Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles

Subject: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Sep 22 - 11:46 PM

ONE THREAD on the topic. And keep it polite.

I have one observation then I'll launch this. I am totally impressed, in an end-of-life sense, at how the Queen shuffled off this mortal coil. She launched a new Prime Minister on Tuesday, apparently didn't feel good on Wednesday, and on Thursday was gone. Poof! If you have to go, that's the way to do it. I doubt they'll say anything about what the cause was ("old age" will cover it), but whatever, it wasn't a prolonged medical agony.

Well done, Liz!

Subject: BS: Her Royal Highness
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Sep 22 - 11:47 PM

Was very down to Earth.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 01:45 AM

May she rest in peace. Long live the King.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Senoufou
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 02:58 AM

My sister, who lives in Perthshire, watched the cortege pass through bringing Her Majesty from Balmoral to Edinburgh to lie in state. And my two nieces who live in Edinburgh are going to St Giles Cathedral to pay respects to the Queen there. However, there are very long queues, and one has to wait for hours to gain entry.
I feel very sad, as I remember watching HMs Coronation on a tiny black-and-white TV at a neighbour's house (No-one else had a TV then!). I also remember my mother explaining to me before then that she had just heard on the radio that King George VI had died. So long ago.
Elizabeth II served our country admirably for all those years, and never put a foot wrong. I second Bonzo, May she rest in peace.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 04:48 AM

I hope it won't be regarded as impolite if I express the opinion that the coverage of this in our media has been excessive in the extreme, and it isn't stopping anything like yet.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 05:00 AM

I have to agree with Steve. The BBC in particular has shown nothing for FIVE DAYS except coverage of the royal family, interspersed with News Bulletins (mainly about the (royal family)........ Today the coverage is the same ..........oh I tell a lie they are showing "Eastenders" tonight for half an hour.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Helen
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 05:02 AM

Seventy years of unwavering service and working all the way to the end of her 96 years. Queen Elizabeth II deserves recognition and respect and, in my opinion, her ethics and impartiality and her dedication to duty was exemplary.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 05:05 AM

I actually think that we've served her and her family rather than the other way round. The ethics of the royal family are yet another matter. Not now, maybe.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 05:20 AM

She was born into privilege but that was not her fault. As much as I disagree with the principles of the monarchy, and anachronism left over from the feudal system, she did the job that was foisted on her to the best of her ability. The modernisation will be slow but it will eventually happen and hopefully the class system will disolve along with the House of Lords. I certainly have no objection to a titular monarch as long as that is all it is.

RIP QE2

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 06:22 AM

Until the nineteenth century the monarchy were enthusiastic exploiters of the slave trade, and much of their wealth was/is predicated on it. Of course, wealth begets wealth, enhanced by centuries of amassing (in the words of the Lord, to them that have it shall be given...the rest of us pay taxes...). In spite of their mighty wealth (in terms of money alone, the Queen had about £300 million quid) and their millions in annual profits from their holdings (which, but for the slave trade, would be far more humble...), we give them £90 million per annum from the public purse. That's about £1.50 each we'll never see again...

Then there's the tens of thousands of acres of grouse moors, "managed" in the most environmentally-destructive way possible. I wonder whether that environmentally-friendly new King of ours will now do the right thing, bin his plus-twos and rewild all those acres...

What price ethics...?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Vincent Jones
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 06:26 AM

And of course, the first thing for cockneys to do, when going for an Eartha, is to start referring to charleses instead of richards.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: peteglasgow
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 07:16 AM

generally, i don't get too bothered about royalty but just now it is really getting me angry - not the family themselves but all the media coverage is just relentless, bullying. Banning the football, nothing interesting on the radio, assuming all the nation are grieving, 'we'll be heading over for coverage as the coffin makes its way from braemar to edinburgh' etc etc - please 'gie's peace!' And then we have the snowflakes who get all over-excited because of small pockets of alternative voices that they may hear. Sorry, I am not loyal, nor grateful for all the waving and will not ever be happy to be a subject of any lord or king. We should be free citizens and very worried that our rights are being stolen. Vive la republique and liberty, equality and fraternity!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 07:37 AM

I'm reading such envious crap here.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 07:49 AM

Here in the Land of Oz we are also getting far too much media coverage, both on-line, on paper, & on air. I have admired the queen for her dedication to duty, but I couldn't see what she has specifically done as queen of Australia.

I've never has a TV so haven't see live coverage, & as I prefer to listen rather than watch, I haven't clicked on any videos. As my usual radio stations (plural, Aust Broadcasting Corp, Govt radio) had hours of royal coverage. The only station without any news was ABC Jazz which I did enjoy for a couple of days. I've probably only read a dozen articles in total across all media, just some history articles.

One of my treasures is a scrapbook my proud grandfather made for his first grandchild (little baby me!) when the queen came here in 1953 & that will go to my cousin with other family stuff. I don't remember him & my cousin was born long after his death, it's not a royalist item, just a lovely family treasure.

Another family treasure is a book about the previous monarch's coronation that my father's sister gave him in 1940, & that will go to my brother. It's the only thing we have from dad's side.

sandra

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: gillymor
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 07:59 AM

Not a fan of monarchies and I am grateful to my forebears for casting off the English king but I've always admired this woman and am glad that she seems to have had a peaceful transition to a well-earned rest.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 08:33 AM

Not to forget Steve that he has also inherited the Duchy of Lancaster worth at least £650 million which of course is not subject to tax........together with all the revenues from that which amount to some £24 million per annum.

Nice work if you can get it eh!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 08:42 AM

I had forgotten about that Raggy. I guess Charlie loses Wales but gains Lancashire. Sounds a good swap to me :-)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 08:44 AM

The Duchy of Lancaster is not subject to tax, although the Sovereign has voluntarily paid both income and capital gains tax since 1993. As such, the income received by the Privy Purse, of which income from the Duchy forms a significant part, is taxed once official expenditures have been deducted.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 09:11 AM

So Bonzo just how much does he stuff in his back pocket?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 09:42 AM

BTW - The day of the funeral is also talk like a pirate day. I wonder if the Archbishop of Canterbury is up to it?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 09:51 AM

I'm thinking of voluntarily offering to pay tax.

The grouse moors are there in abundance in the Lancaster holdings. What's wrong with 'em?

Well, they keep ordinary people from roaming the moorlands (on one occasion in the seventies in upper Teesdale, I ignored the signs and had shots fired over my head for my troubles).

They are for the privileged, entitled few.

Their gamekeepers illegally murder rare birds of prey (at least two cases are known from royal grouse moors, and who knows what else is hidden from us...)

The rotational burning which benefits the grouse decimates insect life, excludes other ground-nesting birds, destroys plant biodiversity and prevents natural succession, and severely damages the underlying peat, releasing masses of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere instead of keeping it locked up in the peat where it belongs.

All for the "sport" of the hooray Henrys and assorted hangers-on...

Let's see whether he who now "reigns over us" will honour his self-assumed environmental credentials and ditch the shoots!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 09:53 AM

Well, Dave, in a sense they are a sort of bunch of pirates...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 10:54 AM

There has been a lot of coverage here in the US, though most of the news channels switched back to the political stuff here after a couple of days (Trump has been trying to wrangle an invitation to the funeral but Biden would have to approve it. No way that's going to happen.) We heard announcements from all of the living presidents and only Bide is the one who should speak for his family and for the American people, but Trump tried to speak for the American people also, like he's still pResident. That alone would get him banned from going. When some specific event during this mourning period happens I imagine we'll hear or see it, then go back to regular programing.

There is a video out there on Twitter or Instagram of one of her security officers of long standing telling a story about his work with the Queen. They were walking through the woods near her Scotland home and came across two American hikers who apparently didn't recognize her. They spoke politely for a few minutes, the Americans asking if she live there. "No, I live in London, but I have a summer house here." The conversation is probably well known to all of the UK group, how she never identified herself and ended up having her photo taken with the two. And told her security guy that she'd love to be the fly on the wall when they showed their travel photos to others.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Charmion
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 11:47 AM

I sang "God Save the King" for the first time the other day, at church (Anglican, of course). It was, I admit, weird not to sing the Royal Anthem on auto-pilot, and the verger says i sang "her" (instead of "him") twice nevertheless.

As a Canadian, I appreciate the Crown as a counter-weight to the necessarily partisan politics of Parliament, a constitutional benefit we get for close to free thanks to the good people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I imagine the Governor-General and the Lieutenants-General as a pale analogue of Nemesis whispering in the ear of Caesar that he's just a politician and must, therefore, eventually get the boot.

Like every other member of the Canadian Armed Forces, I swore that oath on enrolment, and I did it again as a federal civil servant. Each time, the solemn little ceremony gave me the same frisson I felt when I said "I will" at the chancel steps.

