Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
The most recent precedent is that the Queen's father, George the sixth, died on 6 February 1952, which was a Wednesday. On Saturday the 9th, City were beaten 4-2 at Sheffield Wednesday in a Second Division match watched by a crowd of 42,867 which was 1,500 up on Wednesday's average for the 51/52 season.
So, no cancelling of fixtures there and, by the look of it, no effect on attendances because of people not thinking it appropriate that there should be any sport going on because of the close proximity to the King's death three days earlier. How did attitudes to royalty in 1952 differ compared to what they are 2022? I don't know if we're more royalist now, but, given everything I know and have read about the fifties, I'd be very surprised if that decade was more anti royal than the current day.
Also, I see strikes called by the Mail workers for today and by the RMT for next week have been cancelled. That's fair enough, I've no problems with that, but, having decided that the right thing is for one part of society to keep on working, wouldn't it be the height of hypocrisy to tell another (the nation's professional sportsmen and women) that they must down tools so to speak until the Queen's funeral?
If we have to go into an "official mourning period" of over a fortnight (seems well over the top to me) and there are moves to cancel all sport during that time, I hope there will be an online petition set up where people can express their disagreement with such a policy.
I'm not really that well qualified to say this and I know it's the sort of thing that gets trotted out whenever someone in the public eye dies, but, from the little I know of the queen, I don't think she would have wanted her beloved horse racing to shut down for more than a fortnight because of her death - the idea that normal ;life should just stop for half a month because someone's died is ludicrous.