My condolences to our British and Commonwealth friends.

I'm in my mid-60s, and she's the only British monarch I've ever known. I think she did a magnificent job. It's remarkable that she was able to be on her feet, greeting the new PM just two days ago. I'm glad that her family was able to be with her when she passed. Do they call her Mum or Grandmum, Nana, etc. in private? I hope so. I hope that they are able to fully share their grief with each other away from prying eyes.

I like that her first public speech, as a very young teenager, was to comfort and support other children who were being displaced by the bombing of London during WWII. She saw so much of modern history unfold during her very long and productive life.

I recall 1952 when King George, her father, died. We were called from our classrooms to the assembly hall to hear that the King had died. We sang God Save the Queen for the first followed by the hymn "God our help in ages past...". Hard to believe that was 70 years ago.
t
Now there will be a lying in State for the people to show their respect and I can only guess how big the numbers will be that will file past. Then there will be a State Funeral of a type and size that only two "commoners" have experienced (Wellington and Nelson). I suspect the coronation of Charles 111 will be in June next year.

https://www.suggest.com/queen-elizabeth-family-members-what-call-her-we-have-answers/2656201/

"Her kids, Prince Charles, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew, and Prince Edward, all call her “Mama.” The children allegedly use the French pronunciation, putting the emphasis on the second “ma.” Charles has also referred to her as “Mummy.”

"Her grandsons, Prince William and Prince Harry, call her “Granny.” However, William apparently could not properly pronounce “Granny” when he was young, so he called her “Gary.”

"William’s kids, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis, call the queen “Gran-Gran.” Like his father, George had a bit of trouble pronouncing the nickname at first, and his mom Kate Middleton revealed that he used to call her “Gan-Gan.”

-----

I'm not sure what Harry's children call the Queen.

That is so sweet. I'll bet she loved having little William call her "Gary." And George's "Gan-Gan" is adorable as well.

Here's more about names/titles, summer:

Prince Charles (Queen's eldest son, of course), formerly titled the Prince of Wales and referred to as His Royal Highness, is now King Charles III, automatically and instantaneously upon the Queen's death. Now he is His Majesty, no longer Royal Highness.

Camilla, his wife, will be known as Queen Consort, with the blessing of the Queen. I believe that means she will be addressed as "Queen Camilla".

Prince William, Charles' oldest son, previously known as Duke of Cambridge, is now Duke of Cornwall (one of Charles' former titles) in addition to his current title Duke of Cambridge - so he becomes the Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge.

As such, William's three children will be Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge, Prince Louis of Cornwall and Cambridge and Princess Charlotte of Cornwall and Cambridge. When they started school they were using the names George Cambridge, Louis Cambridge and Charlotte Cambridge for simplicity and to keep a lower profile (if that is possible). Maybe they will keep it that way to make things easier for the kids and everyone else.

For Prince William to become the Prince of Wales, like his father was, the new king has to bestow that title on him - it is not automatically passed down the way the dukedoms are.

George, as the oldest son of William, may one day also be known as Prince of Wales, if William obtains the title and then, in turn, bestows it on his son when William, in turn, becomes king.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's children will now be known as Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. They didn't have the titles before. I think the explanation for this is that they have "moved up in the line of succession". Previously, they were felt to be too far along in the line to merit those titles. I did think that Meghan had said her children wouldn't have titles and I got the impression that was her choice (or hers and Harry's) but today the commentators/historians are saying the titles are automatic since the Queen's passing.

Prince Andrew, the Queen's youngest son, may eventually become Duke of Edinburgh, which was Prince Phillip's (Queen's husband) title.

Some of the titles are automatic, by tradition, some have to be given by the monarch.

I don't have much of an idea of why and how or when each title is chosen and given. Other than that at the moment of a monarch's death the next in line assumes the top title.

The lines and rules of succession can get quite complicated apart from that (for me at least).

On another note, one major feature of a monarch's death that I had NO CLUE about/never thought about at all is that our money (bills and coins) as well as our postage stamps have to change so the current monarch's picture appears on legal tender and postage stamps. I heard on the news that to that end Charles has already sat for his portrait. Wow - imagine that being your first order of things in the face of a parent's death.

I wonder how long our money with the Queen's likeness will be legal tender. And what about those books of everlasting stamps I've bought, with her famous face on them? Surely they have to give some notice and time to trade in the old to bring in the new.

But that's how it goes: The Queen is dead, long live the King.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2022 07:29PM by Nightingale.

More from the link I posted above - so sweet:

"When the royal family is in public, they all refer to the queen as “Your Majesty” or “ma’am.” However, when they’re at home, the rules are relaxed. One of Queen Elizabeth’s most well-known nicknames is “Lilibet.”

"When she was a small child, Queen Elizabeth was unable to pronounce her own name, calling herself “Lilibet.” The name stuck and has been her nickname for years. Her grandson, Prince Harry, even named his daughter “Lilibet” in honor of his grandmother.

"Only very close family members and friends, typically ones who grew up alongside her, are allowed to refer to her with this nickname. Her late husband, Prince Philip, used a shorter version of this name, calling her “Bet.” Philip also used to call his wife “Cabbage,” which many suspect comes from the popular French nickname, “petit chou.” This phrase literally means “little cabbage,” but the French use it as another word for “darling.”

-----

I'm not sure how I'd like being called 'Cabbage' but sure, in French it's cute.

Thanks for the lesson on history and protocol, Nightingale. I know some of it, but other items are new to me. I believe that King Charles (like the Pope) can select another name if he so chooses, but I don't think he will.

Love "Lilibet." <3



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2022 07:54PM by summer.

Interesting information Nightingale, thanks for that.

A couple of small corrections though. Prince Edward is the Queen's youngest son, and the one who may be made Duke of Edinburgh. Andrew is the one who is very much in the bad books with his association with Epstein.

Also, it's true Archie and Lilibet have moved up the line of succession, as everyone below Charles has. But the reason they're now eligible to use the titles "prince and princess" is that the current protocols state that those titles are reserved only for Grandchildren of the reigning monarch, which they have become today.

Because William is a direct heir to the throne, his children have been eligible to use the titles since birth. In future, George's children will be titled at birth, but Charlotte's and Louis' will only be titled when or if William is on the throne. Unless protocols change of course!

I'm not a monarchist at all when it comes to Canada - I look forward to the day that we no longer have the British monarch as our head of state. But I was sad today. I admired Queen Elizabeth. She would not likely have chosen her role in life on her own, but having been dealt those cards she was completely dedicated to fulfilling her duties.

looking in Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prince Edward is the Queen's youngest son, and the one
> who may be made Duke of Edinburgh. Andrew is the
> one who is very much in the bad books with his
> association with Epstein.

Oh yes, I meant to say Edward - thanks for catching that. I sure do know the difference between those two sons. In spite of proofing and editing multiple times I still made that major gaffe. Yikes.


> Also, it's true Archie and Lilibet have moved up
> the line of succession, as everyone below Charles
> has. But the reason they're now eligible to use
> the titles "prince and princess" is that the
> current protocols state that those titles are
> reserved only for Grandchildren of the reigning
> monarch, which they have become today.

Good point. I did hear that later from one commentator. Maybe the first one I listened to didn't know or didn't mention that detail. That is, of course, the most important aspect of the difference in their claim to those titles. It might be a bit weird to be in the US, essentially American children, yet be in possession of such high titles, even if they are not esteemed or are even mocked by many in the "new world". :)


> Because William is a direct heir to the throne,
> his children have been eligible to use the titles
> since birth. In future, George's children will be
> titled at birth, but Charlotte's and Louis' will
> only be titled when or if William is on the
> throne. Unless protocols change of course!

Wow. Interesting. Makes your head spin though. Can you imagine being in charge of protocol?! So much to know and to try and get right.


> I'm not a monarchist at all when it comes to
> Canada - I look forward to the day that we no
> longer have the British monarch as our head of
> state. But I was sad today. I admired Queen
> Elizabeth. She would not likely have chosen her
> role in life on her own, but having been dealt
> those cards she was completely dedicated to
> fulfilling her duties.

I am not an avid monarchist - it's just that it's the system I know as it's always been here since I have been so it's familiar and just there and that's the way it is - until it's not. But I agree with you in having high regard for Elizabeth. I think it's a crucial piece of info to remember that she, indeed, did not choose her destiny but she embraced her responsibilities and duties admirably. Maybe there are many who would not have done so. She was rewarded at least, I hope, by knowing in her lifetime that she had the affection of (most of) the people. Selfless service does deserve recognition, at least. I think she had a little fun along the way. She got to marry the man of her dreams at least and they had a long, happy life together. And she reportedly loved a good joke.

I'm heartened to see that picture of the little Queen standing there to greet the new British PM just two days before she finally lay down to rest. She is wearing a big smile, standing on her own two feet in comfortable surroundings and looked very cheery. She didn't have to deal with a long, unpleasant, lingering final illness. But for us, it was sudden, despite her advanced age. I still keep thinking - she only got one day of peace after her final day of work and then she toddled off. Still, that's better than the alternative of lingering and suffering. I'm so glad some of the family members made it up to see her in time. I hope she knew they were there.

Yes indeed, and I hope her leaving was peaceful. It seems that her last official public statement was a message of condolence to the people of the communities of James Smith Cree Nation and Weldon Saskatchewan. Only a day later the condolences are for her family.

"The children allegedly use the French pronunciation, putting the emphasis on the second “ma.”

This is NOT the French pronunciation because all syllables have equal stress in French. ;-)

RIP as for any person. I'm not a monarchist, however, so I stop there.

Soft Machine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The children allegedly use the French
> pronunciation, putting the emphasis on the second
> “ma.”
>
> This is NOT the French pronunciation because all
> syllables have equal stress in French. ;-)

Maybe it is when it's the English who are speaking the French! :)

I heard Charles' speech today and he did indeed say MaMA and PaPA, although not with any jarring emphasis. Just kind of a little sing-song-y.

She was always so lovely.

Summer, I'm sad, too.

I was surprised to feel a rush of sadness. No Monarchist me, but she was easy to appreciate as a person in one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't positions. Well played Ms. Windsor.

On a lighter note, makes me wonder if Charles will be the inspiration for so many life stories like those of the Queen that earned so many Oscars, Emmy's and Bafta's for so many actresses.
Extraordinary life-- a lot of meat there. Not really a life she led but more like a mantel she carried with grace.

woops should have checked the spelling for that kind of mantle. Now I'm picturing her lugging around a big marble fireplace.