I don't have network or cable television, so the wall-to-wall coverage there doesn't affect me, but most of the two Canadian newspapers I read, and about a third of the New York Times, are currently not worth bothering with. I've had it with marmalade sandwiches and the fate of the corgis -- except for the part where Prince Andrew finally has something useful to do, as a dog-walker -- and mawkish verse on Facebook. Now I want Op London Bridge to hustle on to its conclusion with the funeral so we can all stop bloody reminiscing.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 01:14 PM

Perspective.
When she inherited that crown, WWII was fresh in people's minds and the Korean War was still going. In those days, the monarchy, with all its blemishes, was still considered the 'norm'. She was handed the position and did an amazing job of representing the "good" aspects of its history and traditions.
   I'm sure that if, during her 70 years, the monarchy had been abolished, she'd have accepted THAT with dignity. GBR has had kings & queens for about a thousand years, and replacing it all with museums and re-enactments will/would be a slow & awkward process. I'd bet it will happen..possibly 'soon' in the great scheme of things. Britain votes on leaders and changes in an 'interesting' way, so I can barely imagine who will 'push the change button'.
   Right now, you all are seeing possibly one of the last great ceremonial processes with the funeral and then a coronation. It is important, no matter how half the citizens feel about it... and about the future.
   Watch and shrug.. with Brexit and immigration, etc, there are more pressing issues than how much space the media give this situation.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 05:51 PM

"Watch and shrug.. with Brexit and immigration, etc, there are more pressing issues than how much space the media give this situation."

Bill D, you are quiet correct there are much more pressing issues that should be concerning the population (and especially the Government) of this country.

However the media, backed and encourage by the government I suspect, seem to consider that the "plebs" want the amount of coverage being given.

I was talking this evening to a former police officer who stated that he is a true royalist but even he said he was tired off the amount of media time given over to this.

The BBC alone has now given SIX day of almost unrelenting time to this.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 05:53 PM

Am I right in thinking that QE2 was only #2 of England as QE1 was not Queen of Scotland? I also think that Charlie will be 3 of both as Charlie 1 cane after James 1 of England and 6 of Scotland. Didn't he?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 06:21 PM

For our American cousins ....

Charles I reigned from 1625 to his execution in 1649 and the first king of that name in Scotland and England.

Charles II who reigned from 1660 until his death in 1685 was the second king of that name in Scotland and England.

Thus the new monarch (2022 - till ?) will the be third of that name in both England and Scotland.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: keberoxu
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 06:47 PM

As to what Bill D terms ceremonial processes,
I am thinking back to the last funeral that I paid attention to
enough to watch it, in detail, on television. and that was:

King Hussein of Jordan. it's been a while.
That was a big deal, though, as there were so many dignitaries there,
so many who no longer live.
The announcer got so excited at who came from Israel, for example.
And then there were I forget how many ex-presidents of the US.
What I remember best is the walk to the gravesite,
and a street with everybody, dignitary and commoner alike,
walking together on camera.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 07:36 PM

It has been reported today that up to 100 of Charles staff at his Clarence House residence have been notice of their redundancy.

Isn't it wonderful to have a new CARING monarch .................

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: robomatic
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 08:09 PM

One doesn't always recognize what holds people together until it's gone and they begin to disintegrate. I've had a positive image of Her Majesty for some time, now, based on my conception of her as a person in a position to do good and prevent disunion.

"Flights of angels sing thee to thy rest."

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 08:29 PM

The Queen scarcely put a foot wrong, except over Diana, who was massively and cynically manipulated by the firm. Her Maj did this mainly by keeping her mouth shut, in stark contrast to the problem with our current not-so-bright King that will come back to haunt him in spades. We were allowed to see her angelic, fairytale, quasi-goddess side, aided and abetted by sycophantic mass media, whilst never being permitted to see or hear about the humdrum, the squabbles and the scheming behind the scenes (not to speak of the overt racism of her beloved husband). All these tearful people who claim to have known her actually knew nothing at all about her except what we were told via the careful manicuring of facts by her minders. Remarkably, she maintained a certain dignity despite her largely feral and dysfunctional close family. Kudos to her for that if nothing else.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 08:32 PM

Raggy, the number of Charleses and when they were on the throne isn't really a mystery to those of us in the US, but thanks for sparing us a thought. :)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 11:31 PM

”Am I right in thinking that QE2 was only #2 of England as QE1 was not Queen of Scotland?”

Going by this Wikipedia article, the use of Elizabeth II did cause some controversy in Scotland.

The issue arose again with the accession of Queen Elizabeth II, as Scotland had never before had a regnant Queen Elizabeth, the previous queen of that name having been queen of England only. Objections were raised, and sustained, to the use of the royal cypher EIIR anywhere in Scotland, resulting in several violent incidents, including the destruction of one of the first new EIIR pillar boxes in Scotland, at Leith in late 1952. Since that time, the cipher used in Scotland on all government and Crown property and street furniture has carried no lettering, but simply the Crown of Scotland from the Honours of Scotland. A court case, MacCormick v Lord Advocate, contesting the style "Elizabeth II" within Scotland, was decided in 1953 on the grounds that the numbering of monarchs was part of the royal prerogative, and that the plaintiffs had no title to sue the Crown.

It however seems that the generally accepted rule is that the highest number is used where there there would otherwise be differences between English and Scottish regnal numbers.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: JennieG
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 12:26 AM

I don't care for all the wall-to-wall media coverage...there are other things happening in the world, after all.

I just like the sparkly jools....I want the emeralds, and I want the lovely diamond wattle flower brooch the Oz govt have Queen Liz when she toured back in 1954....that will do me. She also has a bee-yoo-tiful diamond and sapphire brooch from Canada that I covet mightily, but Charmion can have that being as how she is Canadian. I'm feeling magnanimous.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Senoufou
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 02:43 AM

When I lived in Scotland as a young woman, I haunted the folk clubs, and I seem to remember a song about Scotland having never had a Queen Elizabeth, so how could there be a second one?
Part of the chorus was (I think) "How can there be a second yin when the first yin's never been?" Anyone know this song?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 04:36 AM

Following changes to the law in the 1990s, quite rightly, no inheritance tax will be payable on the Queen's estate

King Charles III will inherit the estate and due to a special legal clause that was introduced to avoid the erosion of the royal family’s wealth, he will not be liable for inheritance tax (IHT) at 40% as the estate will be IHT exempt.

He automatically inherited the estate, the monarch’s primary source of income, while his eldest son, Prince William inherited the Duchy of Cornwall estate, valued at more than £1bn, from his father.

The new King will avoid inheritance tax on the estate, estimated to be worth more than £600m, due to a rule introduced in 1993 by Sir John Major’s government to guard against the royal family’s assets being wiped out if two monarchs died within a short period of time of each other.

At the time, the then PM told parliament: ‘The concerns that I would have were the arrangements to be any other would be the danger of the assets of the monarchy being salami-sliced away by capital taxation through generations, thus changing the nature of the institution in a way that few people in this country would welcome.’

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 05:29 AM

One law for them, one law for the rest of us.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 06:15 AM

Protecting the wealth of the wealthiest is what Conservatism is based on. Tory supporters who aren’t millionaires must really enjoy taking it up the arse.

Is anyone else getting rather ‘Queened-out’ with the 24-hour, non-stop coverage on the BBC’s TV channels? Thank goodness for Netflix, Apple TV, Prime Video, yadda yadda.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Rain Dog
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 06:20 AM

But it is not on all the BBC TV channels is it? It is not even on BBC1 24 hour non stop. Granted it might appear that way.

As you say, other TV Channels are available.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 06:37 AM

Because I was poorly last week, running to and from hospital all bloody week (an hour's drive - oh, the joys of country life...), Mrs Steve recorded a load of stuff off the telly that we'd normally have watched, so we have plenty of respite from the current nonsense. When we get back from the hospital this afternoon, hopefully for the last time, we have Wednesday wine and cheese and a couple of episodes of The Capture to catch up on. That'll do me!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Rain Dog
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 06:51 AM

You might want to double check your recording of The Capture. It might well have been tampered with.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 07:26 AM

:-)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 07:47 AM

The theological mythological notion of Divine Right is not just a vestigal concept in many countries. In America the leadership power of Christ is dominated by the right. Bestowing that power on leaders seems common.

I see signs that divine design is not in decline.
'God Bless godless democracies.'

Trying to have it both ways is a primitive fundamental hypocrisy.
But thats just my opinion.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 09:18 AM

Well I'm an atheist, thank God.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Rain Dog
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 10:25 AM

Ask and you shall receive.

From the BBC

BBC to stream Queen Elizabeth II lying in state

"The BBC is launching a dedicated stream of the Queen lying in state, for people who want to pay their respects virtually.

The service will be offered globally for those who want to pay their respects but cannot travel to London or are physically unable to queue.

It will be available on the BBC home page, the BBC News website and app, the iPlayer, BBC Parliament and Red Button.

The stream will be available from 17:00 BST on Wednesday."

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 10:29 AM

I believe the whole issue will be resolved in the wrestling match between Richard Dawkins and the Archbishop of Canterbury in a 30 round, no holds barred, including resurrection or reincarnation match to the death.

