The Queen is not attending todays Remembrance service. Just announced. They say she strained her back.

The BBC is saying she "sprained" her back which is a little more serious than "strained." It's probably true but of course other things are going on with her as well.

She must be in a lot of pain. You can tell her back is curved. That can be very painful. I bet she’s on pain pills. Which would be why she had to give up cocktails.

Just die already, you bat shit crazy old cunt.

Probably threw her old back out after that all-nighter gangbang she attended

She’s my pick for the first big celebrity death of 2022

Charles looks distraught.

That’s just Charles’s default “laying a wreath” face.

Her days are numbered.

Charles gets that look on his face sometimes, and he could be thinking about his father as well. You just can't tell what's going on in that noggin of his.

The Palace has a credibility problem after lying about her recent hospital visit.

The Queen seems like a straightforward lady, I can’t see her wanting a whole charade about various medium-sized health problems if the real problem is something more serious. Perhaps her course of resting has weakened her back and made it easier to sprain—it’s hard to be 95.

Kate Middleton was looking worried and grim in the photos I saw, but it might just have been an unflattering hat (too close to a bowler).

[quote]Her days are numbered.

Too many numbers if one thinks about it.

Does the family usually look this grim during the Remembrance services?

Charles looks pretty shook.

Cam is thinking “FML” about the bellyaching she’ll be dealing with as Queen Consort.

Or, they realize that as soon as the Queen goes, the little-r republicans will have a lot more support for putting this archaic system in the trash heap where it belongs.

She needs breast reduction surgery. Carrying those ginormous titties at such an advanced age is as dangerous as taking a shower or going down the stairs.

I'm no contrarian. I think, however, it's as plausible as anything that Charles dreads his mother's death.

Not that he doesn't want her to have a pain-free, peaceful end sooner rather than later if there is no coming back form her current physical problems, but, from a duty standpoint. And I have to believe he knows better than anybody that he, to say the least, has very tough act to follow. He must know his popularity and respect her garners isn't near her level.

I've always liked Prince Charles.

he garners

Big Liz is already dead, but she didn't want to upstage Remembrance Day, so she had them hold the announcement until afterwards.

You see on the faces of those three women in R13's linked photo that the old woman is gone and the wheels of history are turning.

Maybe they’re all hungover

Charles has his own problems at the moment, don't forget.

Is there anyone who believes that Fawcett would have sold citizenship and a knighthood without Charles' support?

If you had to put up with Meghan’s constant thirst for attention, you’d be sickly too.

R20 It's a day for remembering war dead, do you expect them to be grinning and waving madly? The order of the day is, "Act Solemn!"

(Which doesn't mean that the Palace isn't covering something up, because they never, ever learn.)

One's back is frightfully sore from where Meghan and Harry stabbed it. One will recover, if only to make sure that cuntress is destroyed.

Look. I have "back trouble." It can be fine for months and months and then a simple thing like getting out of the car, or leaning over to make the bed and the facet joints give way and the pain is excruciating. It can last for a few days, or it can last a few weeks. Most of the time I'm fine. But then, I'm not 95 yrs old. Not even close. (I'm 58.)

As for the expression on their faces, this is not a celebration. It is a memorial service to honor those who served their country. The Wreath-laying is particularly poignant. It is to remember those who died. So there will be no smiles and glad handing. It is just not done. Charles is supposed to look grim. And yes, it is his resting wreath laying face. These people are trained from an early age not to show emotion in public.

Funny. The Brits remember their veterans with great solemnity and dignity. In America we have Veterans Day sales. Our leaders lay wreaths but it is barely acknowledged. And most local celebrations usually just involve the vets and their families. the community is hardly engaged or interested.

Today, it was a particularly loud and heartfelt singing of God Save The Queen.

OK, now I'm verklempt.

You have to feel bad for Liz. Back pain is excruciating enough when you're young. Imagine what it's like at 95.

Charles is 73 years old today.

Charles laying wreaths.

Charles' new birthday photo has been released.

A solo William salutes at Horse Guards Parade.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

You know who has back problems? Prostitutes.

R35 - you type dumb.

