Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Betty had had ENOUGH!

Packing her bags as we speak.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 178December 12, 2019 1:29 PM

Thank the goddess. It’s high time this nattering old biddy was retired.

by Anonymousreply 1November 28, 2019 4:53 AM

She would just allow Charles to become regent, since only God can end her reign.

by Anonymousreply 2November 28, 2019 4:53 AM

HM is 93 years old. She has done her duty magnificently for the past 68 years. If she wants to step back, let her heir take over, enjoy her remaining years in peace and comfort, well why the fuck not!

by Anonymousreply 3November 28, 2019 4:57 AM

Can't wait for season 10 of The Crown - Charles, Prince Regent cuts out the Duke of York.

by Anonymousreply 4November 28, 2019 5:01 AM

As if. She'll never retire.

by Anonymousreply 5November 28, 2019 5:02 AM

Fuck all you queens. I'm the greatest QUEEN of all time and I'm not going anyway.

by Anonymousreply 6November 28, 2019 5:03 AM

Yes Yahoo entertainment is an unimpeachable source of breaking news.

by Anonymousreply 7November 28, 2019 5:03 AM

Fuck that! One is staying forever. Ones family are a bunch of right royal fuckups, one is going nowhere!

by Anonymousreply 8November 28, 2019 5:16 AM

If it's true I can't blame her under the circumstances. Should have done it at least a decade ago though.

by Anonymousreply 9November 28, 2019 8:43 AM

Will she move to a rented flat in East London?

by Anonymousreply 10November 28, 2019 8:45 AM

Whatever.

by Anonymousreply 11November 28, 2019 8:48 AM

[quote] HM is 93 years old. She has done her duty magnificently for the past 68 years.

She had t done shit. It’s the 21st century. Enough with these freeloaders.

by Anonymousreply 12November 28, 2019 8:50 AM

It's sourced from the Express. Which is like saying it's sourced from the bottom of the bird cage.

She was appalled and angry when Juliana and Beatrix retired. She believes in monarch for life so while Charles may get more responsibilities, I don't think she will give up the throne itself.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 13November 28, 2019 8:56 AM

Time to get rid of these annoying, embarrassing parasites.

by Anonymousreply 14November 28, 2019 9:06 AM

I would love to see her tramping around Ibiza. Never too late to run away from home.

by Anonymousreply 15November 28, 2019 9:13 AM

Wow, Andrew not only ruined his reputation, but wounded his mother so much that she doesn't feel capable of continue on as the nation's leader. I hope he feels like dog shit. This is a lucky break for Charle's children because he is all about protecting their interests. I hope she only allows him to become a regent and doesn't completely step down as Queen. Could you imagine how awkward that would be to call her Princess Elizabeth again? It would be simply madness.

by Anonymousreply 16November 28, 2019 9:17 AM

I rather enjoy having a constitutional monarch.

I enjoy that no one will ever be able to buy or bluster their way to the highest social position and state position in the UK.

I enjoy that it makes the least sense possible now. I enjoy it as a quaint anachronism.

Look around the world at some of your 'elected' presidents and tell me again of the wonders of a democratically elected head of state ; how uncorrupt, how much fairer your lives feel, how much better your lives are, how much more pride you feel.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 17November 28, 2019 9:20 AM

God Save the Irish ☘️

by Anonymousreply 18November 28, 2019 9:22 AM

[quote]since only God can end her reign.

So how did Edward VIII get away with it?

by Anonymousreply 19November 28, 2019 5:37 PM

Her nickname is Lilibet. You plebs should have gotten it right by now after 93 years!

by Anonymousreply 20November 28, 2019 5:47 PM

R19. Edward abdicated. He didn’t simply resign or retire which legally would have allowed him to come back. Abdication is renouncing your legal right to return as king. It’s a technicality without a huge difference, but abdication locks down your inability to return as sovereign.

by Anonymousreply 21November 28, 2019 5:49 PM

So, will Andrew and Sarah remarry before Elizabeth retires?

by Anonymousreply 22November 28, 2019 5:51 PM

"I declare before you that my WHOLE LIFE whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service"

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 23November 28, 2019 6:01 PM

Betty on Assistance?

by Anonymousreply 24November 28, 2019 6:01 PM

This is not saying she wants to abdicate, this is saying she wants to retire from public duties and have Charles as regent. Those are two different things.

by Anonymousreply 25November 28, 2019 6:07 PM

Really. When they pry it from our cold dead head.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 26November 28, 2019 6:14 PM

Izzy Dole

by Anonymousreply 27November 28, 2019 6:16 PM

She’s not going anywhere. She is the monarch for life, not Jenny in Billing who is going to retire and tend to her cats and her garden. She’ll quit when she’s dead.

by Anonymousreply 28November 28, 2019 6:22 PM

[quote]Could you imagine how awkward that would be to call her Princess Elizabeth again? It would be simply madness.

Wouldn't she become a Queen Mother, like her mother did?

by Anonymousreply 29November 28, 2019 7:31 PM

If she does, Andrew will get the blame! And maybe Sparkle, too, if she's stupid about things.

She'll never abdicate. She will gradually step back from public duties, but she has a pathological sense of duty, and won't even allow a regency as long as she's able to walk unassisted and talk coherently. Which is never guaranteed, over age 90.

by Anonymousreply 30November 28, 2019 7:35 PM

R29 The Dowager Queen Elizabeth was a Queen Consort not a Queen Regnant, which is why she wasn't Queen Elizabeth 2nd herself.

