Federal holiday for Queen's funeral

Part two of Shannon's coverage of how the Queen's funeral on September 19 will affect Canadians in the workplace.

Visit Margaret's Amazon Author Page!

National holiday for Queen's funeral?

My illustrious daughter Shannon Paterson, a 20-year veteran in broadcasting (and winner of numerous awards - not that I'm proud of her!💗) reports on the death of the Queen and what it will mean for Canada, including our national holidays. Though I hadn't planned on it, I've been closely following news of the huge seismic shift taking place, not just in Britain but the entire world, after the loss of the 70-year monarch. I guess I can't help but be swept along in it, more emotionally-invested than I ever thought I would be.

Visit Margaret's Amazon Author Page!

HAPPY and GLORIOUS: The Life of Queen Elizabeth II

I hadn't planned on doing a tribute to the Queen - but this was therapy for me. 

God Save the Queen

I'm letting Piers Morgan handle this one, as I'm just too emotional to talk about it. And I think he really says it better than anyone I've heard up to now. As the Queen's life ebbed away, a glorious rainbow appeared over Buckingham Palace, arching over the awestruck, weeping crowd. Normally I wouldn't put much store by this sort of thing, but I got a chill when I saw it: yes, that was her final message to the world, a hopeful one, just as God set his bow in the cloud to let us know he would never abandon us, come what may. People die the way they live, and her parting was full of dignity and grace, her spirit strong until the very end. How can she be gone from this world? Wasn't she, in some way, the mother of us all? 

I will share with you a comment I left on the one remaining royal channel I still watch. I have had enough of the sickening melodrama in Montecito and never want to see either of them again. Once again, graciousness and nobility must prevail.

I feel as if I have lost a family member. My memories of the Queen go back as far as early childhood, seeing her portrait on the wall of my kindergarten class, singing God Save the Queen at school assemblies. . .and having to draw the Union Jack with blue and red pencils and a ruler, which was fiendishly difficult! Over the many years her significance in Canada became more ceremonial, but no less heartfelt. She was the mother of us all, or the mother we wish we'd had, steadfast and always there. This woman got us through World War II, for heaven's sake - she walked beside Churchill and Roosevelt and all the other heroes of that challenging time - and was with us through wars and crises and births and deaths and celebrations, including her incredible Jubilee this year. Even through the ultimate trial of losing her beloved, she walked on. My husband likes to say "people die the way they live", and I like to think her passing was dignified and peaceful - and I admire and love the fact that she remained active and a hands-on world leader until the very end. Today I did something a little strange - something I never expected I'd do - I unsubscribed from all the royal channels except this one. I simply could not stand any more negativity and wanted to focus only on the great heart and indomitable spirit of this magnificent woman.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, YOUR MAJESTY!

 

Queen Elizabeth II's Platinum Jubilee: send her victorious!

Since I write so many negative things about "those other royals" (or EX-royals, though they continue to cling to the tatters of their former status), I felt it was only right to acknowledge a feat never equalled in human history - a 70-year-long, unbroken reign by a world power. Queen Elizabeth II was such a part of my childhood and the fabric of Canadian identity that she was embedded in our perception of reality. We sang God Save the Queen at school recitals. A portrait of Her Majesty was hung on every classroom wall. Even the name of my elementary school was Queen Elizabeth II.

Whatever you think of the monarchy, the flaky Charles, the severe Camilla, the idiotic Andrew and the (I hate the word, but here goes) lunatic Harry, Elizabeth II has always gone about her life's work with dignity and dedication, and somehow kept her head above the squalid mess her beloved family has inflicted on her. I am proud of her, I truly am, and maybe never felt it fully until this moment.

Having endured a global pandemic, endless undeserved scandals, and losing her dear husband, all in the space of the past couple of years, she is still a rock, still somehow staying on the path and serving until the end. Today marks the date she first took the throne, an incredible 70 years ago, and yesterday she formally acknowledged Camilla, once the reviled "other woman" whom everyone thought broke up Charles and Diana's immortal romance, as the Queen Consort when Charles becomes King. 

A gracious Queen, indeed. 