D&D - you should be able to go back in (for 24 hrs) and just edit your post above.

But that's me - kind of finicky about spelling and grammar. I notice most people don't bother. So yeah, I use 'edit' a lot, even to adjust spacing. A bit OCD I know.

I can't log in. Long story. Well not that long but not that interesting. Got to proof better.

Intrigue...

(Kidding - I get it)

Something happened when I changed monikers and can't log in with either nor neither.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> she was easy to appreciate as a
> person in one of those damned if you do and damned
> if you don't positions.

> Well played Ms. Windsor.

Luv ya, D.

That's what I admire her for. She didn't ask for the job, and may not even have wanted it. But she saw the potential in it, what she could accomplish, and she carried it out to the best of her ability. And her people loved her for that.

(To a much smaller degree,) I feel parallels with my career as an urban teacher. It was not at all what I pictured, or even wanted. But it was the task that I was given and I did it to the best of my ability. And I helped some people along the way.

There is something to be said for a strong sense of duty. I have seen it in my family members who have done the right thing, sometimes under immensely difficult circumstances. It's a trait that is seldom celebrated these days.

ETA: Thank you to the clean-up crew. I know you don't deserve having to mop up after me, but once in a blue moon, things need to be said. I appreciate you.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2022 07:55PM by summer.

I thought your comments were entirely appropriate.

It's difficult for people in a different culture to understand the importance of a unique institution, but that does not mean the institution is otiose. Elizabeth did a very difficult job exceptionally well and I don't think her successors can, or very possibly anyone could, match her achievement.

Lot's wife wrote in part:

"It's difficult for people in a different culture to understand the importance of a unique institution, but that does not mean the institution is otiose. Elizabeth did a very difficult job exceptionally well and I don't think her successors can, or very possibly anyone could, match her achievement."

I very much agree with this sentiment. One of the things that the late queen did very well was not publicly taking political sides. Charles, on the other hand, has been known to take sides on a number of political issues, and many royal commentators think that that could get him in to some hot water in the not-too-distant future.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ETA: Thank you to the clean-up crew. I know you
> don't deserve having to mop up after me, but once
> in a blue moon, things need to be said. I
> appreciate you.

I note that it wasn't only your post that was nuked, summer, so there's that.

Once in a blue moon, indeed. (Especially from you, lol!)

summer's post got nuked because it was a response to an inappropriate post by someone else - who will remain unnamed.

Yes, I clocked that (in the London slang sense, not the more recent connotation that I only just learned about today).

I read that her favorite bowling alley will not be used for a year.

I think that quite fitting.

But as I mentioned in another thread, I will acknowledge no other sovereign.

Of course. She should have the place to herself until her temple work is done and she whisked away to the CK where no such games are available.

Russ Nelson is more than a year and a half *older* than Elizabeth. Take a hint, Russ. Jeez.

I am sad. Yes, I knew this day would come but I am sad. I was finally able to get my Jubilee pillbox and it was delivered yesterday. I have her Birthday box too. I am going to have some Buckingham Earl Grey today. Politics aside, she was one hell of a woman. Duty, honor but the thing I admire the most was her ability to change. I don't think a lot of people really understand how much the world changed during her life. She was not raised to be a Queen. Young ladies of her station didn't do what she did during WW2. She wasn't a passive little flower, she went after the man she wanted and she got him. She changed the laws and William's daughter has her place in the line of succession. Both of her grandsons and Charles married women who would not have been acceptable in the past. She LEARNED from the disaster with Princess Diana. She broke with Royal protocol for those weddings too. She loved her family and I believe she tried her best even with the ones that were nasty to her. I am glad that William and Kate were able to be so close to her. Going forward I think that will help them a lot.

I am glad that she passed in a place she loved so much. I believe it is the place she felt closest to her husband. Not just Balmoral but the "Little Cottage".

But I am sad.

Why would Kate have been unacceptable in times past? If Wallis Simpson was okay. . .

On a different topic, I presume you have seen the 2006 film The Queen, which does a good job of demonstrating her political acumen and the subtle ways in which she employed it. Mirren was a great choice.

Simpson was not acceptable not because when was a commoner or because she was American. She was unacceptable by that time's standard because she was twice divorced; a situation further compounded by Edward's symbolic role as head of the Church of England

Oh, I understand that. But Simpson provided a reason for Edward VIII to abdicate, which was necessary once war with Germany became likely if not inevitable.

That reality sheds light on GNPE's question about the value of the monarchy, for Great Britain could not have sustained a six-year war for survival against great odds if a Nazi sympathizer remained on the throne.

Without George VI, Britain would not have won the war.

Susan I/S Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Politics aside, she
> was one hell of a woman.

Indeed, Sus. A fact that many people miss, unfortunately.

I was just saying to my sister this a.m. how incredibly much the world changed in her lifetime and she didn't get left behind. In fact, she was a trailblazer in many ways. It's hard for so many in younger generations to visualize a world where the woman/man in the street (including the Queen) did not have computers at hand or {{gasp}} cell phones and yet she managed to do her duty, go out and about nearly non-stop and communicate with all the peoples of the Commonwealth and beyond. Of course, there are many social changes as well and yes, she did keep up, even if it seemed slow at times.

