Rest in peace, Queen Elizabeth II – Britain's first high-tech monarch Queen Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor has died, ending the reign of Britain's longest-serving monarch. She was 96. During her 70 years on the British throne, Queen Elizabeth II oversaw reshaping the monarchy from an austere, closed-off establishment into a more public-facing institution, both in person and via the use of …
A radio interview said no they don't have new designs ready, but that was talking about postage stamps. It's the same thing, I expect. However, designs are approved by the monarch personally, and no one wanted her late majesty to look over a set for Charles. On the contrary, there are some fancy collectible stamps that she approved and is on and apparently the King has already indicated that these should go ahead on schedule and as is. Philately goes both ways, perhaps.
Yes, I also heard that on the news today too. I was a little surprised that plans were not already in place, just awaiting the final approval. The PO also said they have been told not to pulp or otherwise "waste" the existing stick of stamps, even when new ones with the King[*] on them are ready.
It still feels weird saying "King". I've had 59 years, my entire life, with the "Queen" on money and stamps. (Apart from the many King George and Queen Victoria coins still around when I was younger, pre-decimalisation, some so wor you could barely make out the letting on them)
In some countries it is felt perfectly acceptable to obliterate the portrait of the prior incumbent. Farouk of Egypt is the best-known example.
A virtual beer if you can come up with an example where King George VI had this treatment.
In some countries it is totally unacceptable to plan for the death of the head of state. I bought a book about localisation, and one company shipping to Japan made the public holiday for “birthday of the emperor” editable for a case like this one. Not acceptable. The only acceptable solution is to release a software upgrade when needed.
It still feels weird saying "King". I've had 59 years, my entire life, with the "Queen" on money and stamps. (Apart from the many King George and Queen Victoria coins still around when I was younger, pre-decimalisation, some so wor you could barely make out the letting on them)
I was born shortly after the Queen's accession. Think how weird it feels after 70 years!
When I started in Computing, undergraduate computer science wasn't a thing; programming was often taught in engineering or maths courses. I learnt "on the job" several years after graduating! Kudos to Her Majesty for at least engaging with IT, when so many people of my generation refuse to.
When I were a lad, we used to go on holiday to a caravan site every year by the seaside.
The campsite had a concert hall, and entertainments. Plus a chippy (food vending outlet) and general store.
The entertainments included an amusement arcade with slot machines (etc.) and a bingo hall. As kids, we spent our evenings in these (parents in the concert hall), and in the at least half a dozen years after decimalisation while I was still going on holiday there the slot machines only took Sterling currency.
The jackpot for three bells was one shilling, and the cost of a spin was 1d.
There was a kiosk with an old man inside where you exchanged 'new' money for old (and vice versa) - 5p got you 12d as I recall. It was a classic wooden standalone cubicle with a wire grille and a small serving counter.
The supplied coinage had images of every monarch since (and including) Victoria - I have saved several 1d coins from 1896 with Victoria's head on them which I received in my exchanges, and these were in normal circulation prior to decimalisation, 70-80 years after Victoria's death. That was why they were available in the arcade in the first place.
I don't think we'd be daft enough to try and recall all Elizabethan currency all in one go. It'll just get filtered out over time.
I guess the only thing here is Elizabeth was the first monarch to appear on paper currency, which raises a separate issue. But I still can't see it being forcibly withdrawn, since it would cost so much to do it.
A "process"? Are not the stamps still worth what you paid for them? Seems a lot of work and expense to invalidate them simply because they have the "old" picture on them.
Here in the Land of the Free, we have "forever" stamps. Buy them and they are still valid when the rates go up (every year). Seems like a tough way to make a buck, though.
IIRC UK stamps previously were valid forever - although I never worked out what value would be assigned to an "E" (Europe) that had a function instead of a denomination. Using the "1st" and "2nd" functional stamps as part of a mixture on a parcel were presumably valued at whatever the current rate was for that function.
The Royal Mail is now a private company. It actually tried to change its branding to "Consignia" a few years ago - then public opinion forced it to change back.
The new stamps have a QR code on them - presumably to replace whatever was invisibly encoded on the existing stamps for automatic processing..
More or less the box that ran (or tried to run) the Nimrod AEW that was such a fiasco, also probably mostly written in Coral66.
Known (IIRC) for a semi-hardwired scheduler, like the Alto.
But in the words of Edward Morrow. "Good night, and good luck."
Oddly the problem was the two mechanically coupled radar scanners.
One at the tail and on in the nose.
This seems pretty sensible at first glance.
Even more sensible that the scanners were linked by a drive shaft so they were perfectly in sync. Calibrate on the ground and you get no out of sync ghosts etc.
The system worked really well on the ground.
When airborne the system was dreadful. Multiplicity of ghost images which overloaded the processing.
Why was this?
Well the mechanical scanners weighted 100’s of kg and when subjected to any mild G forces the connecting, very long, coupling shaft was subjected to a lot of torque so twisted and the scanners went out of sync.
Out of sync there were loads of ghost images -> system overload….
Ahh.
The light dawns.
With a scanner at each end of the plane that's going to be a looong shaft. To keep it really rigid you'll need a) Lots of supports b) Really thick (heavy) shaft.
The other obvious answer would be limit switches. Scanner hits the switch, generates an interrupt, computer cuts off Rx (or Tx) to that scanner, starts next scanner moving in correct mode.
Sometimes KISS is overrated. :-(
Also I heard that they tried all the HW in a Hercules, but had to throw some boxes away when it was fitted in the Nimrod airframe. Although those huge round radar displays looked pretty cool. I could imagine one under glass coffee table making a really nice video game or analogue TV :-)
There's a similar shaft linking the engines on the V-22 Osprey. It and the associated gearboxes make up a 14 segment drive chain (the wing is not flat) that allows either to drive both props if an engine fails.
It's a massive PITA. Gearbox overheating is the reason why the Osprey cannot stay in prolonged hover. The central GB cooks in near static airflow.
Thanks for raising my understanding. Maybe one day someone will make it work.
"Gearbox overheating is the reason why the Osprey cannot stay in prolonged hover."
Or prolonged flight, in the case of 3 units in Norway. One is currently bogged up to the landing gear doors in a wildlife refuge having emergency landed on "rather soft" ground
This seems to do with something called hard clutch engagement where AIUI the rotor disengages from the engine in flight, the other engine takes over partial rotor drive, then the original engine re-engages, so lots of torque on the rotor over whats on the normal running rotor. So far there is no root-cause reason for this happen but then the V22 is the "Talking horse" of air/rotor craft :-(
BTW fun fact from a 1985 NASA report on helicopters (not including the V-22) the rule of thumb for gearbox weight is 0.3-0.5lb (of gearbox)/Hp tranferred. Given each V22 engine is about 6000shp that transfer gearbox is about 900lb (it's only transferring 1/2 the power). Of course materials have gotten better since then (but not that much) but I'm betting that's still a serious lump of mass. About the only gearbox the V22 doesn't have is one for a tail rotor, but it's got several others.
What does have me puzzled is they've folded the rotor blades, but not the wings. This just seems odd.
Here in France there are two types of stamp. Those with a face value, and those with a function (like this colour for world and this colour for first class and this colour for carrier pigeon).
La Poste approached the matter in a different way. A few years back they did away with the EU tariff, so now it's "France or not France" [*], and it's a bit ridiculous that it costs the same to send a letter to Berlin as Canberra, but there you go.
The next change, which is soon (if not already) is to do away with first class (the red Marianne stamp) entirely. Everything will go green ecological class now, and take maybe twice as long. Funny that La Poste wants to cut back on getting the letters shifted when they've recently taken on a bigger slice of the Amazon pie, judging by how often my orders come via Colissimo these days (that's their parcel side, though it still comes in the same little yellow post van as the daily paper).
* - We'll just gloss right over the DOM/TOM complications.
Her reign started 3 years after I was born. My late wife reminisced about seeing broadcasts of her coronation on US TV when she was 10 or 11. (It was filmed live, the film developed, and then flown across the Atlantic for showing on North American television.) My grandparents were adults before Victoria died and lived over a decade into Elizabeth's reign.
Charles is 5 months older than I am. He has not aged well. Have to see if he lasts longer than Edward VII.
It had been rumoured... I was somewhat shocked when Lis Truss referred to him as King Charles III before any announcement from Clarence house, and even more when the BBC picked it from that as an official source.
