reporter used “Holy-rood” and not “Holly-rood”, which would refer to a cross made from a holly bush.
Both Holyrood as in the Scottish parliament and Holyrood Palace have both became corrupted over the years and although both pronunciations are accepted, we should actually use “Holy-rood” instead of “Holly-rood”, so what has the doctor against someone pronouncing words correctly?
Alexander Potts
Kilmarnock
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel