Cette semaine dernière, mardi, la Grande Bretagne s’est réveillé avec le pays dans de nouvelles mains, celles du Roi Charles III, mais le Gouvernement lui, n’a pas changé. Après la trêve du deuil, la politique a repris ses droits avec un déchainement d’annonces et de critiques.
La Grande Bretagne fait face à des conditions financières et sociales calamiteuses, et les mesures annoncées de la nouvelle première ministre Liz Truss (dont les interviews ne cessent d’être ahurissants et font à la limite regretter Boris!) n’apaisent pas le climat. L’apothéose a été le vendredi lors de la présentation d’un mini-budget présenté avec une baisse généralisée des impôts de 1% comme « équitable pour tous » mais en réalité d’une injustice criante.
Le Ministre Kwasi Karteng et son buget « fair for all. »
Un nouveau mot est apprue : la « Kakistocracie » (/kækɪˈstɒkrəsi/, /kækɪsˈtɒ-/) du nom du Chancellier de l’Echiquier (Ministre de l’Economie et Finances): « Kwasi Kwarteng – définition : « un gouvernement conduit par les pires, les moins qualifiés et les plus sans scrupules des citoyens« .
Beaucoup de gens, même des conservateurs, ont approuvé cet avis largement partagé sur les réseaux sociaux : « Avec l’abolition du taux d’imposition maximal, certes je serais plus riche en fin d’année mais j’attendrai toujours 24 mois pour être soigné dans les hôpitaux et les plus démunis seront encore plus pauvres« .
Après l’annonce des mesures, qui font la part belle à des baisses d’impôts jamais vues, soi-disant pour relancer la croissance par le haut mais non financés sauf par accroissement de la dette nationale, la livre sterling s’est effondré à un niveau historique, les instituts de prévision économiques ont annoncé une augmentation des taux d’intérêt, accélération de l’inflation au delà de 10% et une dette nationale qui deviendrait ingérable.
Il faut se rappeler la situation de la Grande Bretagne en 2015. C’était il y a pas si longtemps : c’était l’entente avec l’Europe, et des amis à travers le monde. Des accords commerciaux qui assuraient l’avenir. Et cette semaine la Première Ministre avouait qu’un accord commercial avec les États Unis n’était « pas pour demain » alors qu’avant le Brexit « ce serait fait dans la journée ». Sont arrivés ces messieurs/dames Johnson, Cameron, Gove, Patel, Raab et bien d’autres qui ont renversé la nation avec le Brexit.
L’ancien conseiller de Boris Johnson, tombé en disgrâce, Alistair Campbell, a pondu vendredi un mini-éditorial sur son compte Twitter avec lequel je suis entièrement d’accord.
"Personne qui a prêté attention aux extremistes du Brexit ne devrait être surpris de ce qui s'est passé aujourd'hui. Pour les "brextrémistes", le Brexit a toujours consisté à réduire les impôts des riches, à supprimer les réglementations pour les entreprises et à espérer que les guerres culturelles, les slogans et les conneries sur le nivellement dans le nord et les Midlands garderaient les non riches détournés. Truss en est prisonnier et Kwarteng est un vrai croyant. Aucun de ces compagnons de lit ne pouvait se soucier des personnes confrontées à la crise du coût de la vie. De plus, le Brexit est l'une des principales raisons pour lesquelles la livre s'est effondrée et la croissance a été si lente. Rachel Reeves (député travailliste porte parole pour l’Économie) a fait du bon travail en démolissant le plan que Kwarteng a présenté aujourd'hui. Mais aucune des principales affirmations des principaux partis en faveur de la croissance ne se vérifie à moins qu'elles n'incluent un plan pour résoudre le Brexit et tout ce qui va mal à cause de cela. Une chose est sûrement certaine cependant. Ces charlatans ont eu 12 ans et ont fait un gâchis total de l'économie. On ne peut plus jamais leur faire confiance. Austérité. Brexit. La corruption. Dévaluation. Trop c'est trop. Ils doivent être renversés."
« Nobody who has paid attention to the extreme Brexiteers should be remotely surprised about what has happened today. For the Brextremists Brexit was always about slashing taxes for the rich, shredding regulations for the corporates, and hoping culture wars, slogans and bullshit about levelling up in the north and midlands would keep the non rich diverted. Truss is a prisoner of them and Kwarteng is a true believer. Neither of these bedfellows could give a toss about the people who are facing the cost of living crisis. Added to which Brexit is one of the main reasons why the pound has crashed, and growth has been so slow. Rachel Reeves did a good job demolishing the plan Kwarteng put forward today. But neither of the main parties’ claims to go for growth stack up unless they include a plan to fix Brexit and all that is going wrong because of it. One thing is surely certain though. These charlatans have had 12 years and have made a total mess of the economy. They cannot be trusted with it ever again. Austerity. Brexit. Corruption. Devaluation. Enough is enough. They have got to be toppled.«
Autre témoignage : "Un chancelier qui ne connaît rien à l'économie. Un secrétaire à la justice qui ne connaît rien à la justice. Un secrétaire à l'environnement qui ne connaît rien du monde naturel. Un Premier ministre qui ignore tout de l'intérêt national. Les gens de ce pays en ont assez des non-experts. Dites-moi encore: les Tories sont bons à quoi?"
Le parti travailliste qui s’est réuni ce weekend a adopté une motion qui serait un élément essentiel de sa stratégie lors de prochaines élections législatives. La seule manière de changer de Gouvernement, de reprendre le pouvoir est de changer la loi électorale: au lieu du système de « premier au poteau gagnant », la nation doit adopter la proportionnelle.
The photo by Marc J Francis (film director with a common appreciation of the teachings of Thich Nhat Hahn) taken when strolling along Brighton front, and published on Facebook. It immediately stirs many memories. Yes, I told him, four fabulous years, at Sussex University, then at BBC Brighton, with life-lasting true friends. I loved it so much that when I joined LBC, I stayed on the coastand was regularly on the night train. And across the water I could imagine another coast, that of my second half.
Une photo de Marc J Francis, réalisateur TV, d‘une grande sensibilité, d’approche bouddhiste, qui se promène sur le front de mer à Brighton. Souvenirs de quatre merveilleuses années à l’Université de Sussex, et de mes débuts à la BBC. Même quand je rejoignais LBC je gardais mon pied à terre et prenais régulièrement le train de nuit de Londres pour rentrer chez moi. Années où je me suis fait de solides amitiés de toute une vie. Et depuis le front, j’imaginais l’autre côte, française, de moi.
For someone who has used his voice behind microphones all his life, and whose « British » accent has often been admired, this analysis is extremely relevant.
From my Staffordshire-born father’s soft English voice, my English grammar school, my higher education at Sussex University, my initiation in « proper » broadcasting with « BBC Brighton English » and its « acceptably correct voices » (Phil Fothergill, John Henty, Chris Slade…), my « tones » and phraseology were also an important factor when I was hired by London Broadcasting, eager to better than the « old Auntie ».
[A lasting parental influence: my father’s decision, in my very early years, to buy a house « moving up the hill » to Wimbledon Common was without doubt a class-conscious decision – with of course a growing family. The Common side was in his words a ‘better’ one than the Broadway where accents were generally working class.]
My news editor Thierry Bernard at Sud Radio Toulouse, wanted to exploit my foreign accent, urging me to be on air the Pierre Salinger of the station. Which I refused.
How often have I been praised (notably by Claus Habfast and Dominique Detain and others) « pour ton accent anglais » when working behind the mike and in front of cameras for the European Space Agency. However this « Britishness » was probably in part my undoing at Arianespace, commercially so very much concerned by addressing an American-spoken audience.
Princess Elisabeth and her sister contributing to ‘Children’s Hour’
I met up a month ago with a French Lycée school friend from the late 60s whom I hadn’t seen for 50 years. When she saw and heard me, She exclaimed « Wow, your voice hasn’t changed »!
Analysis published on the BBC website 15th September 2022, written by Sophie Hardach and Richard Gray.
Queen Elizabeth II’s long reign meant that she saw many changes in the world around her, from rationing and pea-soupers to social media and a global pandemic. As Britain’s longest-serving monarch, she also became a global symbol of steadfast principles and stability. Yet, after 70 years on the throne, the Queen left behind a unique and precious legacy that did change with the times: her voice, captured by decades of recording.
Her Majesty’s distinctive accent, delivered through public speeches, radio broadcasts, television, and then the Internet, provides a unique insight into how the world changed during her long reign – and how she changed within it. It also adds to growing evidence that our speech patterns remain more flexible throughout the human lifespan than previously thought, absorbing and reflecting our experiences and memories – even far into old age.
Few people leave such a rich and detailed record of their voice. Over the past few days, millions around the world have watched and listened to the late Queen’s broadcast on her 21st birthday in 1947. At the time, she was still a princess, but already determined to make a pledge to her people: « I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service. »
Leap forward to the 21st Century and her final Christmas broadcast, where she poignantly remembered her late husband and offered warm words to a country traumatised by the Covid-19 pandemic. « Although it’s a time of great happiness and good cheer for many, Christmas can be hard for those who have lost loved ones. This year, especially, I understand why, » she said.
Even to the untrained ear, the difference between these two recordings is plain. First is the change in her voice itself, which grew deeper and physically matured as she aged, reflecting what happens in most people as we get older. But there are other, more subtle shifts that can be charted in the decades’ worth of recordings of the Queen. They are allowing scientists to understand the way in which accents evolve over time, and how they can be influenced by social, cultural and technological developments.
The long public life of the Queen means she left behind a rich legacy of recordings that show how her voice changed over the decades (Credit: PNA Rota/Getty Images)
« Sound change is very slow, so if we want to see how it changes during an adult’s lifespan, we need recordings from the same person over several decades, » says Jonathan Harrington, a professor of phonetics and director of the Institute of Phonetics and Speech Processing at Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich. « Received Pronunciation – of which the Queen was a speaker – and its changes from 1950-1980, is especially interesting because of the great social changes and increasing mixture of social classes that took place in England in the 60s and 70s. »
Received Pronunciation has been considered as the standard accent of British English since the late 19th Century, although there is an ongoing, long-running debate about how it should be defined and even how widespread it is. It is a form of pronunciation that became associated with the aristocracy, the Royal Family, the British establishment, and stuffy wartime BBC announcements (although the BBC has never imposed the use Received Pronunciation, many announcers before the Second World War spoke with it).
« British-English speaking people still consider the accent (Received Pronunciation) and those like it to be a prestige accent, » says Jane Setter, a professor of phonetics at the University of Reading in the UK.
The Queen’s own way of speaking became something of a hallmark of Received Pronunciation – leading to one of its other names: The Queen’s English. Her Christmas broadcasts, delivered every year, have proven a particularly reliable way of tracking her voice and accent through history.
Together with his colleague Ulrich Reubold, Harrington has analysed the Christmas broadcasts of Queen Elizabeth II in depth to understand how her accent shifted at different points in her life, and why. Over the course of several separate studies, they analysed 35 broadcasts the Queen made between the ages of 26 and 91 years old.
« If we find change in the Queen, then it’s reasonable to conclude that similar changes are likely to occur in most adults over their lifespan, » says Harrington, when explaining why they chose to focus on the Queen’s accent in her Christmas broadcasts. Their research has helped to challenge the idea that our accents remain broadly stable once we reach adulthood. Instead, it appears they are undergoing constant change.
The Queen’s accent became less distinctively upper-class, and somewhat more mainstream
Broadly speaking, the factors that shape a human voice and accent over a lifespan fall into two domains. Some changes happen simply because of physiological processes – our vocal tract changes shape as we age while our vocal cords grow thinner and stiffer the older we get. This can lead to a voice becoming higher in pitch, « reedy » and shaky-sounding, but in some women their vocal folds can thicken leading to a lowering of pitch.
Other external factors can also have an impact on the way we speak.
Analysis of the Queen’s broadcasts reveals that in the first few decades of her reign, the Queen’s accent became less distinctively upper-class, and somewhat more mainstream, changing her vowel sound at the end of the word « happy », to sound more like the « ee » in « freeze » than the « eh » sound in « bit ».
Harrington and Reubold’s most recent analysis, however, reveals something perhaps even more surprising: in the final years of the Queen’s life, her accent reverted to be more similar to the way she spoke in her youth.
As a young woman in the 1950s, the Queen had a distinctive upper-class accent. The « a » in « sat », for example, would be pronounced more like « set », while « family » would sound more like « famileh ». But as her reign continued, her accent evolved.
« A marker of upper-class Received Pronunciation of the 1950s was to pronounce ‘often’ and ‘lost’ with the vowel of ‘caught’ rather than as today with the vowel of ‘cot’, » says Harrington. « It’s interesting to observe that, whereas in broadcasts of the 1950s, the Queen used ‘often’ and ‘lost’ with the vowel in ‘caught’, she uses both forms – ‘often’ with the vowel of ‘caught’ and ‘often’ with the vowel of ‘cot’ – in the 1970s broadcasts. »
Every interaction we have with someone else can have a subtle influence on the way we speak (Credit: Getty Images)
The future of royal accents
As Prince Harry spends more time in California with his American wife Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, his accent may well shift into interesting new territories for the royals. « My prediction is that the accents of the two princes (William and Harry) over the years will increasingly diverge, » says Harrington.
This shortening of the vowels is associated with a far more middle-class accent in Britain. And these changes continued into the 1990s, according to Harrington and Reubold’s analysis, perhaps reflecting broader transformations in the wider population and society.
« The sounds of a community are updated because we imitate others’ phonetic idiosyncrasies in conversation, » says Harrington. « This updating within a conversation is so small that it is not perceptible, but experiments in the last 20 years have shown that we do indeed often imitate each other unwittingly. »
One study by Harrington and his colleagues found that a small group of researchers in Antarctica who were from a range of different areas – Iceland, Germany, northwest US and various parts of the UK – began to develop embryonic signs of a common accent after spending several months together in close contact. Research on contestants taking part in the Big Brother reality TV show – where a group of strangers are forced to live together in isolation for several months – also suggests that some people appear to be more prone to their accents changing than others.
It seems likely then that at least some of the changes to the Queen’s accent were simply a reflection of the people she came into contact with. The period between 1950 and 1970 saw enormous social revolution in Britain, Harrington and Reubold note. The boundaries between the classes blurred and the Queen perhaps conversed with more middle-class speakers.
The prime ministers she held weekly audiences with, for example, typically spoke a form of upper-class Received Pronunciation in the 1950s, but this gave way to a more diverse mix of accents from the 1960s. Harold Wilson, who held the office of prime minister twice for a total of eight years in the period between 1964 and 1976, retained his Yorkshire accent after growing up in Huddersfield, in the north of England. Margaret Thatcher, who was prime minister from 1979 to 1990, tried hard to disguise her middle-class upbringing in Lincolnshire, in the East Midlands of England. Numerous prime ministers also flirted at times with what is known as Estuary English – as did the Queen’s daughter-in-law, Diana Princess of Wales, complete with glottal stops (more on this later).
The shift from Received Pronunciation on radio and television to a more diverse range of accents may also have played a role. Certainly, some research suggests our accents can be subtly influenced by the television we watch.
« We can see from the speech of younger royals that the Received Pronunciation spoken by the Queen in the 1950s has changed significantly, from a consonant and vowel point of view, » says Setter.
Accents also still carry many hidden associations that prejudice the way we see the people who speak with them. In Britain, for example, people who speak with northern English accents can be seen as less well educated or less intelligent solely due to biases about the way they speak. Similar negative prejudices have been found to surround those who speak with a southern accent in the US.
The Queen held weekly meetings with 15 British prime ministers who served during her reign and these may have subtly altered how she spoke (Credit: Hulton Archive/Getty Images)
Received Pronunciation by contrast has consistently been regarded, within the UK at least, as the most « prestigious » English accent, according to surveys conducted in 1970 and again in 2005. But regular exposure to a variety of accents can also help to reduce those biases and increase trust in the speakers of different accents.
There has certainly been a shift in the stigma attached to certain aspects of speech in recent decades. The glottal stop, for example, which was traditionally associated with working-class speakers, has lost much of its stigma, even to the point that the t-glottal has become a common feature of Received Pronunciation, with the Queen’s grandsons – Harry, the Duke of Sussex and William, the new Prince of Wales – using it.
So, could the Queen have deliberately changed her own speaking style to alter the way people perceived her, softening her Received Pronunciation to make herself sound less formal, and more approachable? It is a possibility that Harrington himself raises in one of his early studies on the Queen’s accent, but he believes the gradual shift in her accent over several decades suggests the changes were unconscious ones.
There were other, perhaps more deliberate changes to the language the Queen used during her reign. The vocabulary she used became more diverse during the first decade on the throne, according to one analysis. The researchers behind the study speculate that this may have helped her build a closer rapport with her people during the difficult post-war period.
They also note that the Queen’s vocabulary continued to increase in richness as the monarchy itself underwent reforms, such as paying taxes on personal wealth and opening official residences to the public. She also appears to have adapted her vocabulary to reflect the shifting sensitivities around race, religion, gender and health, while also making extensive use of inclusive and unifying language as she appealed to her audience. For example, she made extensive use of personal pronouns such as « we » and « our » in later speeches, such as her address to the UK and Commonwealth at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic.
From around 1990, after the age of 64 years old, the Queen’s vowels began to move back towards being more like those she used in the 1950s
Apart from being a powerful reflection of broader social change, the shift in the Queen’s accent also illustrated an aspect of human development that is gaining increasing attention: how our the way we speak and our voice itself continues to change throughout our lives.
Previously, it was assumed that the big changes in our voice happened in childhood and adolescence, after which one’s accent was thought to be fairly fixed. But now, research is beginning to show that our voice is more flexible than we might think, and that we can still modify it substantially throughout our lives, and even in old age.
This flexibility has been found not just in the voice of Queen Elizabeth II, but in those of other influential women around the world – as well as in the wider population.
For example, a study investigating speeches by Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands between the ages of 42 and 74 found that overall, she spoke faster in the later speeches. This was thought to possibly be a reflection of the broader change among Dutch speakers, whose speech had generally sped up.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the late Supreme Court judge, was also found to have changed her accent, according to a study of her speech. As a lawyer arguing cases before the Court, she was found to have dropped her native New York City accent. But later, when she was a Supreme Court judge, she returned to that accent of her youth, the researchers found. They speculated that she had perhaps suppressed the « stigmatised New York City vernacular variants », out of a subconscious or conscious worry that this accent would be seen as strident, as was a common prejudice at the time. But once she was Justice Ginsberg, she perhaps no longer had to concern herself so much with how the Court perceived her, since she was part of it.
From around 1990, the Queen’s accent began to gradually revert to the way she spoke in her younger years (Credit: Getty Images)
And this is where one of the most interesting and perhaps poignant shifts in the Queen’s accent offers another intriguing puzzle. From around 1990, after the age of 64-years-old, the Queen’s vowels began to move back towards being more like those she used in the 1950s. The biggest changes were in vowels such as « a » as in « trap », the final « y » in words like « happy », and the « oo » as in « goose ». They all showed a subtle change back towards the sound of the Queen’s younger years. It wasn’t a full reversion, however – the vowels still sounded more mainstream and modern than they did in the 1950s.
Despite the social changes happening around the Queen throughout her long reign, these later shifts in her accent are slightly puzzling – particularly because the social changes that may have led to the original shift to more everyday speech did not reverse. But there may have been other factors at work.
This kind of reversion has been found in a number of different circumstances. In bilingual speakers, for example, ageing or damage caused by a stroke can cause a return to their original native language or accent, although in a more pronounced way than was seen in the Queen’s case as there is no suggestion she ever suffered a stroke. It can also happen with regional accents within one’s native language, say, from British English to American English, and back.
One explanation for the Queen’s slight return to the vowels of her youth could be down to the way our memories work as we age, suggests Harrington. Older pronunciations of words may be lodged more deeply in our memory and so more entrenched, while our ability to draw on more recent interactions with the people around us declines as we age.
The Queen’s final Christmas broadcast in 2021 saw her reflect on past memories (Credit: Victoria Jones/Getty Images)
« How we speak is largely shaped by an accumulation of memories of all the people we have ever spoken with, » says Harrington. « This accumulation of memories seems to deteriorate with increasing age, but since it is the more recent ones that deteriorate first, then those memories associated with youth and early childhood may well become more dominant. »
The pull of the past could also have played a role. Reminiscing or reflecting on events from earlier in her life, which the Queen did often in her later speeches, could also lead to the use of older pronunciations related to those memories.
Most of all, however, the words the Queen shared with millions of people around the world in her distinctive voice – in all its subtle, shifting forms – will for many people forever be tied to the memory of the warmth and affection she evoked. Her passing marks the end of an era, and the end of a long, unbroken record of change reflected in the way she spoke.
« I have great admiration for Queen Elizabeth II in so many ways, » says Harrington. « And not least because of her commitment to give up a large part of her Christmas Day for a live public address to the nation and to millions worldwide every single year without any interruption for seven decades. »
In his first public speech after ascending to the throne King Charles III thanked his « darling Mama », just as the Queen had remembered her « beloved father » in her own Christmas broadcast as a young woman, all those decades ago. It remains to be seen how the royal accent will continue to evolve as he begins his reign.
King Charles’s tour shows desire to hug UK nations close
Answering the many questions I have asked myself during the coverage of the new King’s visits. Article by Alan Little for BBC News website published 17/9/2022
The Crown of Scotland (l) on Her Majesty’s coffin in Edinburgh was replaced by the Imperial State Crown in London
King Charles has done two things simultaneously this week that reveal much about what kind of reign he aspires to. First, he has led the nation in the ritualising of its sorrow – a sorrow that has been quietly expressed and subdued but it is nonetheless real. And second he has signalled to us in the clearest terms possible that this is a reign that will put the future of the Union – the integrity of the United Kingdom itself – at the heart of its concerns.
In choosing to visit Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff, as well as return to London, King Charles has demonstrated how fully the Royal Family and household have understood the nature of the United Kingdom as a Union state – a partnership of nations.
Everywhere he went there were gestures of respect and, indeed, affection for the distinctiveness of each of the three devolved nations. And in that, as in much else, he is following what he called, in Northern Ireland, the « shining example » set by his mother.
We saw the coffin of the Queen for the first time as it slipped through the gates of Balmoral in its glass-sided hearse. She is the first reigning monarch to die in Scotland in nearly 500 years. « I have to be seen to be believed, » she had famously remarked in life; now she was performing the same service in death.
The cortege made its way slowly through royal Deeside, slowing down to pass through towns and villages, where the people know her not just as the Queen, but as their neighbour. She had known this landscape since she was a child: Aboyne, Ballater, Banchory, Peterculter, through Aberdeen to Bridge of Muchalls, Stonehaven and south to the Scottish capital. They stood by the side of the road as the cortege passed, in quiet contemplation.
What was the symbolism of this measured progress through the green spaces, the little neighbourhoods, she loved, if not to say: « I am rooted here; this has been my home. »
For that’s what Balmoral was – a private home and not a royal residence. She made no secret of the fact that she loved it more than any place in the world. It was where she found respite from the burdens of state and the unyielding gaze of the public.
The new Queen Elizabeth with a young Prince Charles at Balmoral in September 1952
I have been struck all week by that gaze. It has followed the new King and those closest to him throughout. Other than a brief time at Highgrove spent in quiet contemplation, King Charles and the Queen Consort have spent almost every waking hour since the Queen died in the public eye. This, at a time when they and their family are carrying what must be an intense private sorrow. This is a family on whose grief the eyes of the world intrude. Duty calls them to sublimate their private sorrow to the imperatives and demands of public ritual
This, too, is surely the legacy of the late Queen – it is the steadfastness and constancy with which she adhered to her idea of public service, now visible in her son.
Crowds gathered in the streets of Edinburgh’s magnificent old town as her coffin was taken to lie in the Palace of Holyroodhouse, the monarch’s official residence in Scotland. You could sense the intimacy and informality of that journey from Balmoral gradually yielding to the rituals of statehood and official mourning.
History seeps from every stone of that house. This was where the Queen’s ancestor King James VI of Scotland learned, in the middle of the night, that he had inherited the throne of England on the death of the first Elizabeth, thus uniting the two kingdoms under one Crown for the first time. In that sense, the Queen was brought to lie in rest in the building that could be said to be the birthplace of the first Kingdom of Great Britain.
The Royal Household’s attention to the sensibilities and distinctiveness of the three devolved nations of the UK has been striking, not just this week, but for many years. When, in 1999, the Queen opened the first Scottish Parliament in 300 years, she gave permission for the then presiding officer to refer to her by what he called her proper title – Elizabeth, Queen of Scots.
Mother and son sharing a laugh at the Braemar Highland Gathering in 2012
She, herself, when she was in Scotland, referred to her son and heir not as the Prince of Wales but as the Duke of Rothesay, his Scottish title. When they took the Queen’s coffin to lie in rest at St Giles’ Cathedral, they placed upon it the Crown of Scotland, the centrepiece of the Scottish crown jewels. It is 500 years old, the oldest surviving royal crown in Britain and Ireland, made for the Queen’s ancestor King James V.
Consider the symbolism – it is a gesture toward the distinctiveness of Scotland and its historic nationhood.
What have we learned about the kind of reign that the King aspires to? This week, above all, he has sought visibility; like his mother he wants to be seen, to forge a strong link between Crown and people. It was those moments outside, in the street, among the people crowding to see him, hands stretched out to take his, that he seemed to come alive. These were the moments – moments of easy informal engagement – that seemed to energise and excite him.
We watched him at Hillsborough Castle in Northern Ireland, being addressed by Sinn Fein leaders who do not recognise the legitimacy of his Crown in their country. And yet they spoke to him with sympathy for his loss, and spoke with immense warmth about his late mother.
In May 2022’s election, for the first time, nationalist Sinn Fein won most seats to the Northern Ireland Assembly
Alex Maskey, the Sinn Fein speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, a man who was twice interned without trial during the Troubles, stood in the Throne Room at Hillsborough and spoke directly to the British King of the leadership qualities of his late mother.
He also praised the role those qualities had played in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. He said she had deployed gestures that seemed small, but which had an enormous impact in promoting reconciliation. King Charles replied that he would seek to follow what he called his mother’s « shining example » in bringing together « those whom history has separated ».
King Charles with Northern Ireland Assembly Speaker, Alex Maskey of Sinn Fein – and the party’s Vice President Michelle O’Neill
The last leg of his tour was to the country whose title, he said, he had borne with pride for more than half a century: the title Prince of Wales, one he now passes to his own heir. His relationship with Wales is intimate. As a student he learned Welsh here, and spoke Welsh at his investiture as Prince of Wales in 1969.
Here, bilingualism is part of the distinctive character of the country. He and the Queen Consort attended a Service of Prayer and Reflection for the life of Queen Elizabeth, at which the First Minister, Mark Drakeford, read from the First Book of Kings in Welsh. It incudes the verse: « And now, Oh Lord, you have made your servant King. »
Llandaff Cathedral, where, the service took place, is almost 1,000 years old. It was rebuilt after being bombed in the Cardiff blitz. It connects us – and the Royal Family – to the great shared British experience of the World War Two. Queen Elizabeth’s visit here in 1960 marked its restoration, a symbol of the long recovery from war and its aftermath that characterised the early years of her reign.
Queen Elizabeth, too, hugged the devolved nation close. She made multiple visits to the Scottish Parliament, and attended every opening of the Welsh Assembly and Senedd.
But among the cheers from the crowds Charles encountered in Wales, there were also boos and chants of « Not my King ». This dissent was an echo of pockets of anti-monarchy protests in other places throughout the week.
« I think the biggest danger to the union is arrogance around its continuation, » Laura McAllister, professor of public policy at Cardiff University told me the day before the King’s visit to Cardiff. « I suspect the monarchy has got perhaps even greater sensitivity than politicians to this because there’s a real sense of understanding the cultural and political heritages of each of the nations is very different, » she said.
In Cardiff, King Charles smiled with members of the public after a service at Llandaff Cathedral in memory of his mother
The Queen received a similar welcome when she visited the village of Treherbert on her birthday in April 1989
She said the Queen had reflected that in her remarks when she was opening the National Assembly and then the Senedd and expected King Charles to do the same.
And he did. Here, too, he spoke of his late mother’s – and his own – affection for the country. Perhaps more telling there was the gesture toward the distinctiveness of the character of the country. On the floor of the Senedd, he replied to a motion of condolence from members of the assembly in both languages.
« Through all the years of her reign, » he said, « the land of Wales could not have been closer to my mother’s heart. I know she took immense pride in your many great achievements – even as she also felt with you deeply in time of sorrow.
« It must surely be counted the greatest privilege to belong to a land that could inspire such devotion. I am resolved to honour that selfless example, in the spirit of the words by which I have always tried to live my own life: ‘Ich Dien, I Serve’. »
When his mother came to the throne in 1952, the integrity of the United Kingdom was a given. It is telling that King Charles has chosen, as the first act of his reign, to tour the devolved nations. For the landscape is changing.
In Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein, a party that seeks to lead Northern Ireland out of the Kingdom and into the Republic, is now the biggest single party. In Scotland, support for independence remains a little below 50 per cent, and has much higher support among the young.The early decades of Queen Elizabeth’s reign were characterised by the long, slow contraction of British imperial power overseas and, in the end, the dissolution of the Empire – an outcome that would have shocked and dismayed earlier generations.
It was her leadership that transformed the Empire into the Commonwealth. Most of its members chose to become republics. Fourteen Commonwealth realms remain, in which King Charles becomes head of state, including Jamaica, Australia and New Zealand. King Charles will be alert to the possibility that that process could resume, with the potential that some of those realms will also become republics.
He will also be alert to the possibility that his own reign could come to be defined by the loosening of the bonds that have traditionally held the Union together.
Queen Elizabeth was a powerful force for unity. She came to embody much of the character of Britain itself. We looked at her and saw a set of values – though each of us would have defined those values differently – around which the country cohered. She was the last living royal link with WW2, perhaps the founding shared experience of the modern British identity.
King Charles III enters Buckingham Palace for the first time as the new monarch, accompanied by the Queen Consort
What will happen to that legacy, to the way of being British that she reflected back to us, when this period of mourning is over and she begins to slip into the middle distance of our collective memory?
That the new king inherits a powerful legacy of public affection for his mother has been clear this week. But the enthusiasm of those who turned out in Edinburgh, Belfast, Cardiff, London and across the country will not disguise for long the strains that the country is under.
King Charles signalled to us this week that he intends to put the future of the Union at the heart of his reign. The Royal household will not make the mistake of seeing those crowds as incontrovertible proof that the Union is secure. We can expect this to be a reign that will hug the devolved nations of the Kingdom close.
She became for many the one constant point in a rapidly changing world as British influence declined, society changed beyond recognition and the role of the monarchy itself came into question.
Her success in maintaining the monarchy through such turbulent times was even more remarkable given that, at the time of her birth, no-one could have foreseen that the throne would be her destiny.
Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor was born on 21 April 1926, in a house just off Berkeley Square in London, the first child of Albert, Duke of York, second son of George V, and his duchess, the former Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon.
Image caption, Baby Elizabeth with her parents at her christening
Both Elizabeth and her sister, Margaret Rose, who was born in 1930, were educated at home and brought up in a loving family atmosphere. Elizabeth was extremely close to both her father and her grandfather, George V.
At the age of six, Elizabeth told her riding instructor that she wanted to become a « country lady with lots of horses and dogs ».
She was said to have shown a remarkable sense of responsibility from a very early age. Winston Churchill, the future prime minister, was quoted as saying that she possessed « an air of authority that was astonishing in an infant ».