Indeed she served in WWII. Even though Buckingham Palace was bombed, her parents the King and Queen chose to stay in London in solidarity with all the other residents. Elizabeth and her sister Margaret, young at the time, were evac'd to nearby Windsor Castle for safety. Princess Elizabeth gave a radio address to other kids to bolster spirits. She felt affinity with their suffering because her home too had been attacked. Princess Elizabeth carried out her first inspection of a military regiment at Windsor Castle, an activity she would repeat countless times throughout her long reign. When she was only 18 she joined the women's branch of the British Army and trained as a mechanic. Part of her training took place in Aldershot, the town where my father was born (at a future date). She trained in part in Camberley, a town where my mother's sister and her family lived (also at a future date - same place - different times).

The Queen was the first female member of the Royal family to see active duty in the British Armed Forces (not in combat, nor anywhere near the front lines, if such existed during the bombing raids over London). She continued driving all of her life, also unusual for someone in her position.

(I took some of the above info from the 'Net but didn't directly quote it).

Service was indeed the touchstone of her life. A former longtime CBC news anchor commented today that the Queen "promised she would serve and boy did she deliver". Think about the fact that a mere 48 hrs before her death she was carrying out her duty, bidding farewell to the previous British PM and welcoming the incoming PM (Britain's 3rd female PM). So, in effect, this long-serving, gifted, kind 96 year old woman enjoyed exactly ONE DAY of retirement before her final day on this earth. That's what I call a hard-working person, in a major way.

Speaking of not expecting to be queen, if her uncle hadn't met Wallis Simpson (American), ending up abdicating, she would not have been at the top of the line of succession as she was when the Crown ended up on her father's head because of his brother's choices. Elizabeth was only 10 years old at that time. She knew then that one day she would become queen (unless her parents had another child who was male - a long shot that never occurred - because her mother was 36 and her father was 41 at that time). Then, due to her father's untimely death at age 56, Elizabeth became Queen when she was only 25 years old. Unexpected indeed. But she stepped up in a big way. For 70 years!!

I have read that Balmoral Castle was one of or even her most favourite place. I am SO GLAD she was there - for once she put her own wishes first when she chose to be there at this time. Perhaps she knew she was reaching the end of the road.

I heard such a cute story on CBC this morning - Canadians had erected a log cabin beside Windsor Castle (one of the Royals' primary residences) as a memorial to the Forestry Corps in WWI. I guess Elizabeth as a young child was told something about it being connected to Canada. She and her grandfather, King George V, often spent time at the cabin, which Elizabeth thought was actually Canada, and they had little tea parties. Elizabeth apparently called herself 'Miss Canada' and she called her grandfather, the king, 'Grandpa England'. So sweet. Definitely a different childhood and life altogether than the vast majority of humankind's lives but that's not Elizabeth's fault.

CBC replayed portions of the Platinum Jubilee celebrations (to mark 70 years on the throne) today, with the Queen so smiley and happy looking on the balcony at Buckingham Palace. They showed her skit with Paddington Bear which is so beyond darling. It's moments like that when you see the woman beneath the crown. If you haven't seen it, try and look it up to watch it. So very cute and sweet. She was a trooper to do things like that, especially, as we've mentioned, when you consider the stuffy age in which she grew up.

Balmoral is in Aberdeenshire. My own dearest mum was born in Aberdeen. Her tears would be flowing today for the British Queen she respected. Mum's hair was the same type and colour as the Queen's, another reason my fondest feelings for both women sort of mix together. That and their accents, although Mum's wasn't so highbrow.

I know the monarchy is not everybody's cup of tea but it's not the Queen's fault. She was taught her duty and she did it faithfully and remarkably well for the largest portion of her life. It's too bad that more people didn't note her wonderful sense of humour. Watch the Paddington Bear clip to catch just a glimpse of it. Paddy said to the Queen: "Happy Jubilee Ma'am and thank you - for everything." The Queen replied: "You're very kind". I love that she had that big celebration - very good timing.

Our PM was choked up as he gave his tribute today. He said "She was thoughtful, wise, curious, helpful, funny and so much more. Canada is in mourning. She was one of my favourite people in the world and I will miss her so." It is "une grande tristesse" he said (a great sadness). She was Queen for almost one-half of Canada's existence. I will miss her dearly."

For whose death are political and sports events postponed out of respect? Not all that many. And all the folks out in the pouring rain outside Buckingham Palace today, spontaneously singing God Save the Queen.

I'm toasting her tonight with my Yorkshire Gold tea and watching all the coverage. I have **never** seen an entire day on CBC TV without a single commercial break, since before 0600 today and ongoing as we speak. That's an amazing tribute in itself.

I feel sad too, Sus, at the loss of the familiar presence of someone I admired.

She did her duty. That's not a bad epitaph. It’s one I greatly respect. She surely deserves to rest in peace.

Nightingale, saw a cartoon today of the back of the queen walking into the sunset hand in hand with Paddington Bear. She had her handbag which I assume carried a marmalade sandwich.

Oh, I'd love to see that, kentish. Definitely there'll be a marmalade sandwich in that bag!

Great info, and wonderfully presented, Nightingale!

As you mentioned, during WWII, she served her military duty as a trained vehicle (think: automobile, mostly) mechanic--and along the way, she developed a deep fondness for driving, something which is most definitely NOT encouraged for those in the line of succession in the royal family, especially the monarch!