Lots of people have back problems, you idiot.

If you Google previous Remembrance Days, the looks are very similarly grim.

What’s that swelling on William’s jaw?

Kate's got Elizabeth Taylor eyebrows on the balcony.

[quote] Lots of people have back problems, you idiot.

It’s not an either/or situation. Did you skip subsets day in Math class?

How can you even see her eyebrows with that hat? It’s a little too masculine for Kate when combined with the military-style coat.

"I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong."

And the Old Girl has devoted her life to service to her country and Commonwelath. Magnificently!

^^^ Commonwealth ^^^

That being said, keep in mind that the doctor helped her grandfather King George V along with a massive injection of morphine and cocaine so that the announcement of his death would make the morning edition of The Times.

Am I the only jerk who is hoping for a massive family feud over the throne once the Queen dies and the more popular William is playing understudy for the unpopular Charles?

R45 - there will be no family feud. Charles is next in line followed by Will and George.

r13 Yes to be frank.

PW knows his father's age. Moreover, Charles knows his own age. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Prince Charles and Prince William already have talked to each other about Charles death. Charles won't abdicate.

Man, I've, numerous times, stated my perception of Wills is that he has all the charisma of the 10 lb bag of powdered cement leaning against the corner of my garage, but, I'm changing on that.

That pic of Wills at r33 shows command, presence and BDE. They're lucky he was first born.

R45 William seems so sour. Tolerated I suppose, but "popular"?

It's all sMEGs's fault, the Queen has not recovered from the heartbreak of losing her beloved husband so suddenly.

Poor poor old Lilibet.

R49 Only compared to Charles. Neither of them would have a prayer of any sort of national position had they not been born into it.

I think HM has passed away, or maybe has only days, but the family/PM wanted not to detract from Remembrance Day.

The grim visages, while not quite out of proportion to that occasion, are yet unusual for these people.

R51 Unlike those in a national position like Gove and Hancock?

They would not hide the fact that the Queen had died. It would be of much greater historical significance than Remembrance Day and would be a massive national scandal when it eventually leaked (which it would, with all the people who would be in the know).

R42, Charles is 73, not 83, and has good genes.

Long live the queen!

It's never too late for her to start yoga.

Charles may have "good genes" but he is the child of two people who are second cousins once removed and also third cousins. Still, both his parents have and had longevity, as did both of his grandmothers.

My best to the queen but I’m sort of excited about the coronation of Charles. The Brits know how to do that stuff right!

R59 I love the Her Majesty as well but I’m a little excited for Queen Camilla!

R60 - I'm not sure Camilla will have the title of Queen. When she married Charles, she was still so unpopular that it was announced that she would go by Camilla, Princess Consort when Charles becomes king. (For similar reasons, she is styled as Duchess of Cornwall rather than Princess of Wales). It's all semantics, though. In practical terms, a queen and a princess consort are the same thing.

^If she's not full-on Queen, I don't think she can have people's heads chopped off "just like that". I'm not an expert, tho.

I've been waiting for my fellow Scorpio Charles to be monarch almost as long as he has!

Both the Queen's funeral procession and service and Charles's coronation ceremony will be, in a word, magnificent.

I'm 72, too young to remember the pageantry of 1952 and likely too old to see the installation of King William, not that I'm wishing ill to HM!

She’s put in her time at this point, Diana is ancient history, she deserves to be Queen.

A very emotional day for the BRF including Catherine.

R38, yes, I noticed in several photos that Prince William’s jaw was swollen. Was it swollen last night? I didn’t think so. Maybe he fell? Can’t imagine what would leave that mark.

Get the formaldehyde out, it's that time. Or maybe use her favorite sherry, she'd like that better.

Uh oh, something is up. My feeling? The queen may have been feeling ill, or wrenched her back (and I believe this was in the last week maybe), and after tests, maybe cancer was found. She may not be at death’s door (or maybe she is) but I think she may have a serious illness—cancer, congestive heart failure, etc.—that isn’t treatable long term.

[quote] yes, I noticed in several photos that Prince William’s jaw was swollen. Was it swollen last night? I didn’t think so. Maybe he fell? Can’t imagine what would leave that mark.