We'll likely never know whether he had intended to use George but decided against rocking the boat at such a time or whether he was always going to use Charles.
"epitome of class" yep that sums it up. Born of a different class and although I had nothing against her personally, the institution is there to keep us plebs in our place! Now we have a head of State who is unelected and has interfered in legislation; getting exemptions from basic laws such as equal rights laws do not apply to the royal family and many other property based legislation. He is also given two poached eggs every morning and picks one to eat and the other one is wasted!
I am a republican (not the sort you get over the pond) but somebody who thinks that inherited titles are just plain wrong and that the time for the monarchy has gone. (and I have never forgiven them for stealing our common land all them years ago)
I am a supporter of a republic, but I suggest maybe you should get a grip on reality
"Now we have a head of State who is unelected" As opposed to a PM elected by how many? Preceded by a monster who not only broke multiple laws but also did his best to destroy the law, from a party intent on destroying legal [protection of all but the rich and destroying the environment.
"and has interfered in legislation; getting exemptions from basic laws such as equal rights laws do not apply to the royal family and many other property based legislation." See above.
"He is also given two poached eggs every morning and picks one to eat and the other one is wasted!" As opposed to the Tories flying around the country and the for no good reason etc.
Charlie Boy is a far better person than any of the current mob in government, maybe they should copy him and get some decency and morals.
Sigh.
Not a "Tory supporter". Remember it's not "these people are our friends because they're in one group and these people are our enemies because they're in another".
Some Labour politicians are pro hunting - See https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/12/greenpolitics.hunting and http://innocentbadger.is/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Labour-Party.pdf
Some Conservatives are anti-hunting - see https://conservativesagainstfoxhunting.com/
How the hell have we got from an obit for a monarch that seems to transcend people who consider themselves royalists and non-royalists to another blanket "I dOnT lIkE tHeM bEcAuSe ThEy'Re BlUe!" comment.
Jackass.
Because as we all know, animals in the wild just choose a beautiful, comfy spot, lie down, and simply go to sleep, never to wake up again.
Would do these bleeding hearts good to see what happens when a varmint finds its way into a chicken coop. RealLifeInTheWild ain't pretty ... and from what Ive seen, the hounds do a faster job of the inevitable than many other forms of death.
Note that in reality Mufasa would have probably eaten his sprog ... fuck off, Disney.
The Prince of Wales website published the following back in 2012 in the FAQ section:
''Does the Prince of Wales have seven boiled eggs cooked for his breakfast but only eat one, as claimed in Jeremy Paxman's book On Monarchy?''
''No, he doesn't and never has done, at breakfast or any other time.''
Princess Anne is the only other one of that family that I now have any time for.
But the alternative is an elected president - who the hell wants another fuckwit that can only buy their way into power through the generous donations of "interested" parties.
The Ukrainians seem to have had a fair go at a decent leader by picking a comedian. Anyone want to give (just off the top of my head) Bill Bailey, Lenny Henry, Jennifer Saunders, Rory Bremner, Greg Davies, ... a crack at it? A one year stint, like guest presenters on a game show, with them able to nominate their successor. Has to be better than the shitstorm that is the tory party being in charge of the country.
"President Truss, anyone?"
Arrrgh! Arrrgh! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!
Sorry, I have nothing useful to add, but it's horrible enough to have to call her the Prime Minister, let's not give her delusions of grandeur (unless it involves her throwing pork sausages at stacks of cheese, like something out of It's A Knockout).
The monarch's powers are limited to the point of being nothing. If Charles refuses to assent to make something law - then he can be abdicated and William will be given the same paper to sign. A recent stage play used this scenario - and the example law in question was to abolish freedom of the press.
Oswald Mosley proposed using a putative majority of tame MPs to change the Westminster system legally - to Enable him as a dictator ruling by decree. The same had effectively happened earlier in Italy. After "The March on Rome" King Victor Emmanuel III invited Mussolini to form the government.
"The monarch's powers are limited to the point of being nothing. If Charles refuses to assent to make something law - then he can be abdicated and William will be given the same paper to sign."
Not quite true. Although there is the possibility of refusal to make something law, it doesn't work like that. The monarch gets to see the law before it is enacted. If they don't like it - as has happened when it materially affects their money or property rights - it gets "revised" to be more in line with their thinking. Search for the special exclusions that they have for management of game birds on royal properties.
My understanding is that the palace only gets a pre-emptive view of a law - if it is considered to affect their direct interests. There is no requirement for the government to heed the palace's objections. Too much of the UK constitutional system is based on everyone agreeing to be reasonable. PM Johnson proved that it is possible to drive a coach and horses through many of the conventions.
I would like to add my regards, as just a typical, sorry American.
I visited London, my first time, just 2 weeks ago. As I went through all the sights it did indeed come to my mind, "This is all an anachronism. All this pomp and class distinction disappeared ages ago, when [we] won a war created by these very things."
But.
I love the U.K, it and Canada are our greatest friends, our greatest allies. We can have disagreements over individual situations but we remain steadfast friends, through thick and thin. And anyone with any iota of intelligence is thankful for you being there.
The monarchy may be the very best thing that Britain has, it represented a 'status quo' no matter where the real politics of the world - your politics between Tory and Labor, our politics between Democrat and Republican, the world's politics between democracy and authoritarianism. The world could look at Great Britain and see your Queen...and know that at least *something* was confident and recognizable, a steamship of reliable guidance no matter where the winds of the future took us. She was the grandmother to the world.
We can also discuss the economic benefits that the monarchy brought to the British people. It is easy to believe otherwise, but millions upon millions of people, spending billions of pounds, came to Great Britain to witness the monarchy and, maybe even more hopefully, catch a glimpse of her in her appointed duties. In her colorful suits, she represented the very best of what you hoped Great Britain to be, where ever you saw her.
Your country will be diminished by the loss of her presence. May she rest in peace.
Here here - very nice sentiments. Half the UK agree.
The other half who are struggling working 2/3 jobs to feed their children have a ittle resntment about the entitlement and privilege of those that "won the birth lottery".
For me the only argument that really holds is that 'at least a hereditary head of state means one less politician'. Best alternative I can think of is a rolling 4 year lottery to see who will be King/Queen for the next 4 years :-)
I guess I'm not a big fan of inherited titles or nepotism.
I'm not confident that Elections, committees, HR departments, etc... tend to result in better personnel choices?
I'm sure there are plenty of young, capable men and women out there but... how best to find and engage them?
So. You have a huge chip on your shoulder, a massive inferiority complex, and the overweening narcissism that always seems to go with those deep character flaws. Plus you have n't a clue what you are talking about.
A mish mash of "facts" and facile political slogans. All unsupported by any substantive sources. Or reality for that matter. "Stealing Common Lands"? Really? If you had the slightest idea of the relevant history over the last 1200 years you would not have made such a profoundly stupid claim. And so on and so on.
No one gives a rats ass what you think because ultimately your rambling diatribe is really all about you, you , you. And the obviously miserable life you have made for yourself. Its always someones else's fault, is nt it?
As the rest of the nation will be in mourning for the next week why not go to the local Lidl and get a few crates of cheap cider and puts us all out of your misery until its all over. We can even organize a whip around if your Giro has not come through this week..
I recall watching her coronation on TV (in the US). There were no high-speed links across the Atlantic ocean so they would film a part of the coronation and fly the film to the US. They developed the film in-flight. Different networks had different speed aircraft so flipping channels kept bouncing back and forward in time.
I remember how young she looked. (I was only 10 years old at the time) and how everything was very formal.
A very good Queen.
The lack of high speed links would be a blessing now as we are already way past media saturation.
Yes, somebody has passed away and commiserations to the family. But this is a 96 year old has led a full life. A decent innings so to speak. From all the cancellation of schedules it was clear that this was imminent.
Now there is a weekend of pointlessly cancelled events which is going to cost millions. Does anybody think that if she could be asked she would want the country to stop and cancel all plans for the weekend?
"Now there is a weekend of pointlessly cancelled events which is going to cost millions."
Yeah . . . Just had my first Airbnb cancellation as the event they were attending is cancelled. Thats £300 I'm down. I do the Airbnb just to milk my asset so not too worried and hopefully no more.
But your point is valid. All the stadium staff who would have been working football matches this weekend may have a bill paying problem to solve.
I am very much hoping that Jeremy Corbyn, as a recent leader of HM's loyal opposition, will be invited to the funeral etc, and that Boris, as a disgraced criminal, will not. Thank goodness HM held on long enough for the small improvement that Liz Truss represents. Tough gig for Liz, 48 hrs in, whatever one thinks of her.
Charles accession is similar to Queen Victoria's son Edward VII. A born hedonist - his mother deliberately kept him away from any meaningful exercise of royal powers even in her old age.
However - he turned out to be what the public wanted. He started the modern popularisation of the monarchy in his short reign.
Charles III will have a similar opportunity - but on his track record he could want powers that Parliament will refuse.
but on his track record he could want powers that Parliament will refuse.
No he won't.
Charles knows exactly what a monarch is for in 21st century Britain and won't be rocking the boat.
Despite my low opinion of almost all of the current members of the Royal Family I don't think Charles is actually stupid.
The chances are high that he will be the best of the Charles's so far although that is a very low bar.
The army high command- basically a junta - removed Richard Cromwell.
Richard had allowed Royalists and moderates back into parliament. The army didn't like parliament asserting authority and Charles Fleetwood (Richards brother-in-law and commander in chief of the army until parliament removed that authority) and General John Lambert expelled parliament
And the Commonwealth's "Committee of Safety" mobilised a force against General Monck's Scottish army but the English army collapsed and Monck effectively drove the restoration of the monarch.
I have always had a major doubt about Charles. He seems to regard science as just another debating angle, rather than the corps of knowledge that has made life so much better for people all over the world. His mother, although religious at heart, was more understanding.
But England is the thousand year reich that some other countries envied. We have had successful monarchs and failures, and I expect we shall survive Charles III.
"his mother deliberately kept him away from any meaningful exercise of royal powers even in her old age"
The reality is that he and the other senior members of the family stepped in to substitute for her on more and more occasions in recent years. And short of an actual regency there's no scope for anyone other than the monarch exercising royal powers in any way, meaningful or otherwise.
There's a simple counter argument to the "tourism" case for keeping the monarchy: France.
The most visited country on the planet, who famously cut the heads off their monarchy >200 years ago.
As for the "President Boris/Blair etc" problem, easy fix: when the Republic's constitution is written, just make anyone who has been an MP ineligible to be President
"It's not the people who are expensive to maintain, its the buildings."
Don't forget the grounds. It costs an arm and a leg to keep those lawns maintained, the trees and bushes pruned, the reflecting waters filtered, to say nothing of the trampled petunias replanted, the fag-ends swept up, the chewing gum scraped up, and all the other ravages brought down by the well meaning public oogling their heritage.
Ask a tourist about France, they will mention the ski slopes, the Riviera beaches, the food, the Eiffel Tower and "a certain je-ne-sais-quoi".
Ask them about the UK, the answer will be the monarchy and all the monuments and traditions that go with it (Buckingham Palace and the changing of the Guard). Curious to know how appealing the RF will be under Charles III from a tourism point of view.
This post has been deleted by its author
"And no-one has any idea why."
Cheese!
Seriously - culture, history, and tonnes of scenic locations whether you're up for a sunny beach, a mountain to ski down, or attempting to have meaningful communication with a bovine... Some people also quite like the food, but beware that when it comes to meat the French have a dozen subtle degrees between raw and barely warm, and anything more than that is usually considered overcooked...
'when it comes to meat the French have a dozen subtle degrees between raw and barely warm'
As I found out a few weeks ago when a slight misunderstanding about which beef was au point. Still, nice to find out that it is possible for steak to be more chilled than the Sancerre.
As an Englishman, I support the monarchy especially as most other states are republics.
But if I had lived under Oliver Cromwell, I would probably have supported the English Republic when most other states were monarchies.
Contrarian, you might say. I put it down to my part-Irish ancestry.
Taking Germany as an example, which has a President: The President should be someone who is highly regarded by all the parties, with a huge amount of personal integrity.
Johnson is highly regarded by maybe 40% of one party, and his personal integrity is about 0. He would have absolutely zero chance.
He is also supposed to represent the country. Any country that wants to be represented by a bumbling incompetent, to put it into the politest terms possible? Again, zero chance.
LOL. Toties are seriously sensitive about their total mismanagement of the country.
Maggie sold off everything she could to her mates and effectively destroyed the country.
1979: UK was sitting on a revenue bonanza from North Sea Oil, had a National Debt of just £80bn and owned all it's utilities, transport, infrastructure & millions of social homes.
2020: UK has £2.2Tn national debt & virtually no assets.
Capitalism and Thatcherism have destroyed the country and our kids' future˙
No, we're just sick of foreign trolls trying to destabilise our political system.
Trolls like you are trumpeting propaganda for all sides, just to stir the shit.
If you have any respect for our queen, you'll suspend politics for at least the day after her passing....
Sweety, I respected the Queen, note Queen not queen, but that is not the subject I was responding to, was it, it was the alternative which the Tories want to create.
Maybe you should also learn English as well as context.
I was responding to
"I am a republican (not the sort you get over the pond) but somebody who thinks that inherited titles are just plain wrong and that the time for the monarchy has gone. (and I have never forgiven them for stealing our common land all them years ago)"
Why weren't you bleating about that? And all the other similar comments. Why not? Because you are a supporter of the UK hating ERG et al is why.
"No, we're just sick of foreign trolls trying to destabilise our political system." The ones brought in by the Tories you mean? Which is why London was known as Londongrad. You are everything that is dragging the UK down.
> 1979: UK was sitting on a revenue bonanza from North Sea Oil, had a National Debt of just £80bn and owned all it's utilities, transport, infrastructure & millions of social homes.
In 1979 the UK was still paying-off debt from WW2. This revenue "bonanza" of which you speak was clearly not that large a bonanza.
1979: UK was sitting on a revenue bonanza from North Sea Oil, had a National Debt of just £80bn and owned all it's utilities, transport, infrastructure & millions of social homes.
"In 1979 the UK was still paying-off debt from WW2. This revenue "bonanza" of which you speak was clearly not that large a bonanza."
Do you know what the National Debt is? It was being paid off. Then Maggia sold everything which meant revenue disappeared which is why National Debt of just £80bn soared to £2.2Tn.
Small correction, Edward VIII did not have an heir of his body, but his younger brother was his heir. And while unusual, I know at least one instance where the crown was inherited horizontally1), diagonally2) and horizontally again to end up with a young person unprepared for it, who become also a very long reigning3) and highly revered monarch.
1) To a younger brother
2) To the firstborn son of a predeceased younger brother
3) 70 years and 126 days, slightly less than Queen Elizabeth II
It doesn't work in what one would think is the logical order. He is #8 in line.
(From https://www.royal.uk/succession )
1. The Duke of Cambridge
2. Prince George of Cambridge
3. Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
4. Prince Louis of Cambridge
5. The Duke of Sussex
6. Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor
7. Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor
8. The Duke of York
9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi
10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi
11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank
12. Master August Brooksbank
13. The Earl of Wessex
14. Viscount Severn
15. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor
16. The Princess Royal
17. Mr. Peter Phillips
18. Miss Savannah Phillips
19. Miss Isla Phillips
20. Mrs. Michael Tindall
21. Miss Mia Tindall
22. Miss Lena Tindall
23. Master Lucas Tindall
This post has been deleted by its author
I was and still am proud to have her as my Queen and Head Of State.
Somebody I know was given an honour and the investiture was done by the then Prince of Wales. They told me in private that they’d much rather have had Her Majesty. She outlived them by more than a decade.
Rest In Peace Your Majesty
we are effectively a republic as the remote nominal head of state has nothing more to do than appoint the Governor General, aka president. Get best of both worlds. As for an Oz head of state, altho I have been republican minded since early teens, the models suggested by the Canberra/Sydney bubble suggest a status quo is by far preferably.
As it is, the Queen did her role competently for decades. That sort of person I respect. RIP Your Majesty.
This is wrong, she was (and Charles is) monarch of:
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
The Bahamas
Belize
Canada
Granada
Jamaica
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
Saint Kits and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Solomon Islands
Tuvalu
Their constitutional position in each of those separate countries is identical.
In Canada, at least, a constitutional change like that would require 100% of a full quorum of the provinces to pass. And it would be irresistible for someone, somewhere to try and tack on some other change that won't be liked to it. Making it nearly impossible to become a republic, short of public opinion swaying into the 80%+ range for it. I can't speak for the other Commonwealth countries, but Canada remains a monarchy mostly out of expediency.
"Canada remains a monarchy mostly out of expediency."
As do most of the other countries who retain a monarch
There are a few countries on that list who are looking at swiching away from the figurehead. I suspect they'll find it costs a lot more than they were expecting (both financially and in terms of political stability)
"Their constitutional position in each of those separate countries is identical."
Not sure of that. I was only half listening to something on the radio while driving up the M1 today when someone mentioned something about one or more of those countries constitutions referring to "The Queen", not "The Monarch". If I heard correctly, there may need to be a bit of hasty re-writing.
And the amusing thing is that the House of Windsor could be shown the door in the United Kingdom (without the mucky bloodshed - that was Lord Blackadder's time, not ours) and they'd still be Monarch of all those other countries.
Pity the Lord Blackadder never encountered such a situation in all his documentaries ... :)
The vast majority of them rightly forgotten
Some of them won't be - because of what they did so badly...
Will Tony Bliar be long remembered for the illegal invasion of Iraq?
BJ will have his mishandling of the pandemic forgotten (much of it already is) but he will go down in history for the deliberate damage of Brexit that may lead to the breakup of the UK.
What will Liz Truss be remembered for?
She managed to stay a glorious figurehead and a humble human being (considering her position). She was the countries daughter, mother, grandmother and great-grandmother and it shall be a shame to not see her come Christmas day before carving up the turkey.
I too aren't a staunch royalist (my wife from an ex-colony cried over the news at dinner whilst I just felt a small sadness over the enevitablity of it all) but she was a touchstone for the nation. A constant rock in uncertain times, she will be missed.
Now, let's just hope Charles III doesn't end up like the first of his namesake...
Over the years, I came to have increasing respect for her.
Born into very considerable wealth, which she never flaunted.
Successfully navigated meetings with all kinds of people, across the world and across many, many years.
The best ambassador this country has ever had - and probably ever will have.
"and is the only person in England who never had to take a driving test"
The UK driving licence was introduced in 1903. The UK driving test was only introduced in 1935. IIRC people with driving licences before that didn't subsequently need to take a test. Given that many people are still living past 100 then there may be several who share that distinction.
I share that distinction, but am no where near the 100 year old mark.
Lived in Ghana as a teenager, bought my car license there - the whole system was rather corrupt.
Moved to South Africa for university. SA has an agreement with Ghana that the license is recognised as valid so got it converted to an SA one.
Moved to Germany in 2010ish, they recognise the SA drivers license, converted it to German license.
Moved back to blighty in 2012, DVLA is quite happy to convert German license to UK... and there you have it.
I have a valid UK drivers license but have never taken the test.
Postscript to that story - When I arrived in SA I happened to mention to mother that I hadn't actually passed a test in Ghana. She, quite rightly, gave me a clip round the head and promptly booked me for a full learners course. So I was trained, just never had to take the tests.
I hold a UK driver's licence. I didn't have to take a test to receive it.
Back in days of Yore, before TheInternet (really!) I had a California driver's license with a motorcycle stamp, and also an International license. My insurance guy in Blighty told me that I could get a break on my insurance rate if I obtained a British one. So I headed off to the MOT(?? is that right?) to take care of it. They looked at my existing paperwork and just rubber-stamped the application to drive manual transmission cars and motorcycles. Up until that point, I had no idea that you Brits had separate tests for automatics and manuals.
That was some time ago! Nowadays USA license holders have to take a UK test after 1 year residency...
We still have separate licenses for manual and automatic (if you pass the manual test, you can drive automatic). It's a bit of a dilemna these days for parents putting their kids into driving tuition: electric cars are going to be automatic, and manuals are going to die out. Is there any point teaching manual anymore?
Bring back teaching reversing!
We got one of those 'traffic calming measures' at the end of the street a couple of years ago (due to Covid?) that bans cars and the number of people discovering the new barrier and struggling to back up just a couple of yards so they can turn down the side turning is unbelievable...
As is the number of people struggling to get into a parking space even with parking assist!
"I headed off to the MOT(?? is that right?)"
More likely the DVLA.
MOT = Ministry of Transport
DVLA = Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
However, as a caveat, I know you are older than me, so it may have been the MOT who performed this function at that time, and not the DVLA who would do it now.
Nowadays if someone goes for an MOT it means they need their car certifying as "safe" to drive on the road (with the caveat that the small print on the MOT certificate says exactly the opposite, that the certificate cannot be relied upon as evidence that the vehicle is safe to drive on the road).
The thing about a MOT is that it's only a certification that the vehicle was safe/emissions compliant AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION and is not a guarantee it is safe to drive _now_
That's why the fine print is there. It may also be evidence that the vehicle has been tampered with, if 3 days after passing the test, it's stopped with no cat and 4 bald tyres (which has happened)
I had a lift from a friend's grandmother who had never taken a test (as other have said you didn't used to need one in the UK)... she asked for directions and I told her to go "straight over at the roundabout" so she.... did, up the curb, across the grass in the centre, over a shrub and our the other side.... :-)
Was so shocked I didn't say anything... but I seem to remember the suspension in the Allegro soaked up the bumps remarkably well!
She may not have had a licence, but she knew how to drive, and what's more - took no prisoners.
The closest I ever got to Her Majesty was when visiting Balmoral about 25+ years ago (early-mid '90s) and I was walking across the narrow bridge towards the main gates with my then gf. She was on the 2' wide 'pavement' and I was walking in the roadway. The Balmoral gates flew open and 3 green Landies roared out, doing at least 40.
The gates are about 50-100 yards from the bridge, and as the leading Landie bore down on us without any signs of slowing whatsoever, I realised I only had a second or two to hop up onto the pavement (we were about midway across the bridge), before I was to be mown down flat!
As I stepped up onto the raised pavement, I glanced at the driver of the Landie and to my shock, it was Her Majesty, with the biggest frown on her face! I'm not sure if it was because of my presence or other circumstances, but she was not happy.
She accelerated past us and when she turned onto the main road I swear the inner 2 wheels left the ground, the other 2 Landies (presumably full of tooled up protection officers) were struggling to keep up.
I suspect very strongly that all of her surviving ex Prime Ministers will get an invite. As will many of the Commonwealth ones, and may other leaders and ex leaders from other countries.
Expect the Abbey to be a real political celebrityfest.
But BoJo will not attend as the current PM.
Given that the wretched and despicable Boris "let the bodies pile up in their thousands" Johnson was participating in multiple illegal drunken parties during the Covid pandemic, not least the day before Queen Elizabeth had to sit and grieve so very painfully alone during the funeral of her beloved husband of so many decades (and not to mention his lying to Parliament and to her, and his too numerous other misdemeanours), I rather think that she would be somewhat appreciative of all of the political jibes aimed at that particular vile creature. One almost wonders if she really was hanging on just to be sure of being able to bid good riddance to him, as her final duty to her country?
Migrant bears and marmalade sandwiches featuring heavily on the invites?
Judging from the current atmosphere towards migrants, the Tory austerity, and whatnot, migrant bears and marmalade sandwiches are on the menu.
This post has been deleted by its author
Surprised at you JB.
I remember the hysteria - no better word for it - when Princess Diana died. It quickly turned from mass grief to mass hatred for the Queen. I had no idea what was going on in the mob, maybe you did.
I was driving home on a country road and a stopped car beeped at me, so I reversed to check if they were okay. Th driver cursed at me crudely, the gist being it was a minute silence for Diana and I shouldn't have been driving. "Well maybe you shouldn't have been beeping!"
My mum saw me smirking earlier and she knew how to wipe that smile off my face, "Queen Camilla."
It's third rate soap opera at premium rates and to hell with anyone the least bit interested in it.
Jake, you're not even British or stupid! I don't deserve your public downvote, yet. I mean I could try to.
This is the place and the time, despite the red banner turning black like every English newspaper. I wasn't rude to the woman, I have recently learned a great deal of sorrow for the recently bereaved.
My grandfather in the 1930s chased the Duke and Duchess of somewhere down his home street shouting and swearing at them while the rest of his town waved flags and cheered.
Lizzie came to my home town once, famous only for punks, and she asked our queen Plastique, "What do you do?" Plastique blew a bubblegum gum bubble in her face. That's what she did.
£85 million in the tax-payers royal fund last year, special laws to exclude the royals. I know she was a nice old granny but two days ago she held total executive power in the UK in between PMs. Prince Andrew was her favourite son.
There was a reason Americans fought for their independence from King George the Turd, you may wish to remember under Charles the Turd. Imagine the Kardashians were the US head of state.
Danny2
"£85 million in the tax-payers royal fund last year" - look up the royal purse. The Monarch pays TAX, like you and I. The monarch has income, which is given to the government. The government then gives some of it back to the monarch.
"special laws to exclude the royals" IANAL, but I've never herd that before. Can you provide evidence?
"special laws to exclude the royals"
The 'War of Independence' was mainly fought between the Rebel Scum© (about 20%) and the 20% of Americans known as 'Loyalists', and it was literally the 1st American Civil War.
As usual, the people in the middle had no influence and just kept their heads down, and the Rebel Scum© were incredibly lucky and the Loyalists/British were unlucky.
The Loyalists were violently attacked and threatened during the war and especially after it. Approximately 80,000 left America, mainly for Canada and some for Britain.
Of course, the American 'Patriots' were the ones who wrote the history of the conflict.
I love my mum and I daily joke about her, and me, dying. It's the best approach. I didn't know the Queen was dying yesterday morning. I can tell you how ugly mob mourning can become, you are proving it.
All the media are reporting Charles is King. That is factually incorrect tonight. A parliamentary committee has to approve the ascension, a committee which includes Jeremy Corbyn.
I don't like or respect Prince Charles, I'd much prefer Princess Anne. It'd be much cheaper to keep a Queen. Think about it, all the Queen's Counsel will have to rebrand as King's Counsel on their stationary, plus you'd have to change your national anthem etc.
"But, she was a few folk's grandmother so I'll shut up and button my lip. You don't have to respect the dead to respect the dead."
Your best intentions appear to have gotten away from you in subsequent missives. I'd also note that while "I love my mum and I daily joke about her, and me, dying. It's the best approach" may be true for you and yours, throwing that approach at strangers is lacking either judgement or empathy.
> All the media are reporting Charles is King. That is factually incorrect tonight. A parliamentary committee has to approve the ascension, a committee which includes Jeremy Corbyn.
Sigh...
1) The accession is approved by the Accession Council which is emphatically not a parliamentary committee.
2) Yes, as a Privy Councillor Jeremy Corbyn might be invited to attend the meeting of the Accession Council, as might any of the other 717 Privy Councillors. I'm not sure why you chose to single him out but perhaps the enormous chip on your shoulder is preventing you from seeing the others?
And one more point. Charles became King at the moment that the Queen died. The monarchy is seamless - which is why the Royal Standard is the only flag not at half-mast.
The Accession Council is merely approving and announcing the transition. It's tradition - it doesn't actually change anything.
>>The monarchy is seamless
There is a pTerry quote for every occasion...
Ly Tin Wheedle have a look at the first aphorism...
"not my queen" shows rather a lot of ignorance ant entitlement. The queen or king is your queen or king, the PM is your PM, etc - no matter whether you voted for it or approve.
The modern view is that nobody has to accept any reality they didn't choose but this is unrealistic, self-centred nonsense. Trump was president for all those "not my president" people too.
The queen didn't choose (or expect) to be your queen either but she still was.
"not my queen" shows rather a lot of ignorance ant entitlement. The queen or king is your queen or king, the PM is your PM, etc - no matter whether you voted for it or approve.
You are overlooking the possibility of a different nationality. She wasn't my queen either nor is Charles my king. My king is Willem-Alexander. Having said that, I've got nothing but respect for queen Elizabeth II. If nothing else, she kept true to her word that it was for life even though I am of the opinion abdication has it advantages (the new monarch doesn't have to deal with a lot of stress due to the death of a beloved parent being an obvious one).
Today is a great sadness over the Kingdom. She was the longest-serving Monarch and arrived by sheer misadventure of a throne abdicated Edward VIII for love of all things... Born of Bowes-Lyon and Our Handsome King... George IV. Such normal people with openly displayed decency, thrust into the duty of ceremony. The young Queen began her reign in June of 1953 but long before stepped in during the war effort on behalf of the King.
Her marriage to Phillip lasted 73 years. Like any parents, they had to endure the ravages of offspring but in her case always settled on the side of the Kingdom and duty over the antics of the next generation. She was as constant as the Northern Star. For almost everyone in Britain, she has always been the Queen, the steady girl, the unlikely and wonderful, Queen Elizabeth II. God Save the Queen.
She was working up until two days before her death at 96. Only ill her final illness prevented her holding a meeting the following day. Charles is about 5 years younger than myself. He's stepping up to the next role. I'd already been retired for years at his age.
Rich or not it isn't a fate I'd wish on my worst enemy but I'm grateful that they both accepted it. It means succession to head of state is pre-determined, doesn't involve vote grubbing (whoever you vote for you always get a politician) and is beyond the disgraceful events we saw recently in the US.
Severalth generation Californian here, so I'm hardly a Monarchist. However, I have spent a good deal of my life in DearOldBlighty ... long enough to know what a truly great head of state and ambassador she was this last near century.
The world has lost one of the great ones.
Condolences to the Family, and to the Nation.
Rest in Peace and God Save The King
Will Charles be taking the regnal name Charles? (Consider the case of his grandfather; George was the regnal name of George VI, but his given name was Albert.)
Her son will succeed her, whatever his regnal name will be, but he won’t replace her.
ISTR he said a while back that he'd be George VII, as he didn't approve of the morals of the previous Charles. I guess he had a rethink.
Edit: Apparently that was only speculation:
https://dianalegacy.com/george-vii-not-charless-new-title-despite-speculations-official-title-confirmed/
not being a fan of bollockies in general, but I do have to say this about Queen Elizabeth - she kept a steady hand on the wheel when the Empire was dissolving. Things could've been a lot worse.
Now, since BP, Shell, Caltex and all that sort have been telling us for the past few decades that we can't switch off the oil spigot because everybody can't adapt to change (cars not running on gasoline, but on electrickery! The horror!), I presume that means Prince Charles will have to ascend the throne as Queen Charles? Because we can't adapt to change, according to the oil companies, and they should know, they get paid subsidies as well as anything they earn, and a lot they don't.
I do so hope the real Duke of Edinburgh, the Lord Blackadder himself, will be invited to take part in the coronation ceremony, along with his friend Lord Percy, and his servant Sodoff Baldrick. It won't be a real coronation otherwise.
The appendage "II" to the queen's name is only correct for England. That is, she was only Elizabeth the Second in England.
In Scotland and the other Commonwealth countries there never was an Elizabeth the First, so she could never be the Second.
When she was crowned, there was a big stushie in Scotland over that naming convention. To the extent that a great number of replacement pillar boxes with the initials E2R were damaged. The result to this day is that there are very few E2R pillar boxes at all in Scotland, in fact there are more with the old George initials.
While we're on the subject, Elizabeth never was the "queen of the UK". That is factually not the case.
In England she was crowned queen of England. Wales as a militarily conquered nation is included in that.
In Scotland she was Queen of Scots. With a separate coronation.
Charles will need to have his separate coronation as King of Scots. Interestingly, the law around that is that the king is king with the acceptance of the people. In theory the Scots people can replace the monarch if they so wish. Being king/queen of the people, not of the country.
A bit off topic: the queen Elizabeth the First (of England) was the one who ordered the chopping off the head of her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots. On the basis that Mary was a threat to Elizabeth's holding of the monarchy.
Last laugh came when Elizabeth died, and Mary's son James who was the Scottish king at the time, got the throne of England as well.
> And in England the King is the King by the sufferance of Parliament, reinforced by killing or exiling previous incumbents who disagreed.
You say "incumbents" plural - Parliament only killed the one previous monarch - you make it sound like this was something they did regularly!
Parliament wasn't quite the same thing in middle ages as it is now so you could extend that beyond Charles I. Richard II might be considered an example of that.
But you quote the OP saying "or exiling" and that includes James II as well as Edward VII and even Charles II temporarily.
cldye666» In Scotland and the other Commonwealth countries there never was an Elizabeth the First, so she could never be the Second.
