A weird news bulletin at this a.m.

[ardcarp]

"The late Queen will not not present either in person nor in spirit".

This referred to King Charles' laying of the wreath at the cenotaph ceremony. Was it a reader's mistake or poor taste on the part of the bulletin writer?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001f4gr

08min 48 sec from start

[french frank]

"The late Queen will not not present either in person nor in spirit".

This referred to King Charles' laying of the wreath at the cenotaph ceremony. Was it a reader's mistake or poor taste on the part of the bulletin writer?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001f4gr

08min 48 sec from start

Not quite the same. "The late Queen will be here neither in person nor in spirit." But deconstructed: No, the late Queen wouldn't there in person as a consequence of her having died a couple of months ago. But what did he mean by saying she wouldn't be there in spirit either? What would being there in spirit mean? And how could one tell whether she was there in spirit or not?

[Historian]

I took it to mean that she wouldn't be 'watching on' while being represented by the former Prince of Wales as she sometimes used to be e.g. in 2021. A bit clumsy perhaps, but I don't think it was intended as a theological (not the right word I know) statement.

[Maclintick]

I took it to mean that she wouldn't be 'watching on' while being represented by the former Prince of Wales as she sometimes used to be e.g. in 2021. A bit clumsy perhaps, but I don't think it was intended as a theological (not the right word I know) statement.

i took BBC Royal Correspondent Jonny Diamond's avowal that the late Queen Elizabeth's spirit would not be in evidence at the Cenotaph ceremony to be a short-circuiting of the journalistic brain early on a Sunday morning...

[Serial_Apologist]

i took BBC Royal Correspondent Jonny Diamond's avowal that the late Queen Elizabeth's spirit would not be in evidence at the Cenotaph ceremony to be a short-circuiting of the journalistic brain early on a Sunday morning...

This would never have happened with Richard Dimbleby!!!

[ardcarp]

No, the late Queen wouldn't there in person as a consequence of her having died a couple of months ago. But what did he mean by saying she wouldn't be there in spirit either? What would being there in spirit mean? And how could one tell whether she was there in spirit or not?

I quite agree ff. I certainly hold no mystical or religious belief. But many do, and it was the somewhat stark and insensitive assertion about 'not being there in spirit ' that seemed (a) unnecessary and (b) offensive to many.

[BBMmk2]

Poor taste. Of course, the late Queen, will be there in spirit. She loved her family.

[Sir Velo]

Poor taste. Of course, the late Queen, will be there in spirit. She loved her family.

Are you suggesting that if she didn't love her family there might be a question of her attendance, spiritual or corporeal?

[cloughie]

This would never have happened with Richard Dimbleby!!!

Well maybe, but he did have his ‘Jesus wept’ moment!

[Pulcinella]

Possibly some confusion over 'spirit'?

I'd go so far as to say that she WOULD have been there in spirit, in the sense that the ceremony will have carried on (as far as I'm aware: I didn't watch) with the same spirit that she imbued it with: dignity and respect (albeit inherited and part of the role as the monarch).