Line of succession, bitches, line of succession.

Keep an eye on whether Harry decides to pay a visit to the UK. I don’t think they’d ice him out so badly that they wouldn’t tell him to say his goodbyes.

R70 - they may be afraid that a Harry visit may hasten her death. He would do nothing but upset her by his presence. Let her go in peace.

R49 William ranks in popularity second only to the Queen. There's your comparison, not to his father.

In this photo there is no lump on Will's face. Maybe he was clenching his jaw. Or he ate out Kate's tightly clenched ass last night, I'm not too sure.

[quote]Or he ate out Kate's tightly clenched ass last night

R73 I really didn't need that image running around inside my brain. Endlessly.

Miss Lilibet's latest rap a few weeks ago. Butterflies = Transformation.

I've been to the Cenotaph ceremony a number of times, twice I was literally just feet away, and they all must practice their 'somber' faces in a mirror weeks in advance, although I must say the photos above is more than usual. BTW, did anybody here get to the parade on Saturday?

Charles' gace was more than the usual sombre one for the day. He looks the way he looked leaving hospital when he visited his father. You could see the truth on Charles's face.

She may not be at death's door, but they all know how much this particular service means to her, and that at 95, it may have been her last opportunity. To miss it, the doctors must be seriously concerned.

A slew of individually nonlethal ailments can, in the very old, signal a constitution finally breaking down. And this alone would be enough to incline the other to a more than usually grim appearance.

The really notable thing today was not only Charles's expression, but Kate standing in the centre where the Queen would have stood. Ordinarily, that place should have been taken by Charles's wife, who still takes precedence.

But the BRF know that Kate is hugely liked (she ranks third in popularity after the Queen and William). But Camilla isn't. It is a tacit admission that it's better PR to focus attention on the next Queen but one. It's also a tacit admission that Charles's reign will be a bridge reign, and that the public gaze will be over his shoulder.

The future survival of the monarchy, whichever way you feel about same, rests on the shoulders of the Cambridges.

^* Charles's face (not gace)

[quote] Kate standing in the centre where the Queen would have stood. Ordinarily, that place should have been taken by Charles's wife, who still takes precedence.

This is incorrect. Kate and Cam weren’t on the center balcony where the Queen would have stood, some of the Queen’s old biddy cousins took her place there instead. Kate and Cam were standing in the regular order of precedence on a balcony to the side of center.

She only has a couple of weeks before she has to record the annual Christmas message, in which she has to look her absolute best because the camera is an unforgiving mistress.

R65 Kate is thinking about what happened to the last princess of Wales

It’s a tremendously moving event on its own, but I imagine the thought of it being possibly being the first of all the rest without the Queen would give anyone a lump in the throat.

[quote] They say she strained her back.

They SAY she had laryngitis.

They say that falling in love is wonderful, wonderful . . .

Oh . . . uh . . . apologies, gentlement. Carry on.

You hear all kinds of things.

Charles has no say who gets a knighthood, r22.

Kate wasn't standing in the centre where the Queen would have been r77, she was on a side balcony. The central balcony where the Queen would have been was occupied by her cousins, Edward and Alexandra. Which collapses the rest of your twerpy misunderstandings and projections.

Well, r77 may have been wrong about the balcony, but I found it odd that Kate was in the middle between Camilla and (was it?) Sophie.

Christ would you Brits fucking leave her alone? She’s a million years old, stop it with your unreasonable Royal-service demands.

Charles reigning for15-20 years is perfectly reasonable. By then, his grandchildren will be adults and William will be able to fully devote himself to being king.

R16- It should have been put in the trash heap right after World War One.

There's nothing odd about that, r88. You're desperately trying to read something into how they're standing which isn't there.

[quote]Charles may have "good genes" but he is the child of two people who are second cousins once removed and also third cousins.

Which means absolutely nothing. There's still a great deal of variance in his DNA and is not subject to genetic disorders because his great-grandparents were siblings.

Boris Johnson is trying to calm the nations nerves this evening, he said he met with the Queen in person earlier this week and she is okay. The Palace is saying the back injury is not related to earlier problems. I personally think the Queen is having mobility issues and perhaps doesn't want to be seen needing to use a wheelchair or walker.