The Queen Mother styling was only revived to avoid confusion with her Daughter - Queen Elizabeth II, the current Queen.

by Anonymousreply 31November 28, 2019 8:27 PM

Has she ever had an orgasm?

by Anonymousreply 32November 28, 2019 8:30 PM

I read she was taking up a Las Vegas residency.

by Anonymousreply 33November 28, 2019 8:35 PM

"Fuck dis, bitches!"

by Anonymousreply 34November 28, 2019 8:36 PM

If Liz retires from public duties, she'll be Queen and Camilla will be the Duchess of Cornwall. If there's a regency Elizabeth will be Queen and Camilla will be Duchess of Cornwall. If she abdicates due to ill health, she'll be Queen and Camilla will be Duchess of Cornwall. If Elizabeth dies, she'll still be known as THE Queen, and Camilla will be the Duchess of Cornwall!

That's Camilla's penance for fucking a married man in front of the whole world, not being styled as "Queen" even if she actually is. Which is ridiculous and old-fashioned, but apparently that's how things will be handled, by a ridiculous and old-fashioned institution.

by Anonymousreply 35November 28, 2019 8:41 PM

I thought they'd settled on 'Princess Consort' for Camilla, though it'd take an act of Parliament to prevent her becoming Queen Camilla.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 36November 28, 2019 9:01 PM

[quote]Edward abdicated...it locks down your inability to return as sovereign.

So, that' what we need from all of them?

by Anonymousreply 37November 28, 2019 9:01 PM

Princess Consort just sounds so slutty & dirty. You wouldn’t even have to ask for anal.

by Anonymousreply 38November 28, 2019 9:09 PM

Sounds too much like Princess Escort.

by Anonymousreply 39November 28, 2019 9:12 PM

As pointed out, she doesn't have to abdicate; all she has to do is name Charles as Regent. It means he is in charge of the real operations of the monarchy, but she remains the titular Sovereign. She can also not to anything at all, but simply let Charles do most of the work, show up enough to make it clear she remains Sovereign, and sign whatever she has to sign on a daily basis.

The real issue is which strategy works best for the country and the monarchy seamlessly - formally putting Charles in charge, or just letting it get about that he's in charge.

Below are the terms of the most current Regency Act:

"As of 2019, under the provisions of the Regency Acts in force, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, would act as regent in the event of the incapacity of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. The next person in the line of succession, the Prince of Wales' elder son Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, would also be able to succeed without necessitating a regency and would be eligible to be regent for his grandmother or his father.

As of 2019, the first person under the age of 18 in the line of succession to the throne is William's son Prince George of Cambridge, who is third in line to the throne after his grandfather and father. If the prince were to succeed to the throne before his 18th birthday on 22 July 2031, his uncle, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex (the Prince of Wales' younger son), would serve as regent, as George's younger siblings Charlotte and Louis (currently fourth and fifth in line, respectively) would also be minors. In the event that Prince Harry would be unable to serve as regent, the next in line would be his uncle (Prince George's grand-uncle) Prince Andrew, Duke of York, followed by the Duke of York's elder daughter Princess Beatrice of York."

I would guess that this Act will have to be revised post haste due to the mention of Andrew and Beatrice. Not to mention the Sussexes if they exit.

That leaves, practically speaking, if the Yorks are skipped, Prince Edward and Kate if the Sussexes depart, and one reason for holding on to them may indeed be the Regency issue.

by Anonymousreply 40November 28, 2019 9:15 PM

She wants to get out now in case Dump is re-elected. One state visit was enough.

by Anonymousreply 41November 28, 2019 9:29 PM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 42November 28, 2019 9:32 PM

Is the Dowager Emperor of Japan sunning at Ibiza with nubile girls?

by Anonymousreply 43November 28, 2019 10:11 PM

Bye, Felicia.

by Anonymousreply 44November 28, 2019 10:17 PM

[quote] So how did Edward VIII get away with it?

He was never anointed.

by Anonymousreply 45November 28, 2019 10:35 PM

She's not really the nation's leader, r16.

Stepping back or stepping down would not mean she would have to revert to the title of princess.

by Anonymousreply 46November 28, 2019 10:37 PM

R17, pretty much all countries with a ceremonial presidency and a prime minister as political leader are doing just fine.

The British constitution, on the other hand, to the extent that it exists, is falling apart.

by Anonymousreply 47November 28, 2019 10:41 PM

R17. Have you seen the present King of Thailand. He’s worse than Kim Jong-in. A perfect disaster.

by Anonymousreply 48November 28, 2019 10:42 PM

Jong-un

by Anonymousreply 49November 28, 2019 10:43 PM

Interesting. I wonder what will happen. But she sure let Charles and William decide what to do about Andrew. She has to be very tired.

by Anonymousreply 50November 28, 2019 10:43 PM

I bet Charles really wants to be named King. He's waited a long time. Longer than any other Prince of Wales by far.

by Anonymousreply 51November 28, 2019 10:45 PM

I doubt she disagrees much with Charles and William about Andrew, r50. She may love Andrew as her son, but protecting the reputation of the monarchy has always been the most important thing for her.

by Anonymousreply 52November 28, 2019 10:50 PM

R40 As Titular Sovereign, she would be required to go braless. Which could be a problem at her age.

by Anonymousreply 53November 28, 2019 11:49 PM

Nobody calls her Betty, you know.

by Anonymousreply 54November 29, 2019 12:11 AM

Nobody calls R54 at all.

by Anonymousreply 55November 29, 2019 12:13 AM

Can't she just wave her wand and declare her right to retire (without abdicating or dying)? Just make it up as you go along.

by Anonymousreply 56November 29, 2019 12:17 AM

I call BS on this. I think she will handover a great many of her public duties to Charles, but she will not make him regent unless she is to frail to continue with the administrative side of being monarch. The Queen has always said being monarch is a "job for life" and she see her coronation vow as a promise to God. Making Charles regent while she is still in good physical and mental health would, in her yes, be a dereliction of duty.

by Anonymousreply 57November 29, 2019 12:20 AM

This process started years ago when she stopped doing long foreign tours, she's just doing less engagements as time goes by as you would expect.

by Anonymousreply 58November 29, 2019 12:22 AM

I highly recommend it!

by Anonymousreply 59November 29, 2019 12:36 AM

Fewer

by Anonymousreply 60November 29, 2019 12:36 AM

Has she written her autobio yet?

by Anonymousreply 61November 29, 2019 12:47 AM

So which of her estates does The Queen actually own?

by Anonymousreply 62November 29, 2019 12:59 AM

R32 - I suspect she's had quite a few. One of the surprising stories that emerged from her early years of marriage that she was enthralled with sex and Philip was actually heard complaining that he couldn't keep the young Princess (as she was then) out of his bed, until his father-in-law, King George VI, took him aside and told him to shut it.