Does this mean that the letterboxes in Scotland have ER on them and not E II R as one sees in England?
And what is the story with Northern Ireland? Is Charles the King of Northern Ireland?
"Is Charles the King of Northern Ireland?"
The title is King of the United Kingsdon of Great Britain* and Northern Ireland.
* Great Britain to distinguish the island from Brittany to where a lot of Britons emigrated after the Anglo-Saxons arrived in what was to become England.
The island of Great Britain has that name to distinguish it from the island of Little Britain (now known as Ireland). This distinction goes back at least to Claudius Ptolemy’s Almagest, in which they were called μεγάλη Βρεττανία and μικρά Βρεττανία respectively. The Almagest was written around 150 AD, a few centuries before the emigration of Britons to western Armorica (now known as Brittany) due to the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Great Britain.
I know Ptolemy is regarded as having done a good job regarding details of rivers etc but his was a distant view. The Romans who were actually occupying part of the island were in no doubt that there was only one island called Britannia. Their only distinction was between two provinces within the island.
I doubt Ptolemy was ever consulted about what Wikipedia refers to as the "shared etymology" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany). cf Bretagne vs Grand Bretagne.
What I learned was that on the other side of the English Channel we had Great Britain, while firmly attached Europe was Little Britain, Brittany, called that because of the number of British high-ranking families who escaped to that part of Roman Gaul when the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes invaded, and the whole place erupted in a prolonged war.
Huh? The Kingdoms of England and Scotland ceased to exist in 1707. There has only been one kingdom to be King or Queen of in these islands since then (there’s a clue in the name “United Kingdom”). There was no “Scottish Coronation”, maybe you’re thinking of the “National Thanksgiving Service” in Edinburgh in which she was presented with the Honours of Scotland after her actual coronation? And as for the regnal numbers, well it’s obvious that choosing the higher of the available options is both concise and unambiguous, something any software engineer should appreciate :-)
That all depends on how you define a nation or even a country.
The best that I have come across is a large group of people (usually over 1 million) who all say that they are one nation or one country, but this vague and riddled with exceptions.
Is Catalonia a country? Are the catalans a nation?
What about Switzerland? It is certainly a state, but is a country? Are the Swiss a nation? 4 nations?
And Northern Ireland?
Or Texas?
"Is Catalonia a country? Are the catalans a nation?"
Historically "yes" (it was a Principality as recently as the 1600s) - but European national (kingdom, principality, city-state) boundaries have been very fluid over time and there used to be a LOT more of them
Remember, Germany and Italy as we know them today didn't exist until less than 200 years ago, with France only being a fraction older
A country and an administrative region used to be defined by how far a man could ride on a horse in a day, or an army could march in half a day. Times have changed
>James who was the Scottish king at the time, got the throne of England as well.
And ever since, the English have lived under Scottish oppression and so everything bad that has happened since the C16, including the British empire, is the fault of Scotland.
Isn't it about time England got independence?
King James was the first King to be crowned in England. The others became king by being crowned; he was already King James the Sixth of Scotland when he became King James the First of England. (Though I do wonder about the likes of Cnut (Canute) and some of the other Danish-English kings. Were they already Kings or did they use their kingship in England to overcome the last remaining opposition in Denmark and Norway?)
Having watched her coronation on a new TV, out in the middle of the local village green; enjoyed the many memories of her husband Prince Philip; watched in awe at her work to bring so many nations into her Commonwealth; news of her passing brought tears to my eyes. Some will know that I deeply disapprove of what one might describe as a Feudal Mercantile Economy, corporate feudalism; yet her strong leadership, over such a long lifetime, brought another viewpoint that will live on for many coming centuries. I for one will miss her Christmas message to us all. God Save the King, King Charles III. May his coming reign bring similar success.
Usual thoughts with the family and friends at this sad news.
But time for a fun fact about the British royal family (AKA "The Firm"): Nine years before Elizabeth was born the "House of Windsor" was called "House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha". But after World War I, the British people were very uncomfortable with their monarchy publicly being of Germanic descent, so they rebranded in 1917 very successfully (No FrenchBritish Revolution).
Give this post an upvote if you learned this in school, and a down vote if it was left out of your history syllabus. I have to admit I'm a bit curious what the result will be.
I remember that our history teacher tried to trip us up with asking what the Monarch's House (or whatever the nomenclature is) in 1914 and 1918 in two consecutive questions.
Half the class looked at the poster at the back of the room and decided that since it was the same king, obviously the answer was the same for both questions.
I recall reading an article not too long ago where, commenting on the popularity of Her Majesty amongst the Aussies, despite their strong Republican leanings as a country, someone was quoted as saying something along the lines of the majority of Australians may not be monarchists, but they are Elizabethans. That sentiment perfectly sums up my feelings on the subject.
The vast majority of people do not have their job decided for them by accident of whom they were born to, and yes, I know Elizabeth II only became Queen due to unusual circumstances, but I've thought about the subject a few times, and I'm not sure which is worse - having that job thrust upon you unexpectedly, or knowing from a very young age that that was the job you were going to have to do, like it or not. Jobs that you may have wished to do and could not because of the expectations of the job you have to do. Oh, you might be able to learn a job, of a fairly limited range, but when it's your time to be monarch - that's it, that is now your job, like it or not, unless you abdicated, which just pushed The Job onto some other poor bugger. The thought makes me shudder - what a horrible thing to wish upon a child, to be born into such a situation!
Sure, the wealth, the privilege, the amount of taxpayers money, mostly from poor folk to support a few already rich folk - that's not right, either. But given that things were as they were back when Elizabeth became our monarch - I don't begrudge her the privileges she had, due to her utterly outstanding performance in the job. I think of it as a kind of compensation to her for having the job thrust upon her and having to deal with undesirables who just happened to be notable politicians or royalty from other countries. I would LOVE to have known what she thought of the PM's that held that job during my lifetime. I'm pretty sure that her views would have been as negative as mine on some of them, and that list isn't particularly biased towards or against any particular political party, in case you're wondering.
I was delighted when I heard that she and her husband enjoyed the Spitting Image caricatures of themselves and their family. Earlier I had been pleased to learn that she had learnt to be a mechanic, and liked tinkering with her 'Rover - this in a woman born at a time when women were supposed to stick to certain jobs and men to certain other jobs "because that's just how it is". It wasn't that many years before she was born that Emily Davison had tragically died accidentally , after collision with the Kings horse Anmer, at Epsom, attempting to publicise the Suffragette movement. (She hadn't intended to die, just put a scarf in suffragette colours on the horse. A damned foolish idea, but she wasn't suicidal). The thought, at the time that Davison died, that a Queen of the UK might learn to be a mechanic would have been seen as absurd.
Politicians are supposed to be servants of the people, and there are some who take that to heart, but compared to the Prime Ministers we had during Elizabeth's reign, she stood head and shoulders above the lot of them in her sense of duty and her care for the well-being of the populace of this country. I just wish she could have been spared the problems her family had in the last few years of her life.
Rest in peace Your Majesty, Elizabeth II. I didn't like the job that you had to do or that you HAD to do it. But you did it superbly well, extraordinarily so, and you were a rare and precious gift to our nation, as a monarch. You will be remembered fondly by this particular Lefty.
Couldn't Agree More...
Some of the negative comments here are quite disturbing - the persons making them obviously not having any thought about walking in another person's shoes...
If I had been unfortunate enough to be born into the Royal Family I would not have been able to pursue my love of Computers but have been relegated to Royal Duties in the Public Eye. Whatever they may have been...
Queen Elizabeth II has always been in my life and, many times, I have felt sorry for Her as She never had the chance to be the person She wanted to be...
RIP to my third Grand Mother
This post has been deleted by its author
I'm no monarchist, but that's overly reductive.
Yes, abdication was an option for her at any point in her 70 years as queen, but it doesn't take into account qualities like a sense of duty or loyalty.
It's a very restrictive life in a lot of ways. Waited on hand and foot, but lacking in a lot of the freedoms that us commoners enjoy. She has her own set of freedoms, of course, but it's hardly a simple life to be even a constitutional monarch.
Yes, abdication was an option for her at any point in her 70 years as queen, but it doesn't take into account qualities like a sense of duty or loyalty.
Perhaps before her coronation, abdication was technically possible, but once she pledged her duty to the country she wasn't going to be false to that.