Despite not attending school, Elizabeth proved adept at languages and made a detailed study of constitutional history.
A special Girl Guides company, the 1st Buckingham Palace, was formed so that she could socialise with girls of her own age.
Increasing tension
On the death of George V in 1936, his eldest son, known as David, became Edward VIII.
However, his choice of wife, the twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson, was deemed to be unacceptable on political and religious grounds. At the end of the year he abdicated.
Image caption, Princess Elizabeth, with her parents and younger sister Margaret, at the time of her father’s « very, very wonderful » CoronationImage caption, Princesses Elizabeth (right) and Margaret broadcast to the nation in World War Two
A reluctant Duke of York became King George VI. His Coronation gave Elizabeth a foretaste of what lay in store for her and she later wrote that she had found the service « very, very wonderful ».
Against a background of increasing tension in Europe, the new King, together with his wife, Queen Elizabeth, set out to restore public faith in the monarchy. Their example was not lost on their elder daughter.
In 1939, the 13-year-old princess accompanied the King and Queen to the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth.
Together with her sister Margaret, she was escorted by one of the cadets, her third cousin, Prince Philip of Greece.
Obstacles
It was not the first time they had met, but it was the first time she took an interest in him.
Prince Philip called on his royal relatives when on leave from the navy, and by 1944, when she was 18, Elizabeth was clearly in love with him. She kept his picture in her room and they exchanged letters.
The young princess briefly joined the Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS) towards the end of the war, learning to drive and service a lorry. On VE Day, she joined the Royal Family at Buckingham Palace as thousands gathered in The Mall to celebrate the end of the war in Europe.
« We asked my parents if we could go out and see for ourselves, » she later recalled. « I remember we were terrified of being recognised. I remember lines of unknown people linking arms and walking down Whitehall, all of us just swept along on a tide of happiness and relief. »
After the war, her desire to marry Prince Philip faced a number of obstacles.
The King was reluctant to lose a daughter on whom he doted, and Philip had to overcome the prejudice of an establishment that could not accept his foreign ancestry.
Image caption, Princess Elizabeth’s wedding to Philip Mountbatten brightened the post-war gloom
But the wishes of the couple prevailed and on 20 November 1947 the couple married in Westminster Abbey.
The Duke of Edinburgh, as Philip had become, remained a serving naval officer. For a short time, a posting to Malta meant the young couple could enjoy a relatively normal life.
Their first child, Charles, was born in 1948, followed by a sister, Anne, who arrived in 1950.
But the King, having suffered considerable stress during the war years, was terminally ill with lung cancer, brought about by a lifetime of heavy smoking.
In January 1952, Elizabeth, then 25, set off with Philip for an overseas tour. The King, against medical advice, went to the airport to see the couple off. It was to be the last time Elizabeth would see her father.
Elizabeth heard of the death of the King while staying at a game lodge in Kenya and the new Queen immediately returned to London.
« In a way, I didn’t have an apprenticeship, » she later recalled. « My father died much too young, so it was all a very sudden kind of taking on and making the best job you can. »
Personal attack
Her Coronation in June 1953 was televised, despite the opposition of Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and millions gathered around TV sets, many of them for the first time, to watch as Queen Elizabeth II made her oath.
With Britain still enduring post-war austerity, commentators saw the Coronation as the dawn of a new Elizabethan age.
World War Two had served to hasten the end of the British Empire, and by the time the new Queen set off on a lengthy tour of the Commonwealth in November 1953, many former British possessions, including India, had gained independence.
Image caption, Her Coronation was the first to be broadcast live on British TV
Elizabeth became the first reigning monarch to visit Australia and New Zealand. It was estimated that three-quarters of Australians turned out to see her in person.
Throughout the 1950s, more countries hauled down the union flag and the former colonies and dominions now came together as a voluntary family of nations.
Many politicians felt that the new Commonwealth could become a counter to the newly emerging European Economic Community and, to some extent, British policy turned away from the Continent.
Image caption, Her visit to the US in 1957 was just one of many overseas tours
But the decline of British influence was hastened by the Suez debacle in 1956, when it became clear that the Commonwealth lacked the collective will to act together in times of crisis. The decision to send British troops to try to prevent Egypt’s threatened nationalisation of the Suez Canal ended in an ignominious withdrawal and brought about the resignation of Prime Minister Anthony Eden.
This embroiled the Queen in a political crisis. The Conservative Party had no mechanism for electing a new leader and, after a series of consultations, the Queen invited Harold Macmillan to form a new government.
The Queen also found herself the subject of a personal attack by the writer Lord Altrincham. In a magazine article, he claimed her court was « too British » and « upper-class » and accused her of being unable to make a simple speech without a written text.
His remarks caused a furore in the press and Lord Altrincham was physically attacked in the street by a member of the League of Empire Loyalists.
Nevertheless, the incident demonstrated that British society and attitudes to the monarchy were changing fast and old certainties were being questioned.
From ‘the Monarchy’ to ‘the Royal Family’
Encouraged by her husband, notoriously impatient with the court’s stuffiness, the Queen began to adapt to the new order.
The practice of receiving debutantes at court was abolished and the term « the Monarchy » was gradually replaced by « the Royal Family ».
The Queen was once more at the centre of a political row when in 1963, Harold Macmillan stood down as prime minister. With the Conservative Party still to set up a system for choosing a new leader, she followed his advice to appoint the Earl of Home in his place.
It was a difficult time for the Queen. The hallmark of her reign was constitutional correctness, and a further separation of the monarchy from the government of the day. She took seriously her rights to be informed, to advise and to warn – but did not seek to step beyond them.
It was to be the last time she would be put in such a position. The Conservatives finally did away with the tradition that new party leaders just « emerged », and a proper system was put in place.
Image caption, The documentary Royal Family gave an unprecedented look behind the public face of the monarchy
By the late 1960s, Buckingham Palace had decided that it needed to take a positive step to show the Royal Family in a far less formal and more approachable way.
The result was a ground-breaking documentary, Royal Family. The BBC was allowed to film the Windsors at home. There were pictures of the family at a barbecue, decorating the Christmas tree, taking their children for a drive – all ordinary activities, but never seen before.
Critics claimed that Richard Cawston’s film destroyed the mystique of the royals by showing them to be ordinary people, including scenes of the Duke of Edinburgh barbecuing sausages in the grounds at Balmoral.
But the film echoed the more relaxed mood of the times and did much to restore public support for the monarchy.
By 1977, the Silver Jubilee was celebrated with genuine enthusiasm in street parties and in ceremonies across the kingdom. The monarchy seemed secure in the public’s affection and much of that was down to the Queen herself.
Two years later, Britain had, in Margaret Thatcher, its first woman prime minister. Relations between the female head of state and female head of government were sometimes said to have been awkward.
Scandals and disasters
One difficult area was the Queen’s devotion to the Commonwealth, of which she was head. The Queen knew the leaders of Africa well and was sympathetic to their cause.
She was reported to have found Thatcher’s attitude and confrontational style « puzzling », not least over the prime minister’s opposition to sanctions against apartheid South Africa.
Year by year, the Queen’s public duties continued. After the Gulf War in 1991, she went to the United States to become the first British monarch to address a joint session of Congress. President George HW Bush said she had been « freedom’s friend for as long as we can remember ».
Image caption, The Windsor Castle fire contributed to the Queen’s « annus horribilis »
However, a year later, a series of scandals and disasters began to affect the Royal Family.
The Queen’s second son, the Duke of York, and his wife Sarah separated, while Princess Anne’s marriage to Mark Phillips ended in divorce. Then the Prince and Princess of Wales were revealed to be deeply unhappy and eventually split up.
The year culminated in a huge fire at the Queen’s favourite residence, Windsor Castle. It seemed a grimly appropriate symbol of a royal house in trouble. It was not helped by a public row over whether the taxpayer, or the Queen, should foot the bill for the repairs.
The Queen described 1992 as her « annus horribilis » and, in a speech in the City of London, appeared to concede the need for a more open monarchy in return for a less hostile media.