People forget that she is and always has been a countrywoman. She bred horses and dogs. People like that are usually not squeamish about Mother Nature. Because of her position her home base is London, but as Robert Lacey put it in his biography, "she manages to be in the city, but not of it".

In point of fact, Queen Victoria liked sex, too, and had a very close union with her husband. It was the pregnancies and childbirth that it generated that she hated.

by Anonymousreply 63November 29, 2019 1:16 AM

But has she had sufficient?

by Anonymousreply 64November 29, 2019 1:17 AM

R62 - She owns Sandringham and Balmoral personally. I believe Birkhall in Scotland, also. Windsor and Buckingham Palace are part of the Crown Estates; so is Kensginton Palace and so is Frogmore House (the estate on which the Sussex's Frogmore Cottage is located). That said, the Royals (which is probably to say, the Queen and Charles) have investments including billions in proeprties that aren't public knowledge.

by Anonymousreply 65November 29, 2019 1:20 AM

R64 - Oh, I'll wager she was a right Messalina . . .

by Anonymousreply 66November 29, 2019 1:21 AM

Oh, and Charles, of course, own Highgrove.

by Anonymousreply 67November 29, 2019 1:22 AM

She would feel that its her duty and obligation to 1) remain queen, and 2) establish a regency to ensure that her legal and other responsibilities are taken care during her last days.

by Anonymousreply 68November 29, 2019 1:34 AM

R68 - In a perfect world, that should be the plan at this point.

I think it's interesting that Charles hasn't been seen since his return from NZ. Nor Camilla. Is he still huddled in conference with Philip up at Sandringham?

Wouldn't it be something if HM used her Christmas Message to announce the appointment of Charles as Regent?

by Anonymousreply 69November 29, 2019 1:51 AM

She'll retire after she has broken the 72 year record of Longest Serving Monarch in Europe currently held by Louis XIV.

by Anonymousreply 70November 29, 2019 1:53 AM

[quote]I think it's interesting that Charles hasn't been seen since his return from NZ. Nor Camilla. Is he still huddled in conference with Philip up at Sandringham?

Charles is transitioning. There are not that many people left who remember life under a king, so he plans to continue as Queen Charlotte. That way they won't have to change all of those "Her Majesty's ___" signs on government buildings. (And people can sing the same national anthem.) The Brits don't like change, you know.

by Anonymousreply 71November 29, 2019 1:56 AM

If William were to die before becoming King, would Harry be next in line, or George?

by Anonymousreply 72November 29, 2019 1:59 AM

George.

by Anonymousreply 73November 29, 2019 2:02 AM

[quote] If William were to die before becoming King, would Harry be next in line, or George?

Scary Spice would rule, hon.

by Anonymousreply 74November 29, 2019 2:03 AM

Ginny worked up until the time she died R28. In fact, she collapsed at work and died in the hospital.

I hope our Lilibet doesn’t have fibromyalgia too.

by Anonymousreply 75November 29, 2019 2:17 AM

In the 1950s, when she swore to serve as the Queen for her entire life, she probably had no idea she would live this long. (Life expectancy wasn't so great in those days.)

by Anonymousreply 76November 29, 2019 2:19 AM

[quote] Charles is transitioning.

Oh, good God, that's the last thing the monarchy needs at this point!

by Anonymousreply 77November 29, 2019 3:09 AM

R70 a real little record holder, that one, no? Give it a rest.

by Anonymousreply 78November 29, 2019 7:10 AM

Your title made me think of an episode from Laverne and Shirley. Betty, please!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 79November 29, 2019 7:37 AM

R74 - Oh, the Regency Act is constantly being amended. As it is, Charles will have to amend it soon to get Andrew removed from it, and possibly Pss. Beatrice, too.

If Spicy Spice has exited the family, that will let him out, too. They'll amend the Act yet again (it was last amended this year) to remove Harry, Andrew, and Bea, and put in Edward and Kate.

And he won't "rule". No one "rules" any longer, s/he "reigns".

There is no way William will stand for a man he feels betrayed him and disrespected his family being the stand-by for his son whilst George comes of age.

It would be a great joke, though, if they all got removed and quiet, low-drama, who is he again? Prince Edward ended up Regent.

Frankly, it would almost be a relief.

by Anonymousreply 80November 29, 2019 12:28 PM

R77 for the win on this thread . . .

by Anonymousreply 81November 29, 2019 1:02 PM

R72 I hope they don’t bypass Adorable George if he’s gay.

by Anonymousreply 82November 29, 2019 1:40 PM

R22 Gossip has it that Andrew and Sarah are waiting for Philip to die so that they can get married again. But it is gossip so probably not true.