Regarding the Queen, no one has suggested this could be another internet death hoax

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 10:39 AM

Raindog, the streaming of paint drying is being offerred as an alternative to the Queen lying in state.
In the US I hope to eventually watch Trump lieing in state.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 11:05 AM

Yes - at his Golf Club in New Jersey would be a good place, before he's planted next to the 19th hole.

We get news flashes about what is coming next in the Queen's journey to the funeral. The news flash is sufficient to tell me almost everything I want. The photos of uniformed attendants staggering under the weight of her lead-lined coffin doesn't answer the question of do people even want to be near the casket - was she embalmed? No one seems to know. Ten days in September could be brutal for the mourners.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 04:04 PM

A spectacle of spellbinding pageant and emotion. Matchless professionalism tinged with great sadness.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: keberoxu
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 05:38 PM

I still want to know about that last photo opportunity,
the one with new Prime Minister Truss:
Her Majesty's poor hands excited comment.

Why WERE her hands bruised, if those were bruises?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 05:58 PM

Bruises? ............... Many, many people in older life bruise very easily, there is nothing sinsister about that at all.

Apart from in the minds of people who believe in conspiarcy theories.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 06:00 PM

It may have been caused by thrombocythemia - Mrs bonzo suffers from this and has similar bruising from time to time. The medication she takes for this condition can only be prescribed and dispensed at our local nhs hospital.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: gillymor
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 06:11 PM

I've spent some time visiting with nonagenarians and it's not uncommon for them to have large dark blotches on their hands.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 06:47 PM

I'm a mere septuagenarian and I've got abundant liver spots all over my hands. I wear them as a badge of honour. It's a natural ageing thing, dammit.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Neil D
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 09:54 PM

Steve, I'm sorry about the issues you're having with your health and send wishes for a full recovery. I also live in the country but it only takes me 45 minutes to get to the hospital.

I can think of no greater tribute to the late queen than to make her the last British monarch.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 02:43 AM

”I can think of no greater tribute to the late queen than to make her the last British monarch.”

Unfortunately, you’re too late, that ship sailed immediately after her death with the accession of Charles.

And, if she had been the ‘last British monarch’, what might have followed? President Truss?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 04:21 AM

The government has confirmed that payments of benefits, including tax credits, due to land in accounts on Monday 19 September will be made early.

Benefits and credits will be paid on Friday 16 September, the last working day before the bank holiday.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 05:37 AM

In order to bind a slave forever, you must first make him proud of his chains.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 07:12 AM

For the last couple of days Mrs Steve and I have amused ourselves by betting on the number of times we'll hear the ridiculous word "catafalque," uttered in hushed tones of course, in the next 5/10/15 minutes. One commentator said the coffin would rest on a catafalque, which was on a plinth, which was on a dais. I wondered whether the roof would have to come off in order to make room. Another said that "the coffin" was at rest in the Palace of Westminster. We wondered whether the Queen was still in it. This morning, a woman who had filed past the coffin after waiting for hours told the Radio 4 interviewer that her "moment alone with the Queen" had meant so much for her. She clearly hadn't looked round to see the other people in the three-mile queue...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Charmion
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 08:26 AM

That’s just sad.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Neil D
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 08:36 AM

Backwoodsman, have they had a coronation yet?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 08:50 AM

The crown atop the Queen's coffin (which is atop the catafalque which is atop the plinth which is atop the dais) contains almost 3000 diamonds, including a huge one cut from the biggest diamond ever found, as well as other large gemstones. A value can't be put on it, but you can bet yer life that it would fetch a good few quid down Roman Road market...

At the same time, the Tories are talking about lifting the cap on bankers' bonuses.

As I said, quoting the Lord, to them that have...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 09:37 AM

The only image I could find which clearly shows and identifies the jewels in the crown.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-62906194

Interestingly, it is 'only' 2.2 lbs, about half the weight of St. Edward's crown., which is solid gold.

Perhaps, if the monarchy is somehow ended, there could be one amazing auction... ;>)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 09:43 AM

I hear that several other crowns are available. The one atop the coffin is merely the Queen's Sunday-best one. The others are for when she's mucking out the corgis' litter trays.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 10:19 AM

My reaction was :-
"Bollocks! I wont be able to do this one....."

into your post:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6yAmrHFlio

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 11:02 AM

”Backwoodsman, gave they had a coronation yet?”

Of course not, but the fact of a coronation or not is immaterial to the matter. The accession automatically took place on 9/9/22 and was confirmed at the Accession Ceremony on 10/9/22 . The Accession Proclamation took place on that day.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/10/1122196680/charles-officially-announced-as-king-at-royal-ceremony

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 12:20 PM

I'll celebrate with a coronation chicken butty.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 12:25 PM

Brilliant, Al! I can see a touch of the ould Victoria Wood there - let's do it! And you're just as handsome as I imagined! :-)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Neil D
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 01:06 PM

Well if you all do away with the monarchy within the next couple months Chuckles will be the last monarch, technically. But QE2 will be the last one anyone will remember. And really isn't it the right time. Most everyone liked the old queen and no one had the heart to throw her out of her palaces. On the other hand, does anybody really like Charles. Come on Brits, show of hands if you like your new king.

On the side, I just watched the Pistols performing "God Save the Queen" on Youtube. Cracking song that one.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Acorn4
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 01:07 PM

Apparently the Beckhams are now worth more than the monarchy. Charles is a bit old and grumpy but I hope he does OK and preferable to a President chosen by Rupert
Murdoch?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 01:16 PM

We'd have been better off with King Rupert Bear.

He has screwed up and he will screw up (his dealings with with Diana and Camilla were despicable, and Mama colluded, and his hypocrisy regarding environmental issues knows no bounds), but the establishment will protect him. In contrast, had, say, Jeremy Corbyn been caught dropping a chewing gum wrapper on the pavement in 2018, the Mail and Express would have had him out on his ear within the hour. That's how it works here.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 01:29 PM

I love that story.
John Meechum has a story how the new Queen was speaking indirectly about the American Joe McCarthy days a year and a half before Joe's ousting and it was wonderful and sounded a bit like Winston Churchill.
She praised diversity, freedom of thought, expression and everything else McCarthy was against.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 01:32 PM

(that story of the 2 American hikers)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 06:47 PM

Samuel was displeased that they said "Give us a king to govern us." Samuel prayed to the Lord,

and the Lord replied to Samuel "Heed the demand of the people in everything they say to you. For it is not you that they have rejected; it is Me they have rejected as their king."

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 07:08 PM

Ok I did not see this asked but I might have missed it, my phone has taken to showing only the left half of thw page...

What is the era's adjective? Edwardian, Elizabethan... Charlian?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 07:18 PM

It's Carolean, if you really want to adhere to that nonsense. As I've spent virtually my whole life with her "reigning over me," I'm supposed to be an Elizabethan. Well I'm not. I'm Steve, free citizen of the United Kingdom with allegiances to anyone who I calculate deserves my allegiance. My missus and my cat come first and second. I'll work out the other rankings later, but be assured that King Chuckiebum won't get a sniff.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 08:17 PM

I was very moved to see the Queen lying in state with fork handles. To even at this stage reference the The Two Ronnies shows that we British do have a sense of humour.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 08:50 PM

Big Al, you're going to have to explain that one for the folks on this side of the pond. I've heard of the Two Ronnies, but fork handles? (Is this a mondegreen?)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 10:24 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNTM9iM1eVw

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 10:58 PM

Right. Carolean. I knew that...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 Sep 22 - 02:12 AM

Fork handles........Four candles..........or in English gone wrong - handaws / candaws!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Senoufou
Date: 16 Sep 22 - 02:25 AM

'Fork handles' hee hee!
I'm ashamed to say it, but I too am 'Queened out' by the ceaseless coverage on TV and in the newspapers. I want to watch my programmes in the evening, but it's all about the coming funeral, and footage of masses of people camping out to view the Lying In State, plus old films of her past life etc.
The Daily Mail has pages and pages of the stuff, and all I have left to read is the Letters page and my puzzles.
I am truly sorry for HM's family, who are mourning a much-loved mother, grandmother etc. But I've never met the lady.
I'm not all that impressed by Charles. But then, I've never met him either. They're all just figureheads really aren't they?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Sep 22 - 05:42 AM

unless you shop at Waitrose - you can buy eggs there that Charles laid personally for you, and put in a box with his coat of arms.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Sep 22 - 01:25 PM

I have to hand it to the Brits. They certainly know how to Q.
12 hour waits to pay respects to the Queen is not uncommon, even for David Beckham.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: keberoxu
Date: 16 Sep 22 - 03:12 PM

Just as long as nobody calls him Charlemagne . . .

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Sep 22 - 04:21 PM

Chuck is kissable
and sooner missable
He may be miserable
but he's not horrible.

Just call up Chuck
to build a garden
and he'll throw it up
for Aston Martins

Lets pray he is free
of Spanish influenza
I would hate to see
him on his credenza



The twelve days of Charles the Third...challenge

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 22 - 05:54 PM

A small voice of dissent in the face of the tide of brainless wallowing - the Labour MP Clive Lewis in the Guardian:

"... it has been watching the livestream of tens of thousands of fellow citizens from all walks of life, quietly queueing for up to nine hours to file past a coffin while bowing and curtsying. My initial response was one of bemusement followed by a touch of despair. Why, I asked, would so many people, often with so little, show such deference to an institution that is the very embodiment of the inequalities of wealth and power that permeate our country?" (He had a lot more to say than that, but that's the problem we republicans have - trying to understand this mass mournfest...)

The other problem is that the same tide is preventing anti-monarchist dissent from being aired. Nobody wants to hear insults levelled at the Queen at this time, but at the same time we can't hear the perfectly reasonable anti-monarchy arguments that are crucial if we want to call ourselves a democracy. "Do the decent thing and wait 'til she buried..." Well no thank you. An excessively long period of "national mourning" has been imposed, during which our football has been cancelled, the Proms cancelled, our normal television has been cancelled, shops have been closed causing the people who can least afford it to lose pay, urgent operations and hospital appointments have been cancelled...

Almost worst of all, don't criticise the royals whatever you do. As ever, the establishment is protecting them. Charles is a charlatan whose behaviour and hypocrisy have been egregious and he deserves criticism. But not now, eh? But why not? My 91-year-old mum died two years ago next month. We got on and did not put our lives on hold. But we're expected to do that for the cosseted royals, who don't really even have to organise the funeral themselves. Keep your trap shut, now's not the time, the royals are all in delicate mode...

Oh yeah? Why not then! Is this an insidious version of cancel culture?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Sep 22 - 08:41 PM

Steve:
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 15 Sep 22 - 07:18 PM

It's Carolean, if you really want to adhere to that nonsense. As I've spent virtually my whole life with her "reigning over me," I'm supposed to be an Elizabethan. Well I'm not. I'm Steve, free citizen of the United Kingdom with allegiances to anyone who I calculate deserves my allegiance.

Do you see no conflict in your claim to be a 'free citizen of the United Kingdom'?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Sep 22 - 08:50 PM

Well that's what it's called, Nigel, whether I like it or not, so I'm sort of stuck with it. Maybe one day it'll be a republic, but I'm guessing that it won't be in my lifetime.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Sep 22 - 01:33 AM

Damn those nits…

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 17 Sep 22 - 02:13 AM

"The football has been cancelled..". Is that really your priority? My TV watching has been mostly unaffected as I rarely watch BBC1 and have noticed few cancellations on other channels after the initial weekend.

I'm amazed at the queue. I've seen people arriving in London who are obviously heading to join in and who may now be queuing with no certainty of reaching Westminster Hall before the coffin is removed. It's a belief akin to religion.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 17 Sep 22 - 02:50 AM

Quite frankly, anyone who is prepared to stand through the night in temperatures down to 5c is bonkers, much as I admired the Queen.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 22 - 03:01 AM

Are you assuming that my reason for complaining about the cancellation of football matches is because football is my personal "priority," rather than that I make the argument against cancelling it on principle? I actually gave a list of lots of other things that have been cancelled, but you single out football, presumably because you know I'm a football fan and you're not ((I assume, possibly incorrectly). I also mentioned the cancellation of hospital appointments and operations. I note your silence as to whether they're "priorities..."

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Sep 22 - 03:57 AM

One of Terry Pratchett's quotes on monarchy

"Royalty was like dandelions. No matter how many heads you chopped off, the roots were still there underground, waiting to spring up again.

It seemed to be a chronic disease. It was as if even the most intelligent person had this little blank spot in their heads where someone had written: "Kings. What a good idea." Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its tendency to bend at the knees.”

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 17 Sep 22 - 04:45 AM

Steve, it was the order you put them in that bothered me.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 22 - 05:25 AM

I was doing a post to Mudcat, not a PhD thesis!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 22 - 05:30 AM

Funny that, Bonzo. I could have sworn that I saw someone matching your description curtsying to the catafalque (the thing on the plinth on the dais with the coffin atop)...

;-)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 22 - 06:39 AM

Well I picked up a nasty bug in hospital last week which has resolved into acute bronchitis, so a night in that queue would've seen me off! So thank God I'm a republican!*


*Please do not misread that, yanks...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Sep 22 - 09:24 AM

One year at Sidmouth there was a big queue to see Ralph McTell. As I remember I got such an uncomfortable seat that I left after the support act.

I agree we do tend to queue too readily. We don't resent it as much as we should.
I was in St Petersburgh a few years back and the Russian guide told me how everybody hated Gorbachev because he made them queue for bread, whereas they thought Putin was an okay bloke - local boy made good.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 22 - 09:43 AM

A bit like those Tory food banks then - one vox-popper was heard to say that they were a great thing, that we never had these under Labour!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 22 - 10:53 AM

As the Chancellor plans tax cuts, and the Tories ignore the plight of millions who can scarcely afford to live whilst threatening to give bankers their bonuses back, and as the beleaguered National Health Service sees disillusioned and overworked staff leaving in droves, and as we squander public millions on vastly-inflated ceremonial nonsense (whilst letting Charles off from paying hundreds of millions in inheritance tax), I remembered this poem that I first read during my horrid night in A&E in May 2020 during my first bout of cellulitis, at the height of the first frightening wave of the pandemic. I was treated with such love and care that I printed off the poem (on some nice paper!) and gave it to the hospital department that treated me. It's by Michael Rosen and it's called These Are The Hands:

These are the hands
That touch us first
Feel your head
Find the pulse
And make your bed.

These are the hands
That tap your back
Test the skin
Hold your arm
Wheel the bin
Change the bulb
Fix the drip
Pour the jug
Replace your hip.

These are the hands
That fill the bath
Mop the floor
Flick the switch
Soothe the sore
Burn the swabs
Give us a jab
Throw out sharps
Design the lab.

And these are the hands
That stop the leaks
Empty the pan
Wipe the pipes
Carry the can
Clamp the veins
Make the cast
Log the dose
And touch us last.


I've read a lot about how the Queen has "served" the country. Well when I read this poem, and remember the amazing way I was treated at the hospital a couple of years ago as well as last week, I think I understand a lot better what real service is.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Sep 22 - 01:27 PM

And as someone who, over the past sixteen-or-so years, has spent months in hospital with chronic Pancreatitis and complications, liver-abscesses, bile-duct constrictions, and two major abdominal surgeries, I say a heartfelt “Amen” to that, Steve.

Funnily, I wasn’t served, even on one of those occasions, by any member of the Royal Family, let alone by HM QE2.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Sep 22 - 01:34 PM

Good poem.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Sep 22 - 04:29 PM

yes very nice poem

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 22 - 05:01 PM

Michael Rosen. Sorry about the typo. He's an absolutely lovely, thoughtful, sensitive and gentle man.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 04:25 AM

Well done Glasgow Rangers and supporters.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 06:25 AM

Well I could have been saying that about Chelsea and Liverpool and their supporters, but, unfortunately, I won't be able to because the match has been postponed due to an upcoming huge, overblown and astronomically-expensive ceremony that been designed by the establishment to maintain the status quo regarding the monarchy.

In the meantime, I heard on BH on Radio 4 about nurses having to use food banks...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 06:55 AM

No, a very necessary traditional part of our Constitution, which, if you don't like it, bugger off. You are in a microscopic tiny minority!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 07:40 AM

"You are in a microscopic tiny minority!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Not true Bonzo and more to the point you know it to be untrue.

About 30% of the population are not monarchists and that percentage is growing.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 08:26 AM

Well if I'm in a tiny minority, the viewing figures tomorrow will be forty-odd million, the number of adults of voting age in this country (and, as loads of kids will also be watching, I'm bending over backwards here to allow you to prove that you're right!). Let's see, eh?

I'm sure that those nurses, and the millions facing near-destitution this coming winter who rely on the struggling food banks, won't mind if we splurge a few hundred million on the pomp and ceremonials, the policing, the reception for foreign dignitaries (not to speak of the cost of looking after them) and all the rest of this hoo-ha. After all, we do need to do it in order to prop up the ailing monarchy with the current charlatan at the helm...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 08:35 AM

From the Guardian website today.

The royal family stands to benefit from a huge windfall from the boom in offshore energy, potentially sparking a debate about funding the monarchy.

The Treasury has confirmed that an official review of the sovereign grant, which stands at £86.3m a year, is ongoing and is expected to come into effect from April next year. Officials say they want to ensure the funding is at “appropriate” levels.

Public finance for the royal household is paid as a fixed proportion of profits of the crown estate, the organisation that manages the crown’s public lands, including coastal and marine assets. These profits are now expected to rise significantly because of the drive by energy companies to harness wind power.

A Whitehall source said: “The review will take account of significant extra revenues that the crown estate expects to receive from the next phase of offshore wind developments – forecast to be several hundred million pounds each year while these projects are in development.”

The crown estate owns virtually all of the seabed around the UK to a distance of 12 nautical miles. The value of its marine portfolio is now worth £5bn, driven largely by demand for seabed leases for windfarms.