"Lilliput?" "Lily-white?" No, it's "LILIBET"

 

Touching tribute or royally presumptuous after all their barbs? SARAH VINE on why Lilibet is the name that's split Britain

By Sarah Vine For The Daily Mail

Isn’t this the Lilibet that Harry made out to be a lousy mother?

By Sarah Vine 

What’s in a name? Well, if you are eighth in line to the British throne, a great deal indeed. I always felt the Duke and Duchess of Sussex would choose Diana for their first daughter – after all, so much of Prince Harry’s life has been defined by the memory of his mother.

But what I – and I suspect many others – had not anticipated was the choice of the Queen’s childhood nickname, Lilibet.

On the surface of it, I can see the attraction. It is such a very pretty name, despite the fact it’s not a real one.

It conjures up images of a young Princess Elizabeth, of grainy black and white pictures of granny as a bonneted toddler, and of intimate family memories. It has fond connotations for all the royals, even more so perhaps since the Duke of Edinburgh passed away earlier this year – this was a nickname he used for the Queen.

But it is perhaps because Lilibet is such a very rare and special name that no other royal children have thought to use it.

Even if they had wanted to, they might well have felt – out of respect for Her Majesty – that it was overstepping an invisible line, presuming rather too much.

Not the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, though. As ever, they are not preoccupied with protocol and propriety, and the gesture has naturally won them plenty of praise from fans.

It is seen as a rapprochement, a ‘reaching out’, an ‘olive branch’ extended across the Atlantic to the folks back home – an emotional act of typical generosity by two people who, as ever, have been harshly judged by a cynical media.

So it is with some trepidation that I venture any criticism – after all, in certain quarters anything other than fawning praise for this pair is tantamount to blasphemy.

But while Harry and Meghan may have had the absolute best intentions in naming their new arrival Lilibet, in the light of their recent uncaring attacks on the Queen part of me worries that it feels like a rather shameless, attention-grabbing attempt to boost their royal brand – a brand on which their future earnings and bankability very much depend.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m delighted at the new arrival. But one can be simultaneously happy for them and Archie, who now has a little sister, and utterly flabbergasted by the absolute cheek of it. Lilibet Diana? Seriously? Quite apart from the strange juxtaposition of the two names – which in itself is an entire psychodrama – isn’t this Lilibet the same person who according to Prince Harry was a lousy mother to Prince Charles, and who passed on her lousy parenting skills to him so he in turn was a lousy father to Harry?

Isn’t this the same Lilibet who, so Harry and Meghan suggested in that Oprah Winfrey interview, presided over a bigoted, dysfunctional family of emotional pygmies?

The same Lilibet who allowed Diana to be frozen out, who failed to ensure Meghan was given the support she needed when she was struggling to cope with her royal role?

Harry and Meghan’s supporters have rushed to point out that the couple reportedly asked the Queen for permission to use Lilibet, and she approved. But she couldn’t exactly have said no, could she? Not without the fear of another TV interview in which she would no doubt be accused of snubbing them.

Given everything that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have said and implied about the Queen over the past few months, you might have thought she was the last person they would want to name their precious baby daughter after.

Indeed if she was to be named after a relative, then surely Meghan’s own mother Doria, who as far as I can tell has been a constant and selfless source of strength to her daughter, might have been more appropriate.

Oprah, too, would have been a possibility given how the queen of interviews has been playing such a dramatic role in the couple’s lives.

But the actual Queen, this supposed villainess, this heart- less matriarch? Doesn’t it seem rather odd, not to mention more than a little opportunistic? Because, let’s be honest, all Harry and Meghan’s criticism of the royals hasn’t actually gone as well as they thought it would.

In fact, it’s fair to say there’s been a bit of a backlash.

Of course, they could have just openly and honestly apologised; but why do that when you can turn your misjudgements to strategic advantage?

Because Lilibet Diana, as a name, certainly has its benefits.

By calling their daughter after the Queen herself, and using the most intimate and private name by which she is known, they have ensured that however frosty and distant relations with the royals back home become, in the eyes of the public the association with the British Royal Family will never be forgotten.

Whatever the future now holds, the Queen will be forever a part of their lives. And, crucially, of Brand Sussex.