Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles

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?

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: Donuel
Date: 27 Sep 22 - 06:52 AM

the plinth of wails sounds original and drole.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: Geoff Wallis
Date: 20 Sep 22 - 12:41 PM

Forster's 'Howard's End'.

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: 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: 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.