To them that have, it shall be given... (Matthew 13:12)

(Yes, yes, Bible scholars, I know...)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 08:38 AM

The guardian trash must be right!!!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 08:41 AM

Show me that it's wrong, then.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Rain Dog
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 10:44 AM

More to the point Bonzo, show us this Constitution that you speak of.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stanron
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 10:47 AM

Does not all the income from Royal Estates go directly to the Treasury before any Royal Grants are issued?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 11:22 AM

Apropos of Bonzo's "tiny minority," this was in a piece in the Observer ("Young republicans speak out"):

"According to polling last year by YouGov, up to a quarter of all adults want an elected head of state, up from a fifth in 2019. But among young people, the figure is higher, with 41% of 18 to 24-year-olds wanting an elected head of state and 31% saying they would like to see the monarchy continue. The trend is mirrored in analysis by the National Centre for Social Research, which shows support for the monarchy is declining among younger age groups."

Hardly a tiny minority then! The article is worth a read, by the way.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 11:26 AM

Stanron:
Quite right. The income was signed over to the public purse by HM Elizabeth II for her lifetime, and Charles III has already promised to do the same.
As Steve's quote from the Guardian states: Public finance for the royal household is paid as a fixed proportion of profits of the crown estate
So if the Royal household get more it is because the public purse is getting even more more.

The Guardian seems to be correct in its statement while leaving out important points which would make the above clear. (Just to answer Steve's Show me that it's wrong then. No, it's not wrong, just misleading)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 11:51 AM

So, Nigel, apart from the cost of all the last week's ceremonials, the funeral and the upcoming coronation, and the fact that Charles pays the taxes he wants to pay, and that he alone is exempt from inheritance tax (which would have been in the hundreds of millions) and we will still be giving the royals almost ninety million a year to keep them in the manner to which they're accustomed, a sum that King Chuckiebum doesn't want reduced, he's said...
In the meantime, millions of working people won't get paid tomorrow through no choice of their own, the kids will lose their schooling, operations and hospital appointments will be cancelled in their thousands and the nurses will still be going to their struggling food banks, though they may have to wait until Tuesday...

God save the King and God help the rest of us...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Senoufou
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 11:54 AM

Husband and I have decided we won't be watching the Queen's funeral tomorrow on TV. He's kindly offered to come over and mow my two lawns, clear the gutters of roof moss and help to cut back all the perennials that are 'over', weather permitting. Then, he says, he'll drive me out to the coast (probably Sheringham) and we'll enjoy a little stroll along the promenade. Everything is closed all day (and I understand this is respectful) but we'd like to have a little outing.
I imagine the long coverage of the ceremony will get a bit boring.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 12:04 PM

"I imagine the long coverage of the ceremony will get a bit boring."

Well I for one will never find out.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 12:09 PM

we will still be giving the royals almost ninety million a year to keep them in the manner to which they're accustomed
We will be giving them back only a part of what they are giving us by surrendering the income from the Crown Estates. This results in a net benefit to the public purse to allow money to pay for nurses etc.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 12:22 PM

They are not giving "us" anything, Nigel. The treasury decides what to do with it. Including increasing the percentage given to the Royals from 15 to 25 to pay for improvements to Buck House. Now, if there was a clause that stated that income from the Royal estates was to be used to fund, for instance, the NHS, then your statement about the public purse may be true. As it happens though, it is misleading because that income is used ...

"entirely to support The Queen’s work as Head of State.

This means that the money goes towards a number of resources which enable Her Majesty to carry out her official duties. These include: Royal travel for official engagements in the UK and overseas; the maintenance of Royal residencies which are used for formal entertaining and ceremonial events; funding for the work of The Duke of Edinburgh which supports and complements that of The Queen and salaries for employees of the Royal Household who support and administrate the work of Her Majesty as Head of State." (Source https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 01:12 PM

And, looking back at the history of the monarchy, Nigel, how do you suppose they came upon the Crown Estates? (No need to mention the slave trade, of course...)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 01:28 PM

The former boxer Carl Froch and the TV personality Ant Middleton both think that the whole nation should be forced to watch the funeral. Responding to a tweet from Nigel Farage declaring that Wednesday was "as solemn as anything you could ever see", Middleton said: "Every Brit in the UK (children included) should be obligated to watch the Queen's funeral as it will forever be a huge part of British history and further education!"


Bwahahaha!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 01:33 PM

”The former boxer Carl Froch and the TV personality Ant Middleton both think that the whole nation should be forced to watch the funeral. Responding to a tweet from Nigel Farage declaring that Wednesday was "as solemn as anything you could ever see", Middleton said: "Every Brit in the UK (children included) should be obligated to watch the Queen's funeral as it will forever be a huge part of British history and further education!"

Hmmmm…echoes of 1930s Germany?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 01:37 PM

Now, if there was a clause that stated that income from the Royal estates was to be used to fund, for instance, the NHS, then your statement about the public purse may be true. As it happens though, it is misleading because that income is used ...

"entirely to support The Queen’s work as Head of State.

Dave, you may wish to re-read it.
I read it that the 15% (or 25%) goes to cover those purposes (i.e. entirely to support The Queen's work), the remaining 75% or 85% goes to the Treasury (i.e. us) and becomes part of the general fund which does cover government spending, including the NHS.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 01:38 PM

Steve,
So what's happening on Wednesday?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 01:55 PM

Obligated?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 02:04 PM

I don't know, I just quoted it! And I'm no fan of "obligated" either! I suppose a couple of [sics] might have been in order...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 02:05 PM

Was that Ant as in Ant and Dec?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Acorn4
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 02:21 PM

I think everyone should be obligated to watch Love Island. Sorry. just trying to lighten the mood a bit.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Rain Dog
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 02:34 PM

Crown Estate

"The Crown Estate as a whole dates back from the time of the Norman Conquest.

In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the Estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return, the King would receive a fixed annual payment, which was called the Civil List. With effect from 1 April 2012, the Civil List was incorporated into a new system of funding referred to as the Sovereign Grant.

The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch. It cannot be sold by the Monarch, nor do any profits from it go to the Sovereign.

The Crown Estate is managed by an independent organisation, headed by a Board, and any profit from the Estate is paid every year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers. The Treasury is effectively the principle Government stakeholder and is kept informed of the estate’s overall business plans and strategies.

The Estates portfolio has a value of over £7.3 billion, from beef farms in the north of Scotland to Portland stone mining in Dorset. Windsor Great Park is the only Royal Park managed by the Crown Estate. All other parks are administered by the Royal Parks Agency."

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 02:41 PM

”I think everyone should be obligated to watch Love Island.”

For me, if it was a choice between Love Island and HM QE2’s funeral, the latter would win hands down.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 02:47 PM

Strip me naked, smother my privates in honey and bring on the dancing ants rather than force me to watch either!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 03:25 PM

Would one of those ants be from Ant and Dec?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 04:18 PM

Have you seen Prince Edward's uniform?
Its like something from Ruritania.

Fuck knows what the world must be thinking about us. 'Over the top' is way back in the rearview mirror. And I'm not just talking about 'the establishment'. One's fellow citizens.....

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 04:52 PM

Big Al, The Mouse that Roared comes to mind. It's decades since I last watched it, so if it doesn't fit, never mind. :)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 06:13 PM

Charlie has been upfront this last week-and-a-bit, what with getting out of his roller at Buckingham Palace to kiss the crowds, etc., and keeping the charmless Camilla close to hand. We'll see a lot more of his upfrontery tomorrow and whenever he gets crowned. But he has the massive problem of not being his mother. He's shot his mouth off far too often about conducting symphonies in front of his bedroom mirror, his wacky adherence to homeopathy, his hypocritical "environmentalism," his desire to be Camilla's tampon and his ignorant interventions on architecture. Not to speak of his despicable and dishonest treatment of the gullible Diana. The Queen had none of that baggage and the monarchy was safe in her hands. His lack of charm and charisma, allied to all that baggage, is a threat to the monarchy. Give it a few weeks and I'm predicting an awkward fallow period for the monarchy, and he's hardly the man to not put his foot in it...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 06:35 PM

Steve Shaw has been up front this last week and a bit spouting more bollocks than would be considered humanly possible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 06:41 PM

Steve.
You are, of course, welcome to your republican view.
What happens from now on will show either that you're right, or that you have completely misunderstood the monarch (King Charles)

If time proves you to be wrong, you are welcome to retract your views.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 06:48 PM

How long will you give me, Nigel? :-)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 06:56 PM

Incidentally, Nigel,

"You are, of course, welcome to your republican view."

Well some people have actually been arrested for expressing their republican views this past week! Good to know that you welcome such views being expressed, but such a welcome wasn't afforded to one or two people who held up anodyne little placards, or the protesters at the St Mirren/Celtic match...

You OK with that? Personally, I tend to keep my anti-royal views under wraps with my friends and family at a time like this, and I've decided that it's a sensible approach for me. But just you wait until next week...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 07:41 PM

Well some people have actually been arrested for expressing their republican views this past week! Good to know that you welcome such views being expressed, but such a welcome wasn't afforded to one or two people who held up anodyne little placards, or the protesters at the St Mirren/Celtic match...

