Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Sep 22 - 09:18 AM

Well I'm an atheist, thank God.

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 - 07:26 AM

:-)

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 - 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 - 06:20 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Bonzo3legs
Date: 13 Sep 22 - 07:37 AM

I'm reading such envious crap here.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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.