Sometimes we get stuck in for jobs we aren't suited to or never wanted, but there it is. I'm typing this at the bedside of a relative who helped raise me. She is irritable, declining to the point of needing to be spoonfed and assisted to toilet. I had to cancel a trip I really looked forward to in order to be here for her. Not comparable to 70+ years, but not gonna shirk this either. Brava Liz. I should only shoulder responsibility half as well.
"If I had been unfortunate enough to be born into the Royal Family I would not have been able to pursue my love of Computers"
If you had been unfortunate enough to be born into the Royal Family, your circumstances would have been completely different. Chances are you would never even have thought of making the above statement. The very concept would have been outside your ken.
I stuck out the meaningless bit. These is nothing fortunate, nor unfortunate, about being born. To think otherwise is to believe in "luck", which doesn't exist.
Esme,
Well said !!!
I have lived my whole life in a monarchy with a Queen that has been focused on duty to the country.
The cheap shots, at this time, to attack the monarchy are very regretable.
Our politicians are 'fair game' because of their actions and greed for power at all costs.
Queen Elizabeth II was better than the politicians that served her and the country.
At a human level, please also remember that someone has lost a mother and the pain/loss is not less for being a royal.
We have lost so much in this country when basic decency no longer applies !!!
I am fairly sure my late grandfather (he would be 105 or so) told me he just had to apply for a license. A bit of googling suggests nobody had to take a test prior to the mid 1930s. So many, many people never had to take a test... including many who drove.
A nice piece otherwise El Reg. The point that she was not raised expecting to become Queen is something I had never really thought about too much.
Yes, and: a number of people who drove army vehicles in World War II were "grandfathered in" to a civvie license when they were demobbed, without ever taking a test.
(On a related note, Elizabeth drove an army ambulance during the war, although I assume they didn't let the heir to the throne near anything too dangerous.)
Monegassians(?) have French passports
Bollocks. Monaco is single citizenship, you can't be a citizen and hold a French passport.
if the house of Grimaldi would have no heir, then Monaco will revert to France.
That's no longer true since 2002, but why let facts get in the way of a petty rant against de Gaulle, eh?
The tourism money is good.
More technically, the Royal family owns a lot of land that is leased to Parliament and creates far more revenue for the government than the Royal family cost to keep.
Frankly, it just doesn't make financial sense to abolish the monarchy.
Random thought: we can use the monarchy to communicate faster than light, and thereby break causality.
When the queen died, Charles instantaneously became king. (Yes, there are a lot of protocols that will follow, but they are in every sense ceremonial.)
This means that monarchy is the only thing we know of that moves faster than light.
Now in this case, this isn't very interesting since Elizabeth and Charles were very close together at the time of death. But imagine some near future where we can send the heir to the throne (currently William) to Mars while Charles remains here on Earth. Then we could send an instantaneous message to Mars by killing Charles, causing William to become king.
Of course, we could only send one bit of information this way (perhaps more if we had a previously agreed code on what the timing of the succession meant). But we could go further: suppose we arrange for alternating individuals in the line of succession to be on Earth and Mars (e.g. Charles and the princes George and Louis on Earth; William and princess Charlotte on Mars). With a long enough line of succession and by judiciously killing off one monarch after another, we could send messages back and forth essentially as quickly as we could execute monarchs - certainly much faster than light.
This of course would allow us to break causality. Who says the monarchy is a worthless institution now, eh?
...and remains burned on a bonfire of lawyers?
(I suspect that either Heinlein didn't know much about constitutional monarchies or it was just another of his "phases" that he went through re politics and political systems, since there's not much tyranny to be had in a constitutional monarchy. He was probably referring to absolute monarchs, which we've not really had ever since that gathering at Runnymede.
No Monarchs aren't quantum cos you can measure their state of monarchy without collapsing them.
Now if you put a prince in a dungeon with a 50:50 chance of dying.... Poor old Richard III was just trying a simple experiment and yet he gets all the bad press.
From Canada, we offer our condolences to the Royal Family and our heartfelt best wishes to all those who act in the service and spirit of political and information freedom throughout the Commonwealth and elsewhere. While The Queen has left the mortal realm, she has NOT forgotten in spirit all those who throughout the world still struggling to break their chains and yearning to breathe free!
God Save the Queen and May Your Spirit Fight With Those Through The Coming Ages As You Continue
to Spread Your Wings For All Who Wish To Break The Ropes Of Bondage and the Yokes of Authoritarianism!
Much Thanks,
from
StargateSG7
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
V
I think she has done so much for country, even amongst her own problems in her own family, just like every other family.
I do mourn her passing.
I was at Windsor Horse Show last year when we were asked to just wait for a minute.
These 3 black rangers pulled up next to us, they were going pretty fast, surprised the first one didn't do a handbrake sliding stop.
The drivers door opened and out got the queen, was totally aghast as she was just in front of us, I've got photos of her that close too.
She was watching one of the native showing classes, not in the main ring either, just the side ring and they had a chair there for her to sit on and watch.
We went and saw some other things and when we can back past she was just leaving, getting in the drivers seat leading the way, we saw her driving on the road up to the castle and she was accelerating away from the others, she must have been doing at least 70mph! Total demon driver, it was brilliant.
After the loss of Prince Philip it was so nice to see her so happy at Windsor watching all the horse.
A great loss to the country.
RIP Elizabeth II
The putative Charles III has had an unhappy relationship with technology. His analogue mobile phone conversation (the "tampon" call) with Mrs Parker-Bowles gave rise to unwelcome amusement. Also he has pranged a Royal Navy vessel and a military aircraft.
"Her husband, the late Prince Philip, was less tech savvy. In an infamous case, his personal account on Prestel etc."
I'm not sure about that. It would have taken a degree of tech savvy to have used a Prestel account but even more to the point I think he organised a conference promoting technology many decades ago.
It is unlikely that the Queen was the only person in the UK who didn't need to take the driving test. The test was compulsory in 1935 but testing was suspended during the second world war and during the Suez Crisis in 1956. Therefore there will be people aged 83 or over who qualified during these periods (e.g. in the forces) and didn't have to take the test.
Also there are lots of people who never had the need to drive.
I've grown up in Canada, and QEII has been our head of state my entire life. I'm fully aware of the historical relevance of the Royal Family's predecessors and the relevant "evil" done in the name of the British Empire. I do somewhat understand that there are those that will regard the death of a member of that family with some glee. What astonishes me is that there is little recognition of the effort put into changing the state of affairs that she inherited when she took the throne. Certainly she did not change these things with her sole effort, but with her grace, style and dignity she absolutely helped things along.
There are few leaders, or figureheads, about these days who carry themselves with similar grace and elegance. As much as there are millions of folks who demand massive change in the world, there will be millions of folks who demand that the status quo remain. A leader or figurehead who can see that the change needs to happen, and can also bless the process of convincing the others that change is good with such charm, dignity and elegance, is priceless. And to do so while also being willing to portray their humanity openly, is awesome.
I'm certainly *not* a monarchist in the traditional sense, however the need for a stabilizing, constant calm, dignified and elegant figurehead in leadership is utterly apparent in recent times. I for one am completely done with the raging conspiracy theorist populist clickbait media puppets that believe "entertainment" is more important than "informing the public". Looking around the planet, it is becoming abundantly clear that irrational, illogical vituperative commentary about *anything* by the everyday politician garners far more attention than the ever rarer, calm, rational process politician. In times like these, a figurehead who can provide the contrast necessary to make the difference abundantly clear is needed more than ever. There were several times in our recent history where Her voice was that contrast.
Much like I was not a huge Obama fan, I am not a huge Royal Family fan, but Elizabeth and Barrack both had the same affect. In times of chaos and clickbait, they carried a certain dignity and grace to the roles they were engaged in. That, I at least, appreciated. Sadly I doubt that Charles III will have an iota of what his mother brought to the role.
I am an atheist myself, but:
God bless and Godspeed Elizabeth, may your have the blessing of crossing the rainbow bridge to be surrounded by your many adored corgis and horses.
I met my postman today and asked when they were on strike. "It was meant to be today but it's been cancelled out of respect for the Queen passing."
I asked why he didn't have any letters. "We weren't given any, nobody anticipated this."
So why are you walking the streets? "It's my job."