« No institution, city, monarchy, whatever, should expect to be free from the scrutiny of those who give it their loyalty and support, not to mention those who don’t. But we are all part of the same fabric of our national society and that scrutiny can be just as effective if it is made with a measure of gentleness, good humour and understanding. »
The institution of monarchy was very much on the defensive. Buckingham Palace was opened to visitors to raise money to pay for the repairs at Windsor and it was announced that the Queen and the Prince of Wales would pay tax on investment income.
Image caption, The Queen was committed to the Commonwealth throughout her reign
Abroad, the hopes for the Commonwealth, so high early in her reign, had not been fulfilled. Britain had turned its back on its old partners with new arrangements in Europe.
The Queen still saw value in the Commonwealth and was deeply gratified when South Africa, where she had come of age, at last threw apartheid aside. She celebrated with a visit in March 1995.
At home, the Queen sought to maintain the dignity of the monarchy while public debate continued on whether the institution had any future.
Death of Diana, Princess of Wales
Image caption, The Queen faced criticism after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales
As Britain struggled to find a new destiny, she tried to remain a reassuring figure, and with a sudden smile could lighten a solemn moment. The role she valued above all was that of symbol of the nation.
However, the monarchy was shaken and the Queen herself attracted unusual criticism after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in a car accident in Paris in August 1997.
As the public crowded around the palaces in London with tributes of flowers, the Queen seemed reluctant to provide the focus that she had always tried to do during great national moments.
Many of her critics failed to understand that she was from a generation that recoiled from the almost hysterical displays of public mourning that typified the aftermath of the princess’s death.
She also felt as a caring grandmother that she needed to comfort Diana’s sons in the privacy of the family circle.
Eventually, she made a live broadcast, paying tribute to her daughter-in-law and making a commitment that the monarchy would adapt.
Losses and celebrations
The deaths of the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret, in the Queen’s Golden Jubilee year, 2002, cast a shadow over nationwide celebrations of her reign.
But despite this, and the recurring debate over the future of the monarchy, a million people crowded into The Mall, in front of Buckingham Palace, on the evening of the jubilee.
Image caption, The wedding of Prince William to Catherine Middleton was a happy occasion
In April 2006, thousands of well-wishers lined the streets of Windsor as the Queen performed an informal walkabout on her 80th birthday.
And in November 2007, she and Prince Philip celebrated 60 years of marriage with a service attended by 2,000 people at Westminster Abbey.
There was yet another happy occasion in April 2011 when the Queen attended the wedding of her grandson, William, Duke of Cambridge, to Catherine Middleton.
In May that year she became the first British monarch to make an official visit to the Irish Republic, an event of great historical significance.
In a speech, which she began in Irish, she called for forbearance and conciliation and referred to « things we wish had been done differently or not at all ».
Referendum
A year later, on a visit to Northern Ireland as part of the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, she shook hands with the former IRA commander Martin McGuinness.
It was a poignant moment for a monarch whose much-loved cousin, Lord Louis Mountbatten, had been killed by an IRA bomb in 1979.
Image caption, Her handshake with Martin McGuinness was a landmark moment
The Diamond Jubilee brought hundreds of thousands of people on to the streets and culminated in a weekend of celebrations in London.
The referendum on Scottish independence, in September 2014, was a testing time for the Queen. Few had forgotten her speech to Parliament in 1977 in which she made clear her commitment to a United Kingdom.
« I number kings and queens of England and of Scotland, and princes of Wales among my ancestors and so I can readily understand these aspirations. But I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. »
In a remark to well-wishers at Balmoral on the eve of the Scottish referendum, which was overheard, she said she hoped people would think very carefully about the future.
Once the result of the vote was known, her public statement underlined the relief she felt that the Union was still intact, although recognising that the political landscape had changed.
« Now, as we move forward, we should remember that despite the range of views that have been expressed, we have in common an enduring love of Scotland, which is one of the things that helps to unite us all. »
Image caption, In later years the Queen withdrew from much of public life though she appeared on the balcony at Buckingham Palace for her Platinum Jubilee in 2022
On 9 September 2015 she became the longest reigning monarch in British history, surpassing the reign of her great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria. In typical style she refused to make any fuss saying the title was « not one to which I have ever aspired ».
Less than a year later, in April 2016, she celebrated her 90th birthday.
She continued with her public duties, often alone after the retirement of the Duke of Edinburgh in 2017.
There were continued strains on the family – including her husband’s car accident, the Duke of York’s ill-judged friendship with convicted American businessman Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Harry’s growing disillusionment with life in the royal family.
These were unsettling moments, presided over by a monarch who demonstrated that she was still firmly in control. There was also the death of Prince Philip in April 2021, in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, and her Platinum Jubilee a year later.
Although the monarchy might not have been as strong at the end of the Queen’s reign as it was at the start, she was determined that it should continue to command a place of affection and respect in the hearts of the British people.
On the occasion of her Silver Jubilee, she recalled the pledge she had made on a visit to South Africa 30 years before.
« When I was 21, I pledged my life to the service of our people and I asked for God’s help to make good that vow. Although that vow was made in my salad days, when I was green in judgement, I do not regret, or retract, one word of it. »
Article based practically entirely on Tweets published on Twitter by Ronald Drimmel, astronomer from Montana, mapper of the Milky Way and advocate of DarkSky (pressure group fighting to defend the right to clear night skies.) This analysis has attracted the attention and congratulations of at least one astronomer Fred Jansen with whom I have worked on the XMM-Newton X-ray telescope mission.
The issue in a few figures :
There are already some 6000 constellation satellites in orbit, such as the Starklink one on left. The estimated number in a few yeras time will be 340,000 !! How cannot that become a threat ?
It is a terrifying thread of facts giving some sense of why SpaceX’s expansion plans in low Earth orbit that add up to a giant ecological experiment. Dumping lots and lots of stuff in the upper atmosphere seems, to say the least, like a bad idea…
The expected capacity of SpaceX’s Starship is about 150 tonne, so that means about 120 Generation-2 Starlinks per launch. That means to deploy 30,000 satelittes you need 250 Starship launches. But the expected on-orbit lifetime of the 2nd generation craft is the same as its predecessors, namely 5 to 7 years.
That means you have to deploy the consellation in less than 5 to 7 years, or you will never reach 30,000 satellites before they start falling out of the sky. So to deploy 30,000 satelllites in 5 years you need 50 Starship launches each year. And Starlink is just one of the many proposed constellations..
A recent estimate is that global launch rates will reach 1000 per year. And yes, this is expected to have a significant effect on the atmosphere. Atmospheric scientist Christopher Maloney believes so. In a new study, he and his colleagues modeled how black carbon belched out by rocket launches around the world is likely to gradually warm parts of the middle atmosphere and deplete the ozone layer.
But the problem is not just rocket exhausts: What goes up must come down. Let us generously assume that « only » the 20,000 Generation 2 Starlink satellites below 400 km orbits have a 5-7year lifetime. Once deployed you need at least 30 Starship launches per year to maintain the constellation. And 4000 1.25 tonne satellites falling to Earth per year. That is 5,000 tonnes of aluminum and rare earth minerals deposited in the upper atmosphere yearly. And that calculation is, again, for just one constellation.
Scaling this up to 100,000 satellitess (the estimated total number of constellation satellites), that means *at least* 25,000 tonnes per year of aluminum and other metals deposited in the upper atmosphere. With what consequences ? We have absolutely no idea !! So let’s see what happens if…
The research, led by Michael Byers, a political scientist at the University of British Columbia in Canada, measures the risk that a piece of space debris will fall to Earth in a populated area over the next given decade. His team calculated chances as high as one in 10 that a chunk of spacecraft big enough to injure someone or cause property damage will survive the trip through Earth’s atmosphere in the next 10 years. It’s only a matter of time before someone is killed by falling space junk.
And I have not even touched on the potential impact on the space environment. Managing such a large constellation needs constant avoidance manuevers, but if an unexpected solar storm even temporarily knocks out a fraction of the satellites, the situation will degenerate very quickly.