Charles will become Regent if the Queen cannot continue with her duties, but she'll still be Queen. He'll be Prince Regent.

by Anonymousreply 83November 29, 2019 2:13 PM

"Gossip has it that Andrew and Sarah are waiting for Philip to die so that they can get married again. But it is gossip so probably not true. "

Yeah, well, there's a rumor that Andy thinks that getting marrying Fergie again will help to rehab his image, and Fergie certainly won't say "no" to marrying anyone with money. So it might happen, not that it'll get him back in with the royal family.

by Anonymousreply 84November 29, 2019 4:27 PM

Does anyone still care about Fergie? She's grotesque and grasping.

by Anonymousreply 85November 29, 2019 4:38 PM

Retire?not friggin likely. going for 75 years laddies on the throne.

by Anonymousreply 86November 29, 2019 9:50 PM

Andrew is nearly 60, at some point who gives a fuck about what his dusty father thinks? His father is not the king and has no moral ground to stand on in the judgment of others. He fucked his way through a ton of woman. He's no saint.

If the Queen were to abdicate (which is unlikely) she would be called HRH Princess Elizabeth, possibly the Duchess of Edinburgh (?), just like King Edward was demoted back to HRH/Prince. You can't have 2 Queens and Queen Mother doesn't fit her station. Then again, it's all about titles and Parliament will allow Elizabeth to take whatever style she desire after her many years of service to the nation.

by Anonymousreply 87November 29, 2019 11:22 PM

R87 Don’t make stuff up, you only look stupid.

If (and it’s a HUGE if) HM abdicated, she’d most certainly be styled as “Queen Elizabeth”. There is only ever one “The Queen” at a time.

When HM first came to the throne, there were three living queens in the UK: The Queen (Elizabeth II), Queen Mary (consort of George V) and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (consort of George VI). The latter was only called “Queen Mother” as she had the same first name as her daughter. But apparently in the royal household, the Queen Mother was always referred to as “Queen Elizabeth” and her daughter as “The Queen”. Or “Her Majesty”, hence the fabulous words of the Buckingham Palace staff when Mummie calked Lillibet for one of their daily chats”: “Your Majesty, Her Majesty for Your Majesty”.

The Netherlands is the only monarchy where an abdicated monarch reverts to their princely style.

by Anonymousreply 88November 30, 2019 12:02 AM

Once she retires to Africa HRH wishes to be known as "Bettishka."

by Anonymousreply 89November 30, 2019 12:04 AM

i can't believe no one ever had the courage to chop of the head off these pedophiles and genocidal leeches

by Anonymousreply 90November 30, 2019 12:22 AM

That's very interesting, r88. If you'll excuse my ignorance, why were there 3 queens then, but if QEII fully yielded the throne to Charles, she'd become a princess or duchess again?

by Anonymousreply 91November 30, 2019 12:26 AM

I meant that in reference to what r87 said.

by Anonymousreply 92November 30, 2019 12:27 AM

R91/R92, R87 is wrong and R88 is correct.

by Anonymousreply 93November 30, 2019 12:57 AM

I often wonder what the royal family really think of the royal variety performance night and if they'd just rather have a night in front of the telly.

by Anonymousreply 94November 30, 2019 1:01 AM

R90 - Actually, beheading has proved a useful tool in getting rid of inconvenient monarchs (try a history book), amongst other extremely painful modes of departure used on English and European nobles.

"Henry the Eighth to six spouses was wedded/one died/one survived/two divorded/two beheaded".

And that's just Henry's wives.

Charles I

Lady Jane Grey (the Nine Day Queen)

Mary, Queen of Scots

Oh, and Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette

Then there were the Wars of the Roses, which saw one close in to the line of succession drowned in a butt of malmsey

And leave us not forget the Princes in the Tower

They were all leeches if that's how you view monarchy.

So, you see, it has been tried, quite successfully.

by Anonymousreply 95November 30, 2019 1:02 AM

Thanks, r93

by Anonymousreply 96November 30, 2019 2:17 AM

r88 what did I make up? They reverted Edward back to HRH/Prince after his abdication. Queen Elizabeth might keep the title of Queen, but the precedence, based on the most recent British abdication, is for the former monarch is to revert back to a HRH. Truth be told, you and a lot of people on DL this weekend appear rather snippy. No need for the personal attacks.

by Anonymousreply 97November 30, 2019 2:29 AM

Yes, I definitely had enough !

by Anonymousreply 98November 30, 2019 2:30 AM

Former King Edwards's Styles from Wikipedia.

23 June 1910 – 20 January 1936: His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales

20 January – 11 December 1936: His Majesty The King

11 December 1936 – 8 March 1937: His Royal Highness Prince Edward

8 March 1937 – 28 May 1972: His Royal Highness The Duke of Windsor

He was bumped back to a Prince/Royal Duke

by Anonymousreply 99November 30, 2019 2:32 AM

[quote] but if QEII fully yielded the throne to Charles, she'd become a princess or duchess again?

If she fully abdicated in favor of her eldest son (like Queen Beatrix did), precedent in the UK would have her become the Princess Elizabeth, and they would also probably make her Duchess of [Fill in the blank]. Charles would then be the King.

But that's not being fully proposed. Instead it seems Elizabeth might retain her title as position as titular monarch, but Charles would be given the powers of regency, and he would become the Prince Regent until she died. The queen would remain Queen Elizabeth II until she died, but she would no longer open Parliament, sign legislation, welcome state visits, meet the prime minister once a week, etc.--Charles would handle all those duties in her place.

This is what happened in 1810 in the UK--George III went mad for the second time, and stayed insane for the rest of his life, but retained his position as the titular monarch. His eldest son the Prince of Wales was given all the monarch's powers of regency and was called HRH The Prince Regent until his father died, and then he ruled for another ten years as George IV. (After that, his brother William IV ruled for seven years.)

That's why the years 1810 through 1820 (which is when all of Jane Austen's novels were published) are referred to as "The Regency."

by Anonymousreply 100November 30, 2019 2:43 AM

Wow, how tall is she?

by Anonymousreply 101November 30, 2019 2:57 AM

Time she was Queen Mother. I'm ready for King Charles or whatever he calls himself.

by Anonymousreply 102November 30, 2019 3:46 AM

The reason why we revert one’s title back to Prince/Princess is because, legally, there can only be one Queen, even if the new Queen is a Queen Consort.