R92, hey, I’m no fan of the royals, but they follow protocol like nobody’s business. The placement was absolutely deliberate. The women didn’t look at themselves and go, “you go there, no you go there.” The question is, what did it mean and what message were they sending? I was surprised Camilla wasn’t in the center. Because it definitely meant something.

R95 Nobody puts on protocol like the British. It always draws me in.

Like some others, I was struck by Kate being at the centre of the trio of royal ladies on the balcony.

It was also how noticeable that the Royal Family looks very old without Harry and his wife to balance things out a little. The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra are in their mid-eighties, Anne, Charles and Camilla are in their 70s. Even Edward and Sophie are nearing 60. The Royals risk being quite a geriatric outfit until William’s kids reach an age to take a role.

I know Charles and William both want a smaller Royal Family, but I wonder if Anne and Edward’s children will play a bigger role as these elder generations begin to fade away.

I hope Biden cropdusts that cunt Camilla when he attends Her Majesty's funeral.

By the table of precedence, Camilla was the most senior royal on the balcony. The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra were probably jointly asked to represent the Queen at the service (as opposed to PoW laying a wreath on behalf of the Queen.) So as the Queen's representative, present in her name and on her behalf, they take precedence. From there, the sequence kicks in, so Camilla, as most senior by virtue of being wife of the PoW, would have been physically closest to what would have been the Queen's position had she been present. Followed by the wife of his heir and then by the wife of the Queen's son next in line and present. They follow this shit to the letter so there will be a logic there and none of it will be about sending subliminal messages with regard to Kate or William's future.

And to perhaps further settle the crazy, Real Housewives of Windsor Castle speculation, at link, scroll through Getty Images pictures... there are plenty of smiles given the nature of the occasion, particularly from Kate and William, but they don't look like winners' circle smiles, if I may speculate. First page, pics of Kate, William and Sophie - a favourite of the Queen - smiling.

Boy, some you get out over your skis owing to a fundamental misunderstanding of how the whole thing works. You can see it as a soap if you like, they do not.

r98 = Kate

[quote] You can see it as a soap if you like, they do not.

LOL, whatever you say.

What's funny about the truth?

R102, because you made that all up. It’s your opinion.

R97 I get what you're saying there is a generational issue right now with Meghan and Harry not there, but honestly, very few people in the UK would want them there anymore. What the monarchy needs right now, is stability and they've got that with a slightly older royal family. The monarchy is kind of in the same place it was in the 90s after the divorces of Charles and Andrew and no younger royals old enough to take on duties.

I suspect that the Anne and Edward will remain working royals after Charles becomes King because trimming it down to just Charles, Camilla, William and Kate is too small. That being said, the British Public do seem to be rallying around Charles. His reception in Brixton the other day was so unexpectedly warm and while I really hope the Queen makes it through her Jubilee, I think Charles taking center stage at recent events has been a good thing. It's easing the nation into him as head of state.

Precedence is absolute fact.

Americans on monarchy are like Americans travelling abroad: loud talkers, enthusiastically ignorant, unrelentingly stubborn and impossible to correct.

No way in hell is it her back. She's dying and this is why she went to Sandringham.

R95, you're a fucking nut if you think the fact that Catherine (taller, younger, so it looks better, especially when they're trying to appear strong and composed) stood in the centre means that she's senior to Camilla and that Charles' seemingly impending reign is about to be treated as a side issue. Who exactly would have arranged it so that Charles is made to appear irrelevant? Heck knows why he agreed to that.

Perhaps you should watch the actual ceremony at the Cenotaph, where Charles was the figurehead. So should r99, who thinks they were all joyful and smiling.

R97, Little George and his siblings weren't there either. Neither was bubbly Zara and her kids or the York girls. This was a remembrance ceremony, not a royal family gathering. I wish people would understand what was actually happening today, instead of interpreting everything through the frame of gossip and intrigue and who stood where in some photos.

Except she's back at Windsor, R106 and has been for five days.