I wish I was joking but this is national insanity. Royal Mail workers wandering the streets in a daze without any mail to deliver. 2022.
I remember the good old seventies when cigarette packs were marked "By Appointment to Her Majesty the Queen", although I suspect Princess Margaret had a hand in that, now they deface the packs with depressing messages and photos. If you went to a cinema in Hamilton you were expected to stand for the English National Anthem, and if you didn't you'd be beaten up.
"It's the national anthem of the United Kingdom"
Well, maybe if you haven't been to Hampden or Murrayfield. It's the English anthem, and your Union Flag is the butcher's apron.
I chose Hamilton because it exemplifies the blight of the English monarchy on other 'home nations'. Nearby Larkhall has right, white and blue curbs and public railings. In Blantyre some idiot walked along two football pitches to deck me for wearing a French international top because it looked a wee bit like a Rangers top.
My first flat was served by two ice-cream vans, one whose jingle played The Sash and one who played L'Internationale. Desperate for cigarettes one day I went to the wrong van and was then shunned by my neighbours. My only allegiance was nicotine.
You have no idea how confused Dutch people are by British reactions to murals of Willem van Oranje. FTP graffiti here does not refer to File Transfer Protocol, and a lot of FTQ graffiti is going to have to be changed to FTK. Your royal family is expensive throughout the UK, but it carries a far heavier price in Scotland.
"Picking up outgoing mail is also a part of that job."
Oh aye Jake. After the local fraternity boys smashed my mail box with a baseball bat from a passing Chevy, the mailman would often stop by to ask if I had outgoing mail. Knowing you, you have checked and that is maybe part of their job in the UK today, but trust me, it just doesn't happen.
We still have a few letter boxes, albeit in Scotland we blew a fair few up for having EIIR on them. I hasten to add not me personally, I'd use a chisel.
There's nothing sadder than a self-hating colonist monarchist. Marry, shag or kill - Elizabeth, Diana or Meghan?
Paris Hilton on Twitter...
"The original girl boss. One of the most inspirational women. The end of an era. [Crown emoji] RIP [Broken Heart emoji]"
@ParisHilton
https://twitter.com/ParisHilton/status/1567942524593127424
Wot not Paris icon?
It's only been 2 days, another 8 days to go, then some. What I'd pay for an Ad-blocker that also blocked articles on the Royal Family, right now.
Not sure what content would be left, though, in terms of the MSM.
Hundreds of Brooklyn Beckham articles? What a time to be alive. /s
Even the FT, a paper I could previously rely on to avoid most of the RF gossip crud.
The BBC report they are going to be looked after by Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and Sarah, Duchess of York -
To be fair to Liz, she did acknowledge Freddy Mercury. In her skit with Paddington they both tapped out "We Will Rock You" on their teacups. And to be fair to Freddy, his death wasn't untimely, it's a miracle he lived so long. I had a pal that gay and reckless, didn't live that long.
The mad British public are sacrificing tons of flowers - or is it tonnes - and I really don't get the link between death and flower sacrifice. My dad hated having flowers in the house due to his hayfever and when he died we had to stick them in buckets due to a lack of vases. Chocolates, he would have wanted chocolates.
Flower sacrifice seems disrespectfully paltry for a Queen. We should at least bury her various heads of state with her. Fire some corgis from cannons.
"As someone who was born in an age where computers were room-sized, the speed of innovation certainly outpaced the institution she was born into."
Er... There were no computers in 1926 - room-sized or otherwise.
That said - who cares? A 96yo mother, grandmother, great grandmother has passed on. Her family are having to deal with her passing. Oh, she happened to be the Queen as well...
RIP
I did see in the War Memorial in Canberra a huge electromechanical computer used for gun control - though whether this one was on a warship or at a military base I can't say.
Likewise I remember reading about the roomsful of computers - mathematically skilled women - that worked on the series of A-bombs detonated at Maralinga and other Australian sites.
So as far as fully electronic computers goes, your statement is correct; as far as electromechanical monstrosities and people doing mathematical computation functions goes, you're inaccurate.
I'm gonna set your flag on fire! That's from the Dixie Cups version of Iko Iko, one of the best songs.
My first job was with an American bluechip chip maker, the factory had three flagpoles in front which was just pretentious. Stars and Stripes, Union Flag and a Saltire. The chemical company opposite us had a bigger pole but only flew their company logo, no fun.
At least twice a week wee boys would race up to the flag poles on their BMXs and try to steal the flags by cutting the cord with their pen-knives, and our janitor would rush out to scare them off. It was hilarious to watch, like Benny Hill without the undressed women. Consistently they went for the American flag first, then the Scottish flag, the British flag was always safe - I dunno why. Nowadays a sixty something man wouldn't chase after a gang of armed kids for something as silly as a flag.
Now that Charles is king can we go back to the red masthead? Life is depressing enough.
Ah, the fields are crying out it's jubilee
We sold ourselves for love but now we're free
I'm so sorry for that ghost I made you be
Only one of us was real and that was me
I heard the snake was baffled by his sin
He shed his scales to find the snake within
But born again is born without a skin
The poison enters into everything
In 17th century Britain, the monarchy was reinstated because the population was desperate for someone to stop the civil wars and to restore stability. Not because they liked the King or the Monarch as an institution. At the time this seems reasonable to me.
These days, however, I feel we should retire our Monarchs and become republics. The Monarch isn't needed to safeguard political and civil stability and the notion that someone rules over us because of their heritage sounds alien to me.
But as far as Monarchs are concerned, Elizabeth was an icon. Rest in peace!
The Monarch isn't needed to safeguard political and civil stability
O? I'd say recent (last couple of years) events in a couple of countries have shown other wise.
and the notion that someone rules over us because of their heritage sounds alien to me.
AMEN to that and I wouldn't want the job, but recent (last couple of years) events in a couple of countries have caused me to be glad they are there.
It was the English songwriter Julian Cope who was in a group named Queen Elizabeth and popularised the term 'Fuckingham Palace scum'.
I can't get back to my Edinburgh flat today due to road closures and full public transport due to the brainwashed Palace scum viewing her 'lying in state', ie staring at a coffin. I hope they are keeping her body refrigerated because it's going to be rank by the time they fly it to London - they could have put her on the Megabus from Aberdeen and she'd be there by now.
I'm glad to see the red masthead flying again.
My English nephew just returned my Leonard Cohen CDs after a year, which include the song Treaty, unplayed. He couldn't find a CD player to play them on. He is a DJ, thousands of pounds of kit, not one CD player which underlines I am a remnant of a past civilisation.
Every monarch was a hi-tech monarch because they could always afford it.
I'm sorry for spamming the thread but I just remembered I spent two days and a night in a royal palace, Glamis, back when the Queen mum was a thing. How many of you plebs have slept in a royal palace? Aye, I thought not.
It was on BBC Countryfile last night, iPlayer now, apparently one of Liz's favourite childhood places.
It was horrible, far worse than a night in the cells. Draughty, freezing, damp and you couldn't start a fire in the fireplace let alone burn the place down even if there had been fuel. That much money and acreage and they didn't have any firewood?
I was pals with the gardener, and the gardens were horrible ornamental guff, which I mentioned to my pal but he was 'only following orders'. Aye. He took my advice and quit to move to the Scilly Isles, which sounds to me to be some sort of Elven tropical paradise.
The Queen was a masochist. Apparently her personal bagpiper would have to play for her at 9am every morning regardless of where she was. In a palace, up a hill, 9am bagpipes. I'm a proud Scot, and I like Scottish bagpipes every decade or so, but never at 9am.
I don't think y'all deserve the monarchy. I just read a "down with the monarchy" article.
Why should the people tear down the monarchy? "The monarchy has $28 billion in assets."
These are the people that built and rebuilt and maintained all that is great about the United Kingdom. 800 of them.
How about the wealth and power of the thousands of eastern European gangsters pulling the strings there? That ok?
The Royals, all of them, are worth $28 Billion dollars. Doing the math, this is about $35 million per peer.
Elon Musk, just one man, is worth $241 Billion dollars.
Jeff Bezos, just one man, is worth $114 Billion dollars.
Surgey Brin, just one man, is worth $95 Billion dollars.
People are running the streets, raping and killing others.
But, It is all the Royals fault? ... You think so? Really?
We have no Royals, but more rape and murder.
Perhaps there is some correlation there?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