Once she was in the direct line of succession (as I understand the story), and after the war ended, she was forbidden to drive--basically: ever again. She did what she had to do to get minds changed somewhat, and finally, at last, she was eventually given permission to drive when she was on her estate in Scotland (as I remember) because that estate was so well guarded.

One day, she was driving around the estate and realized something was wrong (and getting worse) with the engine of the automobile she was driving. She pulled over, opened the hood, and promptly got to work repairing the problem since she was, after all, a qualified and experienced automobile mechanic!

Wherever the guards on the estate were, though, whatever they were using to track her around the estate was plainly indicating that she had unexpectedly, and without any reason to their perception, stopped the car at a particular place. Guards were immediately dispatched to that location. When they arrived, she assured them that the car was now fine because she had fixed whatever it was that needed fixing re: the engine, and she was in no danger at all.

I think having a head of state who is a qualified automobile mechanic is a neat thing to be able to boast about!

P.S. If you run across the photos of President Obama and Mrs. Obama, when they went to visit her, look carefully at everyone's faces. The Obamas, and the Queen, all together, are just BEAMING with happiness and good cheer, and the photos of their mutual enthusiasm is so deep and so incredibly genuine that it made ME smile!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2022 10:40PM by Tevai.

Thanks, Tevai.

I thought of a few other little stories I heard today.

One was told by a Canadian man whose family worked a farm the Queen came to visit long ago, at her request as she was interested in the work they were doing. He was busy taking photos all day (with actual real cameras that were used back in the day), snapping pix of his family members and the Royal party. It all looked quite informal and fun, as if it was just one big happy family having a picnic. Some of his pictures were shown today, with the Queen and Prince Phillip looking young and Charles and Anne impossibly youthful, all blending in with the farmers, relaxing, eating together, all smiles. The man said he and the Queen were the only ones who had cameras that day - so those photos are really part of history.

The second account was also about photos. Apparently an American man was visiting England when he came across a man and woman walking near Balmoral Castle. He asked the man "Have you ever met the Queen?" (because, I guess, foreign visitors somewhat expect that everyone in the UK has run into her?). The man replied "Yes, I have" and the visitor excitedly asked "May I take a picture of you?" because he thought it would be a thrill to have a picture of the man who had seen the Queen. The man assented and the two men posed together while the woman snapped the photo. Then the woman asked the visitor "Would you like to take a picture with me?" to which the guy said yes - the photo was duly snapped and the visitor went on his way. The commentator relating the tale today wondered about the visitor's reaction when someone, somewhere, finally informed him that HE had met the Queen and she was the woman he had met, who ended up standing beside him in the photograph! The man who had been with the Queen was her protection officer. They speculated that the visitor perhaps didn't recognize the Queen because when she was out walking around Balmoral she often wore her trademark headscarf so perhaps didn't look like herself to someone who didn't really know her.

One of our former Governors General, David Johnston, related one of his experiences with Queen Elizabeth. Of course, no outsider is permitted to touch the Queen but once when they were walking together, Mr. Johnston noticed that there was a significant "wrinkle" in the carpet ahead and he was worried that the Queen would trip over it. He was aware of the well-known fact that she was strictly hands-off but then, he said, he thought of his mother who he could imagine saying don't let her fall so he reached out and held her elbow so she wouldn't trip. He said he could imagine the tabloids blaring out the news about "the country bumpkin who had grabbed the Queen". Johnston said he later received a message from the Queen's private secretary to let him know that the Queen had said "It's great to know that chivalry is alive and well in the United Kingdom". Johnston said today "Thank heavens for my mother's voice". Funny.

Another story that made me laugh:

A man who had been one of the Queen's protection officers spoke of one of his first days on the job. They were at Balmoral. The Queen was walking around and about and then she headed further afield. She asked him "Are you coming with me?" He said in his account today that he wasn't sure of the correct procedure at that point, wondering if perhaps security arrangements were different in Scotland than in England and she was maybe expecting to go walkies on her own but finally he answered her by saying "I think we should". The Queen answered, with a twinkle in her eye, "You're absolutely right. I think you should too."

She was quite celebrated for her lively sense of humour. I can imagine she could be a lot of fun behind the scenes.

These are wonderful stories, Nightingale!

:)

Fact: The “Royalty” of the British Family was a Huge tourist draw to England & G.Britain + wherever she visited. Nothing wrong there even tho the Royals nearly 100% figurehead.

I am sad she has passed, but …
If there is (?) any afterlife, will she apologize to Diana?

". . . nearly 100% figurehead?"

No.

LW: O please elaborate on your NO

and btw, you misplaced a “?” inside a quote; Not Accurate

I believe the Queen or King has some ‘real’ influence on British government & governing



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2022 09:25PM by GNPE.

Two points.

First, even figureheads are important. George VI helped keep GB united during World War Two: Churchill couldn't have done what he did without that support. For her part QEII played a major role in legitimizing the unraveling of the British Empire as well as helping the country redefine its relations with Europe. She is also the means through which London retained disproportionate influence over the commonwealth and a number of former colonies.

Second, there were a number of instances, including the Diana debacle, in which Elizabeth exercised a subtle influence over prime ministerial decisions and defanged potential conflicts with the heads of other states--i.e., taking some of the heat off of Theresa May when Trump came calling.

In short, the queen represented an established power center with expertise in a number of fields whose import is easy to dismiss for people who don't understand the system.