No, I'm not alright with that.
Do you have details?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 08:01 PM

Nigel, it's late and I'm not very well just now. See you tomorrow!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 10:27 PM

I am setting an alarm for crack-o-dawn. This is huge.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 03:34 AM

Just Google anti monarchy arrests, Nigel.

Yes, I know you will say that they were not arrested for their views but for disturbing the peace etc. If you believe that, then I have a good investment deal for you. Just send me your bank details for a small deposit...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 06:02 AM

This is a global funeral, of a fine stateswoman who was respected by the whole world!!!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 06:11 AM

I got up at 5am for this. Lovely.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 06:16 AM

She won't be under the sod for hours yet. I think I'll go and sit in the beautiful autumn sunshine, which is what we denizens of Cornwall have got. Give me a shout when they're all in the village hall for tea and butties.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 06:24 AM

Are the co-op doing the funeral and boiled ham sandwiches?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 06:43 AM

The tea and butties at the end is the best bit of a funeral. You can take off your jacket, rip off your tie and undo your top button. What a relief. The last one I went to had a coffee bubbler in the corner. I drew off a cup and it tasted like rat poison. Good butties though. Egg mayo are my favourite. You have to wonder how long they've been sitting there, then decide to take the risk. The catering sausage rolls and mini-pasties should be avoided at all costs. Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 06:59 AM

A prequisite of attending the funeral must be an extremely strong bladder!!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 07:07 AM

Or Tena pants

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 07:13 AM

Or Billy Connolly's incontinence pants...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 07:18 AM

I hate funerals at which they do NOT sing "How Great Thou Art." I overcome all my rabid atheism and sing that one out - and only that one - very lustily every time!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 07:26 AM

That gun carriage hasn't been out since 1979. I hope they remembered to WD40 its hubs...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 07:58 AM

I may try a gin and Dubonnet later. If I can find a shop open...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 08:01 AM

I'll have what Princess Margaret used to drink. Only a lot less of it.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 08:11 AM

”If I can find a shop open...“

Our nearby Spar is open…

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 08:21 AM

Aye, ours too John but I suspect they do Dubonnet

Maggie's tipple is said to have been Famous Grouse with a splash of Highland Spring. Sounds a good substitute

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 08:23 AM

...don't do Dubonnet...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 08:32 AM

Many moons ago, when my dad was the manager of a Burtons shop in Pendleton, he told the tale of one of his rather feckless shop assistants who was planning a holiday in France.

Can you speak any French? asked my dad.

Well a little bit...

What French do you know then?

Er, "do 'ave a Dubonnet..."

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 11:09 AM

You can't avoid this ritual drama on the news briefs that come through Instagram - I find it interesting how they managed to walk all that way with the pillow and crown, sphere, and sword on perched on top of the casket without jostling them off. Maybe the guys on either side were warned to catch them if they fell off, or maybe there are really strong magnets holding everything in place?

I also noticed that while Kate was wearing that four-strand pearl choker with the diamond clip that Meghan wasn't wearing any jewelry, save pearl earrings. I bet she could have talked to one of the Beverly Hills jewelry brokers and gotten them to cough up some Harry Winston to sparkle during the funeral - they'd have gotten tons of press from that. Maybe that's a "note to herself" for the next time one of these happens.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 11:42 AM

Some of you will know Will Jackson (ex- Magna Carta). He used to be a choirboy at Windsor Chapel when he was a kid.
He said the Royals were miserable gits. The choir used to have to work for hours on really complicated bits of music (like you have heard today, if you haven't taken avoiding action!) and none of the royal family ever said a word of appreciation.

The only time they heard from the Royals was if their majesties complained if the choirboys were spotted having a game of footy, from some lofty viewpoint in the castle.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 11:57 AM

The pearls worn by Kate were significant in that they were the late Queen's. Kate has worn them before as did Diana. Pearls have been a symbol of mourning in the Royal Family since Queen Vic's time

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 12:02 PM

I read about the other occasions when Kate wore this. It's probably quite a process to get this jewelry out of the vault. I suppose at this time they have a set of color photo cards or a program so they can look through what's there and choose what is brought to try on. Mostly I've read that a lot of these pieces are very heavy.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Senoufou
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 12:07 PM

Husband came over this morning. We watched the early parts of The Funeral on TV, then he went outside to cut both lawns with the small electric mower. It's the only day he could have done this, as he's working all hours from tomorrow onwards, and I'm physically unable to do it myself..
The mower only makes a quiet buzzing noise, and it takes about fifteen minutes, but a new woman who's moved in across the road came out all guns blazing and bellowed, "Haven't you any respect?"
I reckon one can mow a bloomin' lawn today without being accused by a 'Karen' of being 'disrespectful of the Queen's funeral down in London.
I merely shrugged and grunted, and she went back indoors slamming her door ferociously.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 12:14 PM

Suggested answer - madam, you are very ugly but my grass will be cut in 10 minutes!!!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Rain Dog
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 12:19 PM

As they sang today at the Chapel service;
For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Or as I remember it from the Ash Wednesday service:
Remember, man, that thou art dust, and unto dust thou shalt return.

Ash Wednesday was always one of my favourite services, cheerful soul that I am.

Well done to all those who played a part today, including those who lined the routes.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Senoufou
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 12:29 PM

Hee hee Bonzo! She's from an RAF family, and has mounted a huge flagpole in her front garden, and hoisted a massive RAF flag at half-mast. She's entitled to do so of course, but not to dictate to others about mowing a lawn for a short time.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 12:38 PM

Ask if she has planning permission.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Tunesmith
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 12:55 PM

God only knows how much the Queen - and now Charlie Boy - are really worth. For example, the Queen's PRIVATE art collection is valued at 10 billion pounds!
   The Royal family are parasites. They have become richer and richer because the majority of their very stupid loyal subjects thinks that the sun shines out of their royal asses.
    One UK cliche that drives me mad is the oft repeated phrase "I wouldn't do their - the royals- job for all the tea in China". Really?            
    Well, the top prize in Europe's biggest lottery is around £200,000, and I've worked out - I think - that if a person were to win that jackpot every week for 1000 years, that would about equal the value of the Queen's paintings. Immoral? Obscene? But,there is one consolation. The Queen won't be going to heaven because Jesus - no less - made it quite clear that rich people will not enter the Kingdom of God. Now, as the Queen is head of the Church of England, I would like to think that she is familiar with the Bible, and so that suggests that A) The Queen thinks that Jesus was misquoted or that B) the "rich" rule doesn't apply to her or C) She thinks the Bible is a load of nonsense. Anyway, whatever she thought it is an interesting insight into the world of the very secretive - and very immoral -Royal family

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Senoufou
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 01:06 PM

Exactly Manitas. Her brother (also ex-RAF) came over several weeks ago and hoisted the Union Jack upside down on her flagpole! With an England flag (red and white) underneath it. I had to point out to him it was the wrong way up, and he asked me if the other flag was Poland's !!! I had to explain that no, it was the cross of St George, and our English flag.
I don't think this lady will fit in well in our village. She has a yappy little chihuahua called Barney, and hardly ever walks him.
But we are NOT 'disrespectful'. Many years ago I took my husband down to London to visit Buckingham Palace which was open to the public. And we've visited Sandringham too. He's most interested in British history, and knows the names and life-stories of many of our monarchs.
Her shouty complaint rather upset me.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 02:25 PM

I especially liked how some of the roses stayed on the hearse.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 02:59 PM

A gardener friend of mine has identified some of the plants in that wreath. He tells me that Charles requested they come from her gardens. He says there are David Austin roses along with rosemary and there is also myrtle in the center the wreath that came from the queen's original wedding bouquet. I don't know if it's dried or they managed to grow myrtle from the cutting in the bouquet.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Tunesmith
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 03:17 PM

I think I'm going to throw up!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 03:55 PM

I can quite believe that Tunesmith, you really talk absolute drivel.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Tunesmith
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 04:00 PM

Bonzo3legs: Now, and no fudging. PLEASE! Tell me about this drivel?
Was the Queen fabulously rich? Does that, according to Jesus, disqualify her from getting to heaven? Did she have the world's most valuable private art collection? Any, drivel there?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Acorn4
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 04:30 PM

I'm glad the wittering commentators shut up during the actual service.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 05:17 PM

As I have said before, I am not particularly pro or anti royal but I found the whole event quite amazing. The cost must have been ridiculous but it was certainly spectacular. I think us Brits (sez half Polish me) can put on a good show!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 05:26 PM

I think this answers your questions, Stilly

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/queens-funeral-kings-goodbye-message-prince-andrews-tears-and-the-young-royals-key-moments-so-far-12701277

Too late for my old brain to do a link!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 05:28 PM

I watched the whole thing on BBC Amwrica, and the commentators did almost no commenting till the drive to Windsor Castle. Bravo.

I looked away for a minute towards the end and *Boom!* suddenly there is Jean-Luc Picard in his plummy public school accent.