It also helps looking at the title and office as a temporary position, rather than some divine, everlasting status by the grace of God and baby Jesus.

by Anonymousreply 103November 30, 2019 4:18 AM

Correct r103. If Elizabeth was The Queen, after abdication (which she will not be doing) it would place her on the same status as King Charles, based on their established use of these titles. Despite what they will call Camilla, the female consort of a King holds their husband's rank. In all but perhaps name, Camilla would be THE Queen, when Charles takes the throne. We can't have The Queen Elizabeth and The Queen Camilla. Elizabeth is not a Queen Mother because that is just another way of saying Dowager Queen. She is also not a Dowager Queen, because that is reserved as an honorary style for widows of the former King. So, that leaves Princess Elizabeth, unless The Queen, Charles, and Parliament come up with a new precedence.

The current rules make sense because this family finds abdication to be an appalling dereliction of duty. Naturally, anyone that gives up the big job will not have the pleasure of keeping the big titles. They go back down to Prince. Dowagers and Queen Mothers retain their Majestic styles because they, and their spouse, served until the end of the monarch's reign. For their service they are not demoted. She won't abdicate so it's all a moot point.

by Anonymousreply 104November 30, 2019 4:58 AM

I believe Camilla will be styled Queen Camilla, for it would set a ridiculous precedent if she were to become an exception to the century-old rule.

by Anonymousreply 105November 30, 2019 5:03 AM

She just needs to stay Queen for another 4 1/2 to break that record. In 2022 she'll celebrate her Platinum Jubilee!

by Anonymousreply 106November 30, 2019 5:55 AM

"They reverted Edward back to HRH/Prince after his abdication. "

But Edward's abdication was considered to be dishonorable and an insult to the monarchy, so of course the Palace did whatever they could to dump on him in ways that weren't screamingly obvious to the public. And that included booting him back to the status of Prince, as he'd been a few months before. It'd be different if Elizabeth abdicated due to ill health after sixty-odd years as monarch, she would be seen as doing the institution of monarchy a favor, after a lifetime of service and dedication, and the Palace would heap any possible honors on her.

Which won't be an issue, as she won't abdicate, even if she is a stroke turns her into a vegetable. In that case Charles will be regent, and she'll still be Queen until she dies.

by Anonymousreply 107November 30, 2019 6:01 AM

Does she secretly want to end the monarchy within her lifetime? Mark my words, six months after Charlie takes over, republicanism will be at 90% approval.

by Anonymousreply 108November 30, 2019 6:45 AM

Hang on, R80 - If the Regency Act is constantly being amended, how come it doesn't put Anne before Andrew (or indeed, Harry)? I know the laws of actual succession were only changed to admit women when young George was imminent, but given that they have been, surely she can at least take her rightful place in the Regency list by now?

by Anonymousreply 109November 30, 2019 12:36 PM

At r42, can’t these cunts ever find gloves that FIT THEM? There is no point in evening gloves if they look like the Playtex jobbies a housewife uses to wash dishes. If you’re attending a formal do and meeting the Queen of England, you spend the extra shekels to search out the one remaining source for custom-fit gloves.

It can’t be that difficult for a First Lady to source properly fitted gloves.

by Anonymousreply 110November 30, 2019 12:44 PM

She’s not going anywhere.

by Anonymousreply 111November 30, 2019 12:48 PM

The only precedent in Britain for a monarch who has abdicated being "demoted" is Edward VIII. And he was never crowned and anointed. When Richard II abdicated for his triumphant cousin, Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV), he wasn't made a duke and sent off to live quietly with his lesser title. He was imprisoned and then murdered.

Meanwhile, the King of Spain's father stepped aside for him, but is still referred to as King Juan Carlos, and his wife, Queen Sophia. When Elizabeth became Queen, her mother remained a Queen and so did her grandmother, the widowed Queen Mary.

You cannot be an anointed and crowned Queen Regnant in Britain and then become a Princess. There is no precedent for that. And, the Queen already holds the Duchy of Lancaster, the way Charles holds the Duchy of Cornwall. The revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster are her means of personal earnings, set up for the same reason the Duchy of Cornwall was: to ensure the Sovereign and the Heir had independent incomes, and thus ward off the kind fo temptation to sell the nation and their positions out for filthy lucre (cf. Andrew's behaviour). So they won't make her Duchess of anything.

The only real option is a Regency, during which HM will remain HM, whilst her son takes care of the day to day operation of the monarchy.

by Anonymousreply 112November 30, 2019 12:48 PM

Oh, and in Britain, the only way to become a Duchess is to marry a Duke. While the Queen is heir to the revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster, she is not the holder of the title "Duchess of Lancaster". Almost all ducal titles are inherited by males.

Royal dukedoms flow ONLY from the Sovereign. She can't create herself HRH Duchess of anything, nor could Charles as the new Sovereign re-create his anointed mother HRH Duchess of Anything. Moreover, she is already Duchess of Edinburgh as the wife of HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.

Should the Queen need to be removed from her duties, say for a diagnosis of Alzheimer's or something that obviously prevents her from carrying out her duties, a Regency will still be the preferred option until she dies of it.

A demotion back to Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Whatever, is utterly ridiculous. She stays Queen until she dies, and Charles becomes Regent. Or they go on as they are. Those are the only two options open to the House of Windsor, no matter what the House of Orange did.

There are no huge religious coronations in the rest of Europe. Only in Britain. It is the difference.

by Anonymousreply 113November 30, 2019 1:34 PM

[quote] So, that leaves Princess Elizabeth, unless The Queen, Charles, and Parliament come up with a new precedence.