I agree with U, LW; I didn’t (intend do) denigrate or be dismissive the roles of a figurehead however accidental their birth, adult roles or wealth was.

I think she's been remarkably effective at a job to which she was, as you note, accidentally born. As I have noted before, I'm not sure her successors will be--or even can be--up to her standard.

Japan is another country where the emperor has been for many centuries a figurehead, with the country actually run by either the shogunate or later the civilian government. But he was so adored, even worshiped, by the Japanese in the 1940s that if he had not broadcasted his determination that the country should surrender, the resistance to the American invasion of the homeland would have been absolutely ferocious.

Figureheads matter.

Think in terms of the Constitution as a living person. Not the best analogy but it will do. The essence and under pinning of the British system in the entity of the Crown. The monarch is the living representation of that essence. As has been said, it is not the power the monarch has but the power they deny to others. Specifically those who would usurp that power.Probably not a great explanation but is is the best I can do for someone who supports the system.

God save the King, send him victorious, happy and glorious...may sound worshipful to the monarch but if he/she is all those things then the people are too by extension.

I was 4 when King George unexpectedly died and Elizabeth II was crowned. We didn't have a television station in Lethbridge at the time but I can remember my mom talking about it. Charles is a couple months younger than me so I was always aware were were almost the same age.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2022 02:00AM by Lethbridge Reprobate.

I spent several years of my youth in British Hong Kong. That meant wearing a school uniform to school and having a picture of Queen Elizabeth II on the classroom wall. Communist China was just north of us and the British put Gurkhas on the border to intimidate the Chi-Comms from doing anything aggressive.

Hong Kong was a haven for people who escaped communism so I heard first hand what a horrible system it was. If you looked at the world in the 1970’s the best places to live were the US or US territories or Britain or British Commonwealth countries. Since the British lease on Hong Kong was going to run out, Hong Kongers were making arrangements to immigrate to Canada or Australia.

The Queen was over the commonwealth. She owned a lot of land and actually had more power than people think. But she didn’t abuse her authority and pretty much let the local leadership run things.

Tell me how any of it affects you? The Queen was admired for the many individual qualities she displayed throughout a life time if service to the role that wad thrust upon her. To me the entity of the Crown is less about the person than the institution and yet she brought everything of herself to her position. I believe in time she will be referred to as Great Queen Elizabeth, marking the esteem in which h she is held by the British people.

I have no doubt that Charles will step into the role and no doubt he has big shoes to fill. I am sure he will bring changes not least because he is a different person with different ideas. What I'm sure of is that the stability the Crown brings to British life will continue. It us not as if stability is a plentiful commodity in our world today and perhaps that is its greatest part in the system.

Follow the prophet.

Kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It us not as if
> stability is a plentiful commodity in our world
> today and perhaps that is its greatest part in the
> system.

This is a point I have been thinking about.

You and I disagree on some of the international stuff. I think Britain lost an immense amount from opting out of Europe initially and then being froze out by France. I likewise believe that the British identity has already changed beyond recognition just in the last few decades and would have continued to do so whether or not Brexit had occurred. It's just that now the change will occur at a lower standard of living and with less British influence abroad.

So what is the value of a fusty monarchy? This isn't the same thing as asking whether it is the best form of organization for the UK or any other country, but it is important.

I've suggested above that the the monarchy--the sense of Britishness being more than Britain's politics--helped hold the empire together, strengthened the UK through WWII, and gave London disproportionate influence in the former empire. To put it differently, how long would the commonwealth survive if the monarchy were gone? What institution would sustain the historical ties in the absence of a king or queen?

Your point, I believe, is apt. The function of a figurehead is to give people something to look at besides the quotidian sausage-making of parliament and government. There are other institutions that can serve that purpose, including historically a powerful ideology/religion in many countries and in the United States a firmly rooted commitment to constitutionalism and the American project.

But what happens when that unifying force ebbs? What happens when half a people turn against the constitution or, in a different country, the traditional concept of nationhood? The answer is that people lose faith and civic patterns founder. That has clearly happened in the United States, where anti-democratic forces have gained immense power and people now confront the possibility of an enduring change in the nature of the state and society. The result is a widespread disillusionment and disunion in which the sense of national identity weakens.

It's easy to overstate this, but having a monarch as an overarching symbol of the nation is helpful in maintaining a sense of commonality in such a crisis. In other words, what the UK and the US and the West in general face now is a definitional question somewhat redolent of the early 1930s in Germany, France, and yes, Britain. The presence of an overarching institution is helpful in preserving the sense of commonality in such times. People can look to the monarch as signifying a British project that will last beyond the behind-the-bleachers fumblings of today's adolescent leaders. The United States, by contrast, lacks such a supra-political identification now that the populists have set about deracinating the constitution.

Again, I overstate the import of the monarchy. But it would be a mistake as well to underestimate the utility of such symbolism at a time like the present.

We've trumped Brittany and become great again and managed to not fall apart without a monarch. ;)

Maybe humans don't need a stinking monarch, fearless leader, big brother.

I'm not saying monarchy is good for every country, nor that it is a net positive for any country, just that at times it is beneficial to some polities.

As for making America great again, I just hope we can declare victory and stop making it greater before there's nothing left.