No after-analysis. Bravo, again.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: robomatic
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 06:03 PM

Yeah, great mass choreography. It's easy to critique the royals, but I prefer their shows to those on offer in the past such as Red Square, Nuremberg, and that stadium in North Korea where they do those mass flash card shows. Those have been abominations in all caps.

Remember when Trmp wanted to do pig barade in Washington and was discouraged out of it?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 06:41 PM

Ye gods yes, we can put on a show. But don't let a good show delude you into thinking that it reflects any kind of bog-standard reality. That's what will confront us in the weeks to come, and this has been a huge diversion from the difficulties that lie ahead.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stanron
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 08:37 PM

The denier seems to fly a lonely flag. I didn't watch any of it but I did enjoy, am still enjoying, a day of no TV adverts.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: robomatic
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 09:31 PM

I have also enjoyed the varied music on BBC 3 which has complemented events without becoming an echo chamber, at least when I've been tuned to it.

I also think when Yankees express condolences it is also an obvious attempt to express affection and siblinghood to an incredibly diverse collection of angels and ne'er-do-wells through anything perceived as a symbol of commonality. And she had a fine profile!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 01:49 AM

The usual lonely sad disenting pathetic voice from Mr Shaw!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 02:32 AM

I think it is just a pity we cannot do the pomp and ceremony without all the Royal nonsense that goes with it!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 03:09 AM

I shall get blasted for this, but I'm absolutely sick and tired of being bombarded with endless stuff about HM's death, funeral, life etc etc.
After my husband shuffled off back to his flat yesterday, I put on my TV, hoping to watch some interesting programmes. Even the commercial breaks had been usurped by a black screen and a tiny white line of text! My newspaper is about an inch thick and will hardly get through my letterbox. I have to wade through page upon page of You-Know-What before any other news is found, not to mention my four pages of puzzles and letters.
Please, enough already!
I suppose the same over-reporting will occur around King Charles' coronation. I think I'm turning into an anti-monarchist!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: BobL
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 03:12 AM

For the record, Jesus said it was difficult for the rich to get to heaven, not impossible. Joseph of Arimathea, for example, is regarded by the Church as a saint.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 03:23 AM

You may only get blasted by the knee bending sycophant, Sen. The majority on here are either ambivalent like me, staunch republicans or people, like you, who are sick and tired of the whole thing. One good thing may come out of it - you may stop reading the Daily Heil :-)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Tunesmith
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 04:32 AM

BobL "For the record, Jesus said it was difficult for the rich to get to heaven, not impossible".

For the record, Jesus did say it was impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God because it is impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Get it!

BTW, I would think that the "rich man" passage was, t some point, inserted into the Bible by a rich man to deter the common folk from wanting to be rich.

But, back to the Queen. If she was a true Christian, and believed in the word of God (The Bible), why would she remain rich and ruin her chance of entering paradise? It doesn't make sense. Unless...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 04:38 AM

During reading about the support the monarchy in the past week or so, I found that about 30% of the population are not monarchists.

I confidently predict that this will rise to 40% in the next five years.

Charles didn't exactly get off to a good start when we sacked 100 of his staff last week.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 04:40 AM

Hee hee Dave! But I think all the newspapers were full of the stuff.
The lady who brings my newspaper just arrived and she too said she was 'disgusted' with my husband and me for having the 'lack of respect' in mowing our lawns yesterday. I'm afraid I snapped, as I've had quite enough of this tripe. I told her that no-one has the right to ban me from gardening because of a funeral all the way down south in London for a woman I've never even met,let alone knew. She stormed off and I slammed my door.
And of course, the Daily Mail is inches thick again, with photos, commentary etc etc.
Are there any spaceships leaving for Mars? I'd like to book a seat.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Acorn4
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 05:02 AM

A friend of ours who we go out on a walk with on Friday mornings takes the "Daily Mail".

She has a really balanced view on life and is very tolerant of other people's opinions.

I raised this point with her and queried why this is. Her answer:-

"I only read the sports pages"

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 05:47 AM

I read that the staff haven't been sacked or made redundant but have been warned that there may be redundancies.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 06:05 AM

You are quiet correct Manitas, however I have never know of a situation where staff have been notified of redundancies for those redundancies not to occur.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 06:37 AM

Manitas - "I read that the staff haven't been sacked or made redundant but have been warned that there may be redundancies."

Raggy - "You are quite correct Manitas, however I have never known of a situation where staff have been notified of redundancies for those redundancies not to occur."

Yes, the first step in the Redundancies Consultation Process, after determining that Redundancies may be necessary, is to inform your employees of that fact - that Redundancies may be necessary, and that some, or all, of their jobs may be at risk - and, if numbers of employees are over a minimum limit, a time-scale is set upon the Consultation Process.

As usual, the media and the Haters seem to have jumped on those notifications and sensationalised them to suit their own ends. It's a bit sad really.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Tunesmith
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 07:37 AM

I good way to get inside the heads of the royals is their attitude towards the funding of the Queen's funeral. Now, millions of Brits will be facing massive hardships this winter with ridiculously high fuel and fool bills but in spite of that they are expected to pay for the Queen's funeral. Now, if Charlie Boy sold just one painting - say a Vermeer - it would pay for the cost of the funeral with lots of money to spare. But, he wouldn't dream of doing that! All the Royals' concern for the wellbeing of their adoring citizens is just a sham.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 07:59 AM

Tunesmith, apart from one person of dubious intellect, nobody here seems to be defending the Royals, the financial implications of their funeral, their attitude to the wellbeing of the ordinary citizen, or the attitude of the worst Tory government in living memory in serving the best financial interests of large businesses whilst ensuring that the ordinary people pick up the tab for their recklessness and indolence.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 08:46 AM

As for the cost of the funeral, remember - "A word of advice. Don't take up that sentimental attitude over the poor. The poor are poor, and one's sorry for them, but there it is. As civilisation moves forward, the shoe is bound to pinch in places, and it's absurd to pretend that any one is responsible personally."

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 08:52 AM

I paid for my mum's funeral.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 11:38 AM

My mum and dad paid for their own funerals. If an ex-engineering-shop-floor worker and an ex-shop-assistant can do it, so can a family of billionaires. Especially when, unlike the other 64 million of us, they don’t have to pay any tax on their immense inheritance.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 12:06 PM

Acorn4, I too don't read all of the content of my Daily Mail. I chiefly get it for the four pages of puzzles, to keep my brain active. I like the Letters page, and once a week it has a few Health items by a doctor which are interesting. And the TV schedules.
I do NOT have any interest in its political standpoints, articles about 'celebs' etc. I keep the 'Verdict' edition (about the week's football) for my husband to read later.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 12:19 PM

Where is your quote from Bonzo, a bit of centext might help.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: gillymor
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 12:23 PM

Sounds like something a Dickensian villain might have said.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 12:41 PM

Forster's 'Howard's End'.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 02:07 PM

It made for a refreshing break from what passes as real public life. I love parades of toy soldiers and well organised ceremonial, and nostalgic trips through the archives. The grovelling guff was irritating. Silence is much the best accompaniment to public events, such as these kinds of things and sporting events.

Looking round the world I can't seem to see any reason to think that countries without monarchies are any happier or have more egalitarian societies than countries with them. Or vice versa.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 04:03 PM

Happier???

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 06:55 PM

I'd see happiness of people as the most important measure of any society. Of course that invites disagreement about what happiness consists in, and how it can be measured. Not to be carried out in this thread, I trust.

My attitude is that the justification for any change always has to be that it makes things better, or stops them getting worse. I am inclined to believe that neither getting rid of monarchy in a country or introducing it would be likely to qualify.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Sep 22 - 08:07 AM

Don't confure happiness with well-being, Kevin. I would say a better measure would be how well looked after the people are is more important. But no matter how well they are, some will never be happy!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Sep 22 - 08:36 AM

Some will never be happy! ??? What do you #%$@=\! mean by that! :^?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 22 - 09:13 AM

He's probably talking about people who can't help contemplating death, or who are utterly obsessed with Trump.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Sep 22 - 10:56 AM

Alas, we must be obsessed with the orange one until he can be escorted (in shackles or handcuffs) off of the world stage. I'm quite sure that now-King Charles was indeed flipping Trump the bird in that little video seen 'round the world.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 22 - 01:06 PM

The one-finger salute isn't really customary in Britain., and Charles is very much a traditionalist.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Sep 22 - 11:12 AM

We like to think he's conversant enough with American usages to offer a hint of contempt for the orange one. Who is apparently still convinced he should have attended the funeral and would have had better seats than Biden had he gone.

Have things returned to "normal" now? I supposed getting it all out of your system over an 11-day span might leave everyone ready to move forward from here.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Rain Dog
Date: 22 Sep 22 - 11:42 AM

I would say that the two finger salute is dying out here in the UK, along with the older generation who use it. Younger people are more likely to use the one finger version. By younger people I mean those under 50.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 22 - 11:42 AM

There's nothing normal here. We have a prime minister, a chancellor and a health secretary who are about to destroy the country. After that, they'll win the next election.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: keberoxu
Date: 22 Sep 22 - 01:36 PM

I don't suppose England will ever have a King Louis.
George's little brother (the 'spare')
would make a good court jester.