In the US, we refer to some queens as "Senatrice."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 114November 30, 2019 2:04 PM

If the monarchy is to survive, Prince Charles needs to step aside. He is too controversial. Thats my opinion. Im sure many will disagree.

by Anonymousreply 115November 30, 2019 2:11 PM

She'll be 94 in April. She can't live forever.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 116November 30, 2019 2:38 PM

I have never particularly liked Prince Charles. But in the last couple of years, he has grown on me. He deserves some time as King. Hopefully, he can be a force in the whole climate change efforts.

by Anonymousreply 117November 30, 2019 3:08 PM

Ealing, [R10], the Safeway on Uxbridge has free underground parking.

by Anonymousreply 118November 30, 2019 3:23 PM

[quote] Hopefully, he can be a force in the whole climate change efforts.

He can't as king. He can have no particular political program as king or he will be forced to abdicate.

by Anonymousreply 119November 30, 2019 4:11 PM

[quote] Oh, and in Britain, the only way to become a Duchess is to marry a Duke.

No, that's not true. In 1912, HH Princess Alexandra of Fife inherited the dukedom of Fife in her own right, and in 1722, Henrietta Godolphin became Duchess of Marlborough in her own right.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 120November 30, 2019 4:19 PM

[quote] The reason why we revert one’s title back to Prince/Princess is because, legally, there can only be one Queen, even if the new Queen is a Queen Consort.

That's not true either. When George VI died in 1952 there were three queens: his mother, Queen Mary; his widow, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother; and his daughter, Queen Elizabeth II. All three were queens of the United Kingdom at the same time. Queen Mary died the next year, but from 193-2001 there were still two queens at one time, and it was quite legal: the Queen mother, and Elizabeth II.

by Anonymousreply 121November 30, 2019 4:23 PM

[quote] Prince William would be smart to implement the woke Sussexes as well

Implement?

by Anonymousreply 122November 30, 2019 4:36 PM

R115, the Sussexes could be an asset. But Meghan is not about to start accepting assignments from William.

by Anonymousreply 123November 30, 2019 4:56 PM

r122, the royal tool perhaps?

by Anonymousreply 124November 30, 2019 4:56 PM

r123, never an asset no, people want LESS royals and that includes those two.

by Anonymousreply 125November 30, 2019 4:58 PM

The Emperor of Japan became Emperor Emeritus upon abdication. It's a completely new title created for him, so the UK could do a similar thing, although we all know how obsessed with tradition and precedent HM is.

by Anonymousreply 126November 30, 2019 5:21 PM

R123 LOL NO. They have 0 interest in working for the monarchy as they have made clear

by Anonymousreply 127November 30, 2019 5:26 PM

She'll appoint Charles as the Regent and she will remain Queen. Tell him what to do and she can relax a little. For fuck's sake the woman is 90+. What do you idiots expect?

by Anonymousreply 128November 30, 2019 5:33 PM

r115 Charles is the most prepared for the job, behind the even keeled Princess Royal. William is far to lazy and still in that horny cheating stage of his life. Let him have another decade of Netflix and chill. He appears to truly hate the amazing opportunity he was born into, so it's best to let him have more time to himself.

Charles, will not be rocking the boat that's been perfected by his mother. He's an old man, not much left for him to do beyond scaling down the size of the Firm. Given Brexit and the attitudes of the 21st Century, scaling down the Monarchy is a smart move.

by Anonymousreply 129November 30, 2019 5:38 PM

During the last regency, the UK invaded the U.S. We should be wary of Charles’ intentions.

by Anonymousreply 130November 30, 2019 7:22 PM

R130 Go for it.

by Anonymousreply 131November 30, 2019 7:24 PM

"So, that leaves Princess Elizabeth, unless The Queen, Charles, and Parliament come up with a new precedence."

There doesn't need to be a "new" precedence: there already is one - she stays Queen, he becomes Regent, end of story.

She will not abdicate in form, only in function. Appointing Charls Regent stops an abdication, which no one wants, including, I would guess, Parliament; it has happened before and could happen again; a Regency Act already exists.

Period, end of. Ffs, they got rid of the monarchy in Greece decades ago, and Constantine and Anne Marie are still referred to as ex-King Constantine and Queen Anne Marie of Greece. Their bloody son still calls himself Crown Prince Paul of Greece.

The only way the Queen would abdicate is if forced to by an Act of Parliament if the monarchy is abolished or if she has been found guilty of a serious crime - that is, apart from allowing Andrew to grow up into a sleazy dishonest amoral swine with no character, no brains, and no inhibition controls.

by Anonymousreply 132November 30, 2019 7:31 PM

r132 we all agreed that she WILL NOT abdicate, we were discussions the titles if she DID abdicate. I think you missed everything else I said in my post.

by Anonymousreply 133November 30, 2019 11:52 PM

Crown Princess Marie-Chantal of Greece!

Memories of when DL had a long period of near dormancy

by Anonymousreply 134December 1, 2019 12:31 AM

[quote] Charles is the most prepared for the job, behind the even keeled Princess Royal.

Charles

Anne

Edward...

Andrew (far down the list)

by Anonymousreply 135December 1, 2019 12:32 AM

Americans need to remember that Charles got a lot of terrible publicity during the Diana period, only some of which was deserved. She had the press in the palm of her hand for her entire life as Princess and beyond, because she only had to sneeze to sell a million magazines. He couldn't have got his point of view across to the masses if he'd tried, and until she started creating massive public scandals, he really didn't try.

All of it diverted attention from the serious work he has tried to do through the years, including building towns on the massive Cornwall estates especially designed to encourage a sense of community (long before the Woke got onto that bandwagon), training young local or at-risk people to work in hospitality jobs in various places owned by the Duchy, working with environmentalists to improve gardening and farming standards in Cornwall, etc. He could've just sat back and raked in the cash, but he's been very hands-on trying to make improvements that appear to be more people-focussed than money-focussed.