I have watched the coverage today on BBC America, including the service in magnificent St. Paul's Cathedral, and the outpouring of tributes from all sides. I am left with a profound sense of home sickness that I am not there, how can I say, to just be there. I do not expect those born in other countries to fully understand how deeply rooted in the fabric of the country is the monarchy. Our history is measured and marked off by who was the monarch at any point of time and eras are often named after them. Prime Ministers and their politics come and go, the Crown seamlessly continues.

The Queen is described in many ways but the words that appear most often in tributes are words like grace, dignity, duty, and consistency. I do not know about modern Britain but those are the values that were placed front and large in my education and growing up. I believe they are not without merit today, perhaps especially today in our rapidly changing and troubled world. Seventy years of sustaining super glue has broken away but it is reapplied in a new monarch. Hopefully he is up to the task and the hopes of the people.

I guess that is what it feels like to have a president for most of a century.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess that is what it feels like to have a
> president for most of a century.

Not really, I wouldn't imagine, for at least one major reason. The monarch is apolitical so there is no division based on political interests or clashes. This tends to bring people together based on commonalities rather than scattering them apart into competing camps due to contentious disagreements.

In fact, King Charles III (until yesterday known as Prince Charles) has already announced that he will have to change course now that he's king, giving up many of his former interests and causes - for example, his decades-long work re environmental issues, because that is potentially seen as a political view or cause and, indeed, usually is.

It's interesting how time can change perceptions. He was seen in the past by some as being a little bit flaky because of his preoccupation with climate change and organic farming, etc. Now, given the urgent prominence of these and other similar issues today, he's seen by many as some kind of prophet or seer - not in the religious sense but because he could see way back what all too many either could not see or didn't want to know or admit, landing us where we are now with all the environmental urgencies that face us.

With presidents (and prime ministers in my country) etc we get a lot of political posturing and jostling, by the nature of our system, which most often supercedes the imperatives of urgent issues of the day. Politics don't generally lead to a useful meeting of the minds.

So, King Charles et al v President Whoever, no contest really.

Apparently, she is people's spiritual grandmother and a saint of some sort of something like religion.

https://www.newsweek.com/viral-tweet-asks-us-respect-queen-death-spiritual-grandmother-king-charles-1741220

I see her passing as no different than a pope or a prophet.

Nightingale. Beautiful lone piper lament in St. Paul's today. He slow marched from just before the great doors down the center and up over the alter to the back. Lament. what an apt description. Does anything compare!

I saw it, Kentish. No, nothing can compare.

You said above:

"I am left with a profound sense of home sickness that I am not there, how can I say, to just be there."

I get you. I felt that urge too. It's not really my country as although I was born there I was 3 when my parents transplanted me. Not that Canada's a bad place (at all!) but our hearts have always been halfway over there.

You're right that it is likely tough for non-Britons to get the full picture of it all (not that all people in the UK are in favour of the monarchy) but the tradition, the customs, the memories, the music, all are precious if you go for that sort of thing and yes, the constancy has a lot to be said for it.

And, Queen Elizabeth II is an amazing example of selfless service to an entire nation and beyond. She did what was asked and expected of her and she always did it with grace. Just like the song says "our gracious queen, our noble queen".

I thought Charles' speech today was excellent. He hit all the right notes. He is a good speaker, with a pleasant accent. You could tell he is very upset at this loss, as he himself commented, of course. Even though his mom was elderly and it comes to us all, it's a huge loss, as we all eventually come to know.


Note to summer: So sorry that I hogged your thread. I didn't intend to do that but it turns out I had a lot to say (unusually for me - not!!). Thanks though - I appreciate your post.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2022 06:03PM by Nightingale.

My heart was with Charles today as he spoke about his mom. It brought back how tender my emotions were after the death of my mother and then my wife. He was pure class today. Bless him and his family.

Not at all, Nightingale -- that's what the thread is for.

I was also touched by Charles's speech. Anyone who has ever lost a mom can empathize. I don't care how old or how sick your mom is, she is still your Mom. He must be so grief-stricken, but is carrying on regardless.

No one - I mean NO ONE- does pomp like the Brits!

There are going to be 10 days of funerary activities apparently. They said she planned them herself. I can hardly plan my trip to the grocery store.

...Dagny's spontaneous funeral...

Not that anyone will exist to plan it.

LOL. True! There would be a great celebration if anything existed after my death, but alas. ;-)

It's hard being the center of the universe sometimes.

I hate to say it, but when I fall asleep you cease to exist too. I perceive you as a Christmas tree light, blinking in and out of existence in a welcome and cheery fashion.

We've had a lot of practice, Dagny, and traditions die hard.

I'm a Premier League fan, and out of habit, I looked up today's schedule only to find that all matches are cancelled through September 16th. Well, of course they are. Duh.

Given the loss of a month in December for the World Cup (ridiculously in Qatar) there will be a massive scrunch of games to make up somewhere in the season. Ah well, perhaps it will give Liverpool more time to get their act together.

In my mind I was back there today. No piece of music invokes my homeland quite like Elgar's Nimrod especially when played against a backdrop of the English countryside. Some of you may know the piece from the way it was adapted for the movie Dunkirk.

I was startled by the statement (Nightingale, or PM Trudeau, I don't remember who said it) that Elizabeth had been the queen for almost half of the entire existence of Canada as an independent nation. Wow. Her entire lifetime spans more than half of the time since the confederation of Canada.