That photograph of Her Majesty watching the flyover on the balcony,
with Louis dressed in matching colors beside her
and holding his hands over his ears,
is some kind of classic comic photograph.
You can see practically every tooth in Louis' mouth.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 22 - 05:17 PM

Louis is third in line after George. After Charlotte. They changed the rules so now it goes by order of birth, irrespective of gender.
………
If Rain Dog is right about fingered insults it's a pity. Though I'd doubt that what youngsters under fifty choose to do is very relevant to how Charles comports himself.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Sep 22 - 02:49 AM

England will never have a king Louis because there is no such title, and no such person, as ‘King of England’. Why do Americans have such difficulty in understanding this very simple fact?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stanron
Date: 23 Sep 22 - 04:45 AM

Have we not already had a King Louis? During the last revolt against King John, brother of Richard The Lionheart, Louis was brought over from France and figure headed the revolt. King John died and his son Henry was crowned King and Louis shuffled back to France. He never had a Coronation and was never included in the official King's list but he was called King until John died.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 23 Sep 22 - 08:10 AM

King Louis was in the film ' The Jungle Book '

Dave H

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 22 - 11:34 AM

King Charles has several titles, one being King of Scots, another is King of England. England in this case includes Wales.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Sep 22 - 03:36 PM

According to the BBC, his full title given in the Proclamation is…

“Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories, King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith’.”

No mention of ‘King of England’ (or Scotland or Wales, for that matter).

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Sep 22 - 03:52 PM

From 1603 to 1707, the monarch held the titles of King/Queen of Scotland and King/Queen of England.

After the Act of Union in 1707, the title was Queen/King of the Great Britain.

In 1801 it became the King/Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

After partition, it became the King/Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is the title that King Charles III holds, along with that of 14 other Commonwealth realms.

DC

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Sep 22 - 03:59 PM

Wales is not part of England. It is a part of Great Britain

DC

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 26 Sep 22 - 04:16 AM

> Wales is not part of England. It is a part of Great Britain

Agreed, but the title "King of England" may well have covered both since Edward III pulled the Prince-of-Wales trick: "I present to you a prince who can speak no words of English."

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 Sep 22 - 08:49 AM

Calls for the Queen to be honoured with a statue on Trafalgar Square's Fourth Plinth have been met with widespread support in the House of Commons - an excellent idea!!!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Sep 22 - 12:13 PM

The anti-monarchists among us can then call it the plinth of wails...

Better make it so high, like Nelson's column, that we can't see the pigeon shit on the head of her maj...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Sep 22 - 06:52 AM

the plinth of wails sounds original and drole.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Sep 22 - 11:52 PM

The ledger stone is in place, carved, then inlaid with bronze letters. Built originally by Elizabeth for her father, now her mother and husband are there with her.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 22 - 06:02 AM

I probably won't make a special trip.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Sep 22 - 06:40 AM

I probably will. Not because I’m a Royalist-Flag-Shagger - I’m neither of those things - but because I haven’t visited Windsor Castle since I was taken by my parents when I was four or five and, seventy-or-so years on, I’d like to see it again through adult eyes. Plus, Mrs Backwoodsperson has never been there, and she would like to visit. While we’re there, if it’s possible to view the royal tomb, I’d like to see it if for no other reason than that the queen was a significant figure in our history.

But, if it happens, I doubt I’ll shed any tears.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Tunesmith
Date: 29 Sep 22 - 07:51 AM

Significant figure? In what way? Attended a pile of official dinners. Made a pile of speeches ( written for her).Visited her overseas dominions, travelling in 20 star luxury. What has she contributed to history? Let's face it, the royals are a bunch of obscenely rich hypocrites.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Sep 22 - 08:13 AM

Your real name isn’t by any chance Rip van Winkle, is it?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 22 - 08:33 AM

Well it depends on who writes the history books. When I was at school, history lessons seemed mainly to consist of kings, queens and what they and their hangers-on wore at court and how their knights held jousting competitions. I suppose they were more significant in those times in that they were actually in charge and could chop people's heads off or get their own chopped off. We didn't spend much time learning about the vicissitudes of the nasty, short and brutish lives of ordinary people (except when they got the plague).

The Queen was a peripheral figure on the world stage when you consider the significant events that occurred during her reign. There was Suez, Vietnam, the wars in Palestine, the various dictators who were slaughtering people the world over, including some in her own dominion, the Cold War, the fall of the Soviet Union, the Cuban missile crisis, Winter of Discontent, the miners' strike, the depredations of Thatcher, the invasion of Iraq, the 2008 financial crash, brexit, Putin (stop me, somebody)... she was not involved nor was she an influence (unless you want to stretch a number of points). On top of that she has presided over an incredibly dysfunctional family. She paid only the taxes she chose to pay, her heir inherited her Croesus-like wealth without paying a penny in inheritance tax and her land holdings were, in large part, environmentally destructive. So I'll be remembering her for the wrong reasons. Maybe I shouldn't have dropped history when I was 13...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Sep 22 - 09:22 AM

"Let's face it, the royals are a bunch of obscenely rich hypocrites."

And the lefties are a bunch of obscenely stupid wankers!!!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Sep 22 - 09:27 AM

Considering you regard her as insignificant, you seem to find a great deal to say about her in your frequent, lengthy, preachy rants.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Tunesmith
Date: 29 Sep 22 - 09:45 AM

She can't be avoided! Again, what were her achievements? How did her existence improve mankind? Mass hysteria is probably the best way to describe the pathetic way she is admired. It doesn't make any sense.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Sep 22 - 10:09 AM

Hear Hear, bring up hysteria in its original meaning (a free floating womb causing anxiety) is sexist and uncalled for.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 22 - 10:22 AM

He didn't, and you know it. And, John, free speech, dear boy, free speech. You made an assertion about her that sorely needed to be challenged.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Sep 22 - 10:56 AM

@Tunesmith - I was talking to Steve, not you. Apologies for not making that clear, but I thought it was obvious.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Sep 22 - 11:03 AM

And here I thought my last post would be the capstone to this conversation.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 22 - 11:22 AM

Well there is a strong and healthy anti-monarchy contingent in the UK, Maggie. We can all be respectful of a deceased person, but that doesn't mean we have to shut up forever. Many of us regard Charles as a deeply flawed and somewhat unintelligent person, and not the right man for the job (if there can be such a thing...). In our deepest recesses we'd love him to screw up so that we can ditch this outmoded and entitled institution, but we know that even if that screw-up happens the establishment will look after him just as it looked after the Queen. I'm sure that the tombstone will get lots of visitors. I won't be in the queue.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Sep 22 - 12:51 PM

Depending on what the pound is doing at the time, there is an expense to that visit. Normally I would multiply the dollar by about 1.5, but I guess they're closer to par now? Still, a lot to pay to walk past a grave. There are a number of Founding Fathers buried in the church yard of Trinity Church in Lower Manhattan and we're accustomed to walking through for free any time of day or night.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Sep 22 - 03:47 PM

If people like Shaw do not like the Monarchy, I suggest that they bugger off to a republic somewhere!!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 22 - 04:06 PM

Well, it will cost a grown-up £26.50 to get into Windsor Castle, more if you go at the weekend. We're very good at ripping people off here so be warned. It will cost you at least £32.50 to go to the Eden Project. To go to the Roman baths in Bath will cost you £24.50 and you can do it in 45 minutes. Stonehenge will cost you £21-ish plus extra to park your car. There's a legal way to see it fairly upclose for free but do your research. Whatever you do you won't be getting in among those stones (as I did in my teens). Not unless you join the hippy hordes on the summer solstice.

In contrast, you can visit both Pompei and Herculaneum for €28 total. If you go there you will come away thinking you've had one of the best experiences of your life. You will not be thinking that about Windsor Castle, the Eden Project or the Roman baths. Not even Stonehenge, now that you can't touch those wonderful stones. You pays yer money...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Sep 22 - 07:43 PM

I am vaguely reminded of when Reagan died and all of a sudden he was beloved.

But this queen reigned through a *lot* of changes to her realm. Noteworthy, that.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 22 - 08:01 PM

She reigned through them by virtue of the fact that she didn't actually die in them. Otherwise, she scarcely influenced events. I could also add that, being a 1951 baby, I have also lived through all those changes in her realm, yet no-one thinks I'm noteworthy!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: keberoxu
Date: 15 Oct 22 - 11:22 AM

Cannot link to it here, sorry, but I have seen
a photograph of Charles III which bears a remarkable resemblance
to Stephen Spielberg's E. T. the Extra-Terrestrial.
Eyes, wrinkles, and all.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 22 - 06:03 PM

Joke:

What is ET short for?

Because he only has little legs.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 17 Oct 22 - 09:43 AM

> I am vaguely reminded of when Reagan died and all of a sudden he
> was beloved.

That's a standard reaction in newspapers: the first week or two it's hagiographies, then come the hatchet jobs. Sales both ways.

Cynical? Moi?