I can't see any compelling reason why he's unsuitable to be King. Like Kate, Camilla also fully understands the game to be played and plays it well. If anyone can sort out the Sussexes, it'd be her as Queen.

by Anonymousreply 136December 1, 2019 1:31 AM

She can simply be: The Queen Mother, Queen Elizabeth...

...just like her own mother, whether or not Philip is dead or alive. Her new title doesn’t need to reflect whether or nor she’s a widow or “Dowager.”

And by the way, Camilla will be Princess Consort regardless and just as planned. She should never be queen.

by Anonymousreply 137December 1, 2019 1:53 AM

She can simply be: The Queen Mother, Queen Elizabeth...

...just like her own mother, whether or not Philip is dead or alive. Her new title doesn’t need to reflect whether or nor she’s a widow or “Dowager.”

And by the way, Camilla will be Princess Consort regardless and just as planned. She should never be queen.

by Anonymousreply 138December 1, 2019 1:53 AM

Camilla will be Queen

by Anonymousreply 139December 1, 2019 2:01 AM

[quote] She can simply be: The Queen Mother, Queen Elizabeth...

The King Mother. Haha!

by Anonymousreply 140December 1, 2019 2:30 AM

[quote] Camilla will be Queen

Legally she will be queen consort the second QEII dies.

by Anonymousreply 141December 1, 2019 2:32 AM

I can't imagine the royal family being my obsessive hobby.

by Anonymousreply 142December 1, 2019 2:36 AM

What about the Greek sailor Lilibet is married? Will he live with her if she retires from duties?

by Anonymousreply 143December 1, 2019 6:05 AM

R141 - Legally, Camilla will still be Queen Consort after QEII. As the King's wife is never a Queen Regnant, she remains a Queen Consort. They just don't use the word "consort", it's understood. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was Queen Consort to King George VI. He was the Sovereign, not her. Queen Maxima of The Netherlands is William's Queen Consort; Queen Letizia of Spain is King Felipe's Queen Consort; Queen Siliva of Sweden is King Carl Gustaf's Queen Consort . . .etc., etc.

That status will never change whether the mother in law is alive or dead. They just don't use the word. In the event of a Regency, Camilla will go on being HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. The Regency will end when QEII dies, and Camilla will become Queen Camilla. No one needs to be reminded that her husband is the Sovereign.

No one went around calling Anne Boleyn Queen Consort. Everyone knew who the boss really was.

by Anonymousreply 144December 1, 2019 12:33 PM

R143 - The Greek sailor was a Prince of the Blood himself. He was born HRH Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark - he is, by blood, descended from the Danish royal family. That's why they were able to use his DNA to help identify remains of the Romanovs when they were uncovered. He is, in fact, Elizabeth's cousin. They are both descendants of Queen Victoria.

Anyway, he lives quietly at Woods Farm at Sandringham. If the Queen announces a Regency, she still has to sign papers after being briefed on their contents by Charles. She can, of course, do so from any of her residences she chooses. I believe she considers Windsor to be her real home.

by Anonymousreply 145December 1, 2019 12:38 PM

She can be Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II and Camilla can be Her Mistressess, The Rottweiler.

by Anonymousreply 146December 1, 2019 1:04 PM

R146 - Thanks for that terribly adult contribution to the discussion.

by Anonymousreply 147December 1, 2019 1:51 PM

R142 - What non-Brits fail to uynderstand is that for much of England and Britain's history, the history of the monarchy IS the history of the nation.

Remember Henry VIII and the break with Rome and the Catholic Church?

Remember the Magna Carta?

Rememer the Union with Scotland in the early 18th century?

Rememer Cromwell and the Civil War and the subsequent re-establishment of the monarchy?

Remember the Abdication Crisis of 1936 as the dark clouds of WWII became increasingly visible and the new King was actually a fascist sympathiser?

This all changed after WWII. Today, I grant, it is rather like the soap opera the BRF tried so hard not to turn into in the post-war era. But increasingly, it is becoming clear that that effort is failing.

But given its interweaving with 1,000 years of history and change and the power battles with Parliament, it isn't that strange to be viewing the saga, still, as part of British history.

It's also fun.

by Anonymousreply 148December 1, 2019 2:14 PM

Who can blame her?

And for those who point out that they’re her children and it’s her fault: parents can not control what their children do, after a certain point. And if they can... that’s pathological.

by Anonymousreply 149December 1, 2019 2:27 PM

r149, I agree

by Anonymousreply 150December 1, 2019 3:28 PM

Well, r149 when you are the monarch and your children live off of your money, and gained their positions based on the tip of your hat, you have a considerable amount of influence on their actions. The Queen never set or stuck to a code of conduct for Andrew. He doesn't really work so the bulk of his money comes from mommy's allowances. The jobs he has, outside of the service, could have bene taken away when he acts out. He even lives at her house (BP) and is trailed by security that are accountable to his mother! Most parents are powerless, but Andrew is more like a 17 year old with a drivers license. Free to come and go, but still dependent on mom and dad.