I had to smile this morning at a NYTimes headline to the effect that without Queen Elizabeth, how would the British people have known how to be British. I have to admit, she was the epitome of "Keep calm and carry on" who led the UK into the post-colonial era.

She should have treated Meghan and Diana better, and Prince Andrew worse, so she wasn't perfect, but a great many situations were handled with deftness, grace and dignity. There is still a fair amount of royalty floating around in the world. I couldn't name a single sovereign from any other country, and doubt I would even recognize more than a name or two if given a list. I'm pretty sure a significant majority of the entire planet's population know who Queen Elizabeth was. She will be missed. My friends in Canada are a combination of proud and mournful right now.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was startled by the statement (Nightingale, or
> PM Trudeau, I don't remember who said it) that
> Elizabeth had been the queen for almost half of
> the entire existence of Canada as an independent
> nation. Wow. Her entire lifetime spans more than
> half of the time since the confederation of
> Canada.

The PM and myself are often interchangeable, BoJ. :P

I heard that fact about Canada and the Queen's lengthy reign on CBC, which is pulling out all the stops in their wall-to-wall coverage of the Queen's death and its aftermath. I'm OD'ing on all the history, remembrance, amazing video and photos as well as the informed commentary.

On another note, I'm well aware of the negative historical realities that complicate feelings, opinions and reflections about legacies. Countless people are in favour of the monarchy and hold the Queen in special high regard. Obviously, there's another side and I understand that not everybody feels positive (understatement) about the institution of the monarchy. However, that professor who remarked the other day that she wished "excruciating pain" upon the Queen as she died demonstrated appalling animosity towards an elderly woman who had no personal involvement in perpetrating ills upon anyone. She is being admired for stepping up and doing her duty which even in this age people do value and admire. She is not responsible for wrongs done in the name of the British Empire of old.

Edit to Add: I think there's a good possibility that King Charles will participate in discussions about the Crown's role in past injustices in various countries as well as the need and possibility of reparations and other avenues of reconciliation.


> I'm pretty sure a significant majority of the entire planet's
> population know who Queen Elizabeth was.

Yeah, you just have to say The Queen - no name necessary - and everybody knows who you're referring to.


I saw the apparently impromptu walkabout by the two princes and their wives this morning at Windsor Castle (on "the long walk"). Massive crowd, endless bouquets handed over. Must have been a security nightmare. Lots of kids were there and the four Royals took time to bend over or crouch down and chat to many of them.

So that's a new King and his Queen Consort as well as two Princes and their wives and children who survive the Queen. Life does indeed go on and for them so do all the pomp, ceremony, ritual, responsibilities, duties and expectations.

I so hope there won't be ongoing drama about Harry and Meghan. There must be room for compromise and a way to forge a path for everyone.

A friend of mine from nursing school is saying her last good-byes today as she was diagnosed a short while ago with incurable cancer and she only has days left. She would give anything to be with her family longer, and they with her. What a tragedy to waste time in squabbling. As Isaac Watts said a good long while ago:

But, children, you should never let
Your angry passions rise;
Your little hands were never made
To tear each other’s eyes.

I heard that poem a long time ago and those lines come to my mind whenever I'm about to lose my cool: your little hands were never made to tear each other's eyes.

When I do lose it I tell myself, well, your hands aren't really all that little...

I hope this time of grief for their family helps to bring the brothers back closer together.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2022 04:24PM by Nightingale.

I'm all for reparations, Nightingale. Right after Britain gets theirs from Rome, the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, the Vikings, and the Normans. The Uk is one of only a very few countries that meets its promised .7% of gdp to foreign aid, much of which goes to former colonies. How far back should we go in history to make people of today pay for past injustices they had nothing to do with.

The United States, Germany, and the UK are the biggest donors to foreign aid in that order Of the three only the UK meets the .7% of gdp.

It depends how you define foreign aid.

I assume the aid I am referring to is cash. Personally I would prefer most foreign aid to be given in vouchers to be redeemed for free product manufactured or produced in the giving country. Too much history of despotic leaders misusing actual cash and that way home industries are benefited too. JMV.

In March of 2013, my coworker and I tuned in to MSNBC every day to see if white smoke rose from the Vatican to announce a new Pope. There it was! —I said, hooray we’ve got a new Pope. We looked at each other and said, hey we’re not even Catholic, and then we agreed, yeah, but he’s really everybody’s Pope.

That’s how I feel about Elizabeth II, I’m not British, but wasn’t she really everybody’s Queen?

I think so.

The difference is, I’ve since come to believe the pope is a rat.

Why?

Because he hasn’t stepped up to the plate in preventing sexual assault on youth within the Catholic Church.

Yep. I knew that was what you were implying.

That's his single greatest betrayal.

I thought you would be off mourning Ken Starr tonight somewhere, but here you are talking about rats with Kathleen.

As if rats and Ken Starr were incompatible.

Hah!

OK, for all you QEII fans ;-), here are some amazing photos of a woman who rose to the role history foisted upon her - and who was a beautiful woman in her youth.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/gallery/2022/sep/10/the-queen-a-life-in-official-portrait-photos

have a great weekend

Tom

For anyone who reads the online edition of the Daily Mail there is a wonderful article there on the Uk News page by Dominick Sand brook that captures so much of the mood of Britain today as he experiences it in a London pub. Brilliant piece, IMV, especially by the standards of the Daily Mail.