Maybe you should look at the photos of the actual smiles, you fucking moron. This is not a family unable to hide their grief.

Ok, r107. You’re the one all upset about the rest of us thinking Camilla got the shaft. Which she did.

R108 to try to make a go at RD, but she is unable.

Everything's fine! That's why The Queen has been moved from her primary residence at Buckingham Palace, to Windsor Castle (which is where her family lived at the time of her birth).

No she went to Sandringham to die! I am composing a Youtube tribute video to upload immediately when it happens. I am torn between My Heart Will Go On and Endless Love.

If you're talking to me r109, I have, and they're not smiling. I've also watched the whole ceremony, and they're about to burst into tears - Charles, Camilla, Catherine, Sophie and the Queen's cousins at any rate.

The Queen is 95 and she absolutely wanted to attend this ceremony. Up until yesterday she was all set. Pulling out last minute is not a good sign.

It's well known none of them particularly like Buckingham Palace and the Queen and Duke spent most of lockdown at Windsor, which is where she spends most weekends when based in London.

Bravo, R105!

Camilla cry?

Yes, look at William crying.

And here's Kate... the grief is evident....

Sobbing hysterically....

About the precedence, technically yes, Camilla should have been in the middle. Where Camilla was standing today is where she has stood since Prince Philip stopped attending the event (to the Queen's right) and maybe it was just habit or a comfort thing. It wasn't a snub though. Catherine is well-versed and respectful of protocol (she's not like the other one who has chronic need to be the center of attention).

As for the Queen, I'm of mixed mind about how bad things really are. If it's true she injured her back, than a drive to London from Windsor and then standing for 20 mins probably would be complete agony. My guess is all the effort is going to be ensuring the Queen makes it through the jubilee year. As for the royals looking upset, they actually always are moved during the service. The Queen has been seen to shed tears occasionally. I don't think she's dead yet, but there are worries as there would be for any 95 year old. I also think Charles has got to be realizing that after all this time his destiny is very close and I'm sure there are mixed emotions.

Yeah, I think r114 has it right. Most of the family seemed sad and upset, not just solemn. The queen had every intention to be there. She is all about duty. And this is the day of all days to perform her duties. So for this to happen last minute—even though it really might be a sprained back (back pain is horrific), it’s really the first time she hasn’t attended one of these because she’s ill. It might be upsetting to see her frail, they might be sad to see her deteriorating.

But maybe we’re all imagining the sad faces.

Have you got a hankie? Granny's dying!

I think William whitened his teeth!

[quote] I wish people would understand what was actually happening today, instead of interpreting everything through the frame of gossip and intrigue and who stood where in some photos.

So many old maids in this thread chastising "Americans" for treating the royal family as entertainment. It's precisely BECAUSE people do that they remain relevant. If people stopped gossiping about them, then they would be in real trouble. I am certain that if I were a Briton, I would be a republican, if only because the stuffy old biddies who lecture the rest of us are so insufferable. And yes, the royals are only human. They have hates, likes, dislikes and jealousies like anyone else. If YOU think they can conceal those human feelings 24/7 because they are royal, then YOU are the one who's delusional.

^ The essence of this:

Americans on monarchy are like Americans travelling abroad: loud talkers, enthusiastically ignorant, unrelentingly stubborn and impossible to correct.

It'll be such a downer if she doesn't make her Jubilee.

Does the number of poppies worn have significance?

Kate has three; Camilla has two.

It's a sign! Kate remembers more than Camilla!

Just realised I forgot to buy a poppy this year. Oops.

Queen Lilliukalani of Hawaii attended Queen Victoria's Jubilee. She wrote a lovely song about it. Then the gringos dethroned her and kicked her to the curb.

R125 Luckily the position of Head of State of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her realms over the seas isn’t contingent on what a bunch of ill informed Americans think of the Royal family.

r60 Please not until they have done a magnificent celebration for the utterly unique platinum jubilee!

But Camilla's are bigger.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

I fear the Queen's life is moving peacefully to its close.

Sure r118, r119, r120, they were laughing and grinning during a remembrance ceremony for the war dead. Either that, or you're deliberately picking the one photo out of a