The entire royal situation is pathological. View being in the firm like being in a business instead of a family. Andrew was the Queen's employee. Instead of holding him to the company standard, she let the boss's child run amuck.

by Anonymousreply 151December 1, 2019 4:50 PM

r135 I meant that Anna has the best personality for the job, boring and willing to get on with the task at hand.

by Anonymousreply 152December 1, 2019 4:52 PM

R138 - “Dowager” is only used for the widow of a titleholder who was given her title because of marriage - since upon the titleholders death the title and rank passes to his heir (usually her eldest son). She is no longer the “Duchess of X” since now her daughter-in-law has that title and rank. Dowager” means “widow of” but also “former.” The Queen Mother was a Dowager Queen because her title came from her marriage to the King. Queen Elizabeth would never be a Dowager because the title is hers by birth - in this particular case Phillip world be the “dowager” if he outlived her, but he doesn’t have a title that would be “out-ranked” by King Charles in any event

by Anonymousreply 153December 1, 2019 5:23 PM

R121 I was referring to the House of Orange and why The Netherlands “demote” a former monarch back to Prince or Princess.

by Anonymousreply 154December 1, 2019 5:23 PM

The thing I find most interesting about ER2 is that she is England’s longest reigning monarch and by most accounts has been very good at her job, but if not for Edward & Mrs Simpson she world have lived out her life as a semi-obscure, second-tier royal.

by Anonymousreply 155December 1, 2019 5:37 PM

And she’s spend her whole life surrounded by horses.

by Anonymousreply 156December 1, 2019 5:38 PM

Dutchie - you leave Anne alone!!

by Anonymousreply 157December 1, 2019 5:40 PM

R155 Wallace Simpson couldn’t have children due to physical abuse from a previous husband or lover. Elizabeth’s father was going to die no matter what, I don’t believe the war could matte given how much he like to smoke. Elizabeth would have been able to enjoy more time out of the immediate spotlight, but she would have been like Charles waiting for the big job for around 20 years.

Maybe she would have been like Princess Anne, in the family but able to do your own thing.

by Anonymousreply 158December 1, 2019 5:44 PM

In a last-minute hilarious twist, she'll disown Charles and dissolve the monarchy.

by Anonymousreply 159December 1, 2019 6:16 PM

r158 and it's a good thing that never produced a child because that person would be have been emotionally scared when they realized that their father took away their rights to the throne. Like letting a billion dollar lottery ticket blow out the window.

by Anonymousreply 160December 1, 2019 6:20 PM

R155 - That's what she always wanted to be, confiding as a young girl to a memoirist that what she wanted to be when she grew up was a lady living in the country with lots of horses and dogs.

She has done a superb job in many ways, according to some reckonings: staying above politics, representing the nation on tours as well as at home welcoming foreign visitors, adjusting to modernity. No PM has ever had anything but praise for shrewdness, her unflagging attention to the state papers she received daily, her discretion, and her intelligent discussion of issues.

It's her family that has proved to be her Achilles heel. An irony at the last - the enemy within the gates.

by Anonymousreply 161December 1, 2019 6:31 PM

No, R14.

by Anonymousreply 162December 1, 2019 6:37 PM

There is the sad story (sad to me, at least) when it became clear that Elizabeth would inherit the Crown (since her father's health was declining), Margaret asked her if that was true, and Elizabeth confirmed it was, and Margaret responded, "Poor you!"

by Anonymousreply 163December 1, 2019 6:38 PM

Is this thread safe or are the anti Meghan bitches here?

by Anonymousreply 164December 1, 2019 6:41 PM

The best Royal story, is William IV, hanging on for grim death ( literally), until Victoria reached 18, so as to prevent her mother the Duchess of Kent becoming regent.

by Anonymousreply 165December 10, 2019 4:01 AM

I know R165, I saw the movie. I love Mark Strong even when he plays bad guys.

by Anonymousreply 166December 10, 2019 4:10 AM

As an American i would not like having a king or queen. But I like the queen of England very much and I hope she hangs on for a few more years. We ARE amused!

by Anonymousreply 167December 10, 2019 4:19 AM

I think this Christmas the public will be looking at the royals with a very cynical eye. As if the Sussex drama of the last two years wasn't enough, the recent spotlight on Andrew's sleazy, shady life is a hammer blow to justification for their continued maintenance in luxury by the taxpaying public.

by Anonymousreply 168December 10, 2019 5:18 AM

Christmas Day, everyone is busy and not watching for royals going to church. Everyone i know just times dinner around the Queen's message..as in before or after 3pm. Of course it will be a bit more interesting this year after Boris and Andrew but she won't say anything directly I am sure.

by Anonymousreply 169December 10, 2019 12:22 PM

R169 by the way, BRF gives presents on 24th like in Germany and Scandinavia

by Anonymousreply 170December 10, 2019 12:45 PM

R167 The US President is an Elected Monarch with the power of an 18th century British King. Something Queen Elizabeth II doesn't have.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 171December 10, 2019 3:12 PM

She’ll retire and move next door to Hyacinth Bucket, thus reviving Keeping Up Appearances and providing fodder for endless hilarity.

by Anonymousreply 172December 10, 2019 3:19 PM

R172 It'll have to be a 2 woman show since Hyacinth's entire family is now dead.

by Anonymousreply 173December 10, 2019 5:27 PM

Wait r169, people still listen to those? I know Obama still gave weekly Fireside Chats, to like a Youtube channel or something, but no one was listening. I know, I know, there is a difference between a politician and a Queen, unless her name is Lindsay, but I find it interesting that in 2019 people still stop to listen to her message.

by Anonymousreply 174December 12, 2019 3:47 AM

r174, she has been on tv on BBC1 at 3pm every year I can remember.Top of the Pops and Queenie then lunch. Men go to the pub on orders to be home by 3, women do the dinner. In my family a kind of time stamp. My in laws finish dinner and sit down for Queenie after.

by Anonymousreply 175December 12, 2019 4:14 AM

I’m Canadian and I watch it, for rather fuzzy reasons that are hard to articulate. Tradition, a sense of continuity. And probably in large part because my British mother and grandmothers watched it, and in carrying on the ritual I am with them again in memory.

by Anonymousreply 176December 12, 2019 4:23 AM

r176. yes, It is tradition/habit to watch the Queen. Aside a few local nutters, nobody watches the church thing, or it is just the tail end of lunchtime news for us.

by Anonymousreply 177December 12, 2019 4:29 AM

R172 She'll "accidentally" break Hyacinth's fine bone china, the mean only lady.

by Anonymousreply 178December 12, 2019 1:29 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!