Final aspect that of light pollution of our heavens: the Generation-2 Starlink satellitess are larger than their predecessors. Just considering the satellite platform, they are about 6 tims larger. But most of them will be on smaller orbits, of between 340 and 400km. So their apparent size, which determines their brightness, is about 9 to 10 times larger.
That is, to be no brighter than Generation-1, the Generation-2 craft will need to be at least ten times darker. Fortunately, Starlink has been working on this, but will it be enough? One can doubt it because Elon Musk does not have kept his word to reduce satellite refelctivity. Even with the darkest skies possible, this light pollution from above is becoming inescapable. The truth is we are already transforming the night sky for all of humanity.
The unavoidable conclusion is that we are recklessly « developing » a common resource, with little or no regulation, for the benefit of a few, but at a cost that will impact everyone. This could be an ecological and cultural disaster
Yet another lunch…
Second stage tank of Falcon 9, fell into a farm in Central Washinton on April 2, 2021
Constellation satellites seen in just 45 minutes. Video by Kevin Palmer.
A camera used to detector meteorites (vertical lines) and all the rest being constellation satellites.
“Traced in your brain are many neural pathways that can lead to suffering or happiness. You may travel on some of them frequently and they have become a habit, always leading you to react in the same way. For example, when you’re in touch with a certain thing, perhaps a memory or an object, it may always take you down a pathway that leads to anger and hate. With the practice of mindfulness, concentration, and insight, you can choose instead to focus on something wholesome that leads you to a feeling of happiness. Or when a situation arises that always leads you to react in a way that brings suffering, if you can bring in mindfulness, you can choose to respond in a way that contains more clarity and understanding. Doing this a few times, you begin to open up a new neural pathway that leads to happiness and reconciliation.
Suppose someone says something that angers you and your habit is to say something back to punish them, even if you know it won’t help. Mindfulness can help you not to respond too quickly. You can say to yourself, ‘Hello, my anger, you are my old friend. I know you are there. I will take good care of you.’ Recognizing and embracing your anger will help bring relief. Practicing mindfulness of compassion like this, directed toward yourself and toward the person you believe to be the cause of your anger, allows compassion and understanding to arise, and your suffering and anger can begin to melt away. You are able to see the suffering in the other person and you may even find something to say that will help them.”
Thich Nhat Hanh in « How to Focus » (@ParallaxPress 2022)
Article sur le site web de la BBC le 9 août 2022, par Bryan Lufkin. En orange/brun passages que j’apprécie particulièrement
Communicating remotely is hard, with far more room for ambiguity. That’s why some overthinkers are struggling.
Anyone can suffer under the isolation of remote work – even for the least social people, spending workdays with only a webcam or messaging platform to contact people they once saw all the time can eventually take a toll. But this isolation can be particularly hard on one type of worker: the ‘overthinker’. These are individuals who tend to over-analyse events around and pertaining to them, and need reassurance that everything is OK.
Overthinking can happen in any environment that allows room for uncertainty, such as within social relationships or the workplace. But experts say remote work can make overthinking tendencies worse, because the lack of face-to-face communication among colleagues increases ambiguity and uncertainty – factors that can trigger overthinking spirals. (What did that one-line email mean?Am I getting fired during that afternoon Zoom?)
There are steps individuals can take to stave off these intrusive thoughts. But it’s also up to managers to communicate better, so workers know how they’re doing – and aren’t left alone to wonder.
‘Need-to-know kind of people’
Psychologists say overthinkers obsessively worry about things that could go wrong.
In one sense, being an overthinker can be a good thing. « Overthinkers tend to be super conscientious people, they tend to be highly responsible individuals and they tend to be a little perfectionistic, » says Craig Sawchuk, psychologist at the Mayo Clinic, one of the largest medical-research organisations in the US. « They care about their work, and really want to do well. » They also tend to be « highly emotionally attuned”, says Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks, behavioural scientist at the Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, US.
That’s why overthinkers can be a boon to the workplace. They’re diligent, hard-working and aware of others’ feelings; since they spend so much time thinking about their performance and where they stand with people, they can be engaged and dedicated team members. « That is a real strength, » says Sawchuk.
Sawchuk says that when overthinkers start to worry, they tend to take one of two paths: they either disengage from the situation, or over-engage and constantly seek reassurance that their fear is unfounded. Overthinkers « are very much ‘need-to-know’ kind of people », and when they’re worried about something or feel that a situation is unclear, desire 100% confirmation that everything is OK. « The biggest source of gasoline that anxiety kind of feeds off of is this uncertainty, » he says.
An example of overthinking in the workplace could be sitting across from a colleague, noticing their sour expression and worrying that it relates to them, or worrying that they’re working harder than they are. That may not be the case at all, though – « maybe they’re on their computer playing Solitaire », says Melanie Brucks, assistant professor of business marketing at Columbia Business School, New York, US.
When overthinkers obsess over these thoughts, they’re « not doing this to feel good – they’re doing this to feel less bad, » says Sawchuk. And even if workers get the temporary reassurance they need – like reaching out to that sour-faced boss to check their temperature – “then the doubt comes back in: ‘were they just being nice to me’? Or ‘now they probably think I’m weird because I reached out and was trying to get clarification’ ».
The remote-work complication
When the workforce moved from in-office to remote during the pandemic, overthinkers lost many of the little things that could quell their worries. In a physical workplace, overthinkers can more easily observe body language cues, or lean over a desk to ask a colleague a question when they feel unsure about a situation. But remote work away these outlets.
Sanchez-Burks says that overthinkers « might be struggling the most » in the remote-work era, since they « rely a lot on that context ». Working remotely increases ambiguity; so much goes unseen and unheard during a typical remote workday, like who’s meeting whom, the projects others are working on, what colleagues are talking to the boss about. For an overthinking worker feeling worried, this can lead to a « rumination loop » where they might be « re-reading email exchanges over and over and over again » to decode the subtext, explains Sawchuk. Or if a manager perhaps innocently forgets to add them to a Zoom invite, they start thinking the worst.
Relying on email and chats can make the problem worse. “Text is a really impoverished form of communication,” says Sanchez-Burks. He says that when it comes to digital communications, the gap between what people mean and how others interpret the message can be substantial. So, when an email might feel a touch terse, this can trigger rumination.
Experts also say it’s up to remote managers to communicate more effectively to eliminate any anxiety that can negatively affect staff
In the office, that overthinking cycle might be curtailed by a quick chat. « Maybe we’re feeling a little bit anxious, but then we run into [that person] at the water cooler, or on the way to the bathroom. And we have that moment, or that smile, or ‘how are you doing?’, and you can sense the warmth, » says Brucks. In the work-from-home world, that isn’t easy.
Of course, while remote work can exacerbate overthinking tendencies, working in person isn’t a panacea for these noxious thoughts. There are still plenty of ambiguous scenarios in the office that can trigger overthinking spirals. But remote work, with its increased ambiguity, can trigger overthinking.
‘Short circuiting’ intrusive thoughts
No matter whether it happens remotely or in person, overthinking can take a toll on worker wellbeing. Cycles of negative thinking and worrying about potentially bad outcomes can be a gateway to maladaptive coping mechanisms including substance abuse; plus, one study of more than 32,000 participants in 172 countries showed that brooding too much on negative events is the biggest predictor of depression and stress.
But there are things overthinkers can do to break free of the obsessive thoughts.
When someone is stuck in an overthinking loop, taking a step back and looking at the situation objectively to « short circuit » the intrusive thought patterns can help, says Sawchuk. He suggests people write down their doubts and fears about the situation, and asking, « What’s a different way of looking at this? What’s a less bad way this could go? Do I feel this to be true, or do I know this to be true? Do I have any objective evidence to support this? » The goal here, he says, is « challenging those thoughts » that trigger overthinking.
With remote work, workers can schedule more informal check-ins with bosses and colleagues; creating windows to facilitate more contextualised communications (like a phone or video call), to help get a better read of the other person’s mood and reduce anxiety-producing ambiguity.
But experts also say it’s up to remote managers to communicate more effectively to eliminate any anxiety that can negatively affect staff. « Even before the pandemic, managers overestimated how clear they are and overestimated how much they communicate, » says Sanchez-Burks. He says if managers aren’t checking in more with workers – especially while remote – it can lead to workers having those gnawing feelings of being out of the loop. Managers need to actually « over-communicate in order to communicate just sufficiently enough », says Sanchez-Burks.
There is also room for improvement in terms of how people communicate in text, says Brucks; now is time to change our norms and “infuse [text-based communication] with more information and reduce the ambiguity ». Not only should remote teams communicate more frequently, but in a way that’s more informative than brusque one-line emails. (Studies show that even emoji can help with this.)
Ultimately, though, while communication can always be improved, overthinkers need to come to a place where they can make peace with ambiguity – especially lately. « One of the consequences » or remote work, says Sawchuk, « is that we also introduced more uncertainty into the mix. »
Article by Chris Day dated June 2016 based on the book « Peta, the official Home Office cat »
Since the 1800s there has been a group of government employees who have been given free range over Whitehall, allowed to stroll into Ministers’ offices during the most sensitive of conversations. They’ve been paid out of the public purse to preen, sleep and hunt in the corridors of power.
They are the government’s cats.
The government has been unofficially ‘employing’ cats since the mid 19th century – not as a forward thinking precursor of today’s therapy dogs – but for the far more gruesome task of ridding Westminster of mice and rats.
The practice of government departments having cats continues today. Keen-eyed viewers of news reports outside 10 Downing Street might spy the slinking figure of Larry, Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office, in the background.
Larry, Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office (image from Wikipedia)
Meanwhile the Foreign Office has recently appointed the rescue cat Palmerston as its Chief Mouser; he has already gained a substantial following on Twitter.
Most of these mousers have been unofficial, and left no paper trail. However, records were created when departments applied to the Treasury for a feline upkeep allowance, making these cats official. Details of some of them are preserved in The National Archives.
In 1936 for instance, the Cabinet Office applied for an allowance for their resident mouser, Jumbo. Jumbo died in 1942, his name forever ‘recorded in our CAT-alogue of Events during the war’. In light of the need for men at the front, it was suggested by one Cabinet wag that his replacement be a female feline (catalogue reference: CAB 150/7).
The official Home Office cat
It is the Home Office who kept the most meticulous record of their feline employees, and their exploits are detailed in The National Archives’ file HO 223/43.
It all began in 1929, when the Treasury agreed to 1d (one pence) a day being spent on the upkeep of Peter, a black cat already resident in the Home Office. The upkeep was not applied for because Peter was underfed, the Home Office said, but quite the opposite – titbits brought in by besotted civil servants had led to Peter neglecting his main duty as the office mouser.
On his new diet, Peter performed his mousing duties admirably. When part of the Home Office moved to Bournemouth in the Second World War, Peter’s services were so missed they applied for an allowance for two cats. London agreed, with the poetic caveat that it be made sure the cats didn’t breed:
‘To pay for grub we hesitate
For ‘pussies’ who may propagate’
Poem in meeting minutes (catalogue reference: HO 223/43)
Peter II
Letter regarding the death of Peter II (catalogue reference: HO 223/43)
By 1946, Peter’s career was at an end. No longer fitting the bill for the Treasury’s allowance for ‘an efficient cat’ (Peter was 17 years old), he was put to sleep on 14 November 1946.
A month later he was replaced by a two month old male kitten, dubbed Peter II.
However, the second Peter was to have a tragically short tenure as the Home Office’s chief mouser. At 3.15am on 27 June 1947, Peter II was struck by a car while crossing the road from the Home Office to the Cenotaph. The RSPCA attended on the cat, but unfortunately advised that it was best for Peter to be put to sleep.
‘Peter the Great’
Peter II was succeeded in the role of Official Home Office Cat by the (imaginatively named) Peter III on 27 August 1947. Perhaps the best-loved cat the Home Office has ever had, he might be more appropriately referred to as ‘Peter the Great’.
Peter became somewhat of a celebrity, appearing on the BBC in 1958 and pictured in newspapers and magazine, including October 1962’s ‘Woman’s Realm’.
Peter’s salary became part of the national conversation, with many animal lovers and cat charities incensed that the Home Office only paid him enough for what they considered to starvation rations. The Office were, however, unmoved by these entreaties. Responding to a letter of concern in 1958 the Home Office assured the writer that:
‘The mice which Peter is employed to catch are not mere “perks”; they are intended to be, and should be, his staple food … Peter’s emoluments [salary] are not designed to keep him in food: if they were, they would also keep him in idleness.’
The writer also informs the concerned cat-lover that Peter was kind enough to leave a pigeon in his desk, adding that ‘the fact that, though chewed, it was not consumed, suggests he is not suffering from starvation.’
A condolence letter from Etti-Cat to Peter on his death (catalogue reference: HO 223/43)
Much of the Official Cats’ file is made up of replies to well wishers and cat-lovers, and these letters give us an insight into Peter’s daily life and character. In 1962 for instance we learn that while Peter doesn’t have any ‘cat-friends’ his hobbies include ‘pigeon fancying’ – those poor birds.
Peter III was put to sleep on 9 March 1964 and buried in April 1964 in the PDSA pet cemetery.
The Home Office received many letters of condolence from admirers of Peter from Britain and further afield, including one from the New York Transit authority’s ‘Etti-Cat’, a feline dedicated to promoting courtesy on the subway.
There is also quite a staggering number of letters from Italy, where Peter was clearly somewhat of a celebrity.
Peta
Two days after Peter’s death Ronald Garvey, Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Man, sent a personal telegram to the Home Secretary expressing sympathy for Peter’s ‘unhappy demise’ but offering in his place a Manx cat ‘guaranteed minimum nine lives’.
Telegram from Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Man, offering a Manx cat (catalogue reference: HO 223/43)
The Home Office wisely decided to accept the Manx offer – possibly to avoid a diplomatic incident that could have left both governments feeling decidedly catty towards the other…
The Manx cat, originally called Manninagh Katedhu but renamed Peta by the Home Office, was presented to the Home Secretary, Henry Brooke, on 7 May 1964. The exchange was attended by the BBC and several newspapers.
Before Peta’s arrival, it was decided to make some adjustments to the working conditions of the Home Office’s cat. A memo from 1 May 1964 points out that previous feline employees, having been provided by the office’s cleaners, were from ‘the industrial grades’, whereas Peta had a ‘diplomatic background’. It was suggested that she therefore be salaried, as opposed to paid weekly. Peta also received a salary increase – receiving a starting salary of £13 per annum, more than double her predecessor’s wage.
Peta, like her predecessor, proved popular with Home Office staff and the wider public as well. Receiving congratulations from other ‘bureauCATS’ from around the world on her appointment.
Peta’s file also preserves the messages she received from one particularly besotted correspondent, 5 year old Patricia Smith of Fife.
Patricia first wrote to Peta in May 1964 to welcome her and recount the story of how she had tried to visit Peter at the Home Office when on holiday in London (he was out at the time), as well as to request a photo of Peta.
Patricia Smith’s first letter to Peta (catalogue reference: HO 223/43)
The same year, she sent Peta a Christmas card. Both are now preserved in the public record.
Patricia Smith’s first Christmas card to Peta (catalogue reference: HO 223/43)
Peta was a popular cat, but the indulgences this granted her proved to be her undoing. In February 1967 Home Office staff were castigated for feeding Peta endless titbits, which made her ‘inordinately fat’ and ‘lazy in her habits’. This jeopardised her house training, necessitating a programme of ‘re-education’.
Unfortunately, Peta didn’t reform her character. Again in 1967 she was accused of brawling with Nemo, Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s Siamese cat, leading to Mrs Wilson being injured. The Home Office’s cleaners and office keeper continued to complain of Peta’s behaviour and lack of house-training.
By 1968, internal Home Office memos begin to consider the unthinkable – putting Peta ‘out to grass’ – surely not!
Fortunately this was not a metaphor. Although it’s not quite clear when she left the corridors of power, a 1976 reply to an enquiry about Peta revealed that she was currently ‘enjoying a break in the country, where she can roam in a large garden belonging to a member of staff’. Peta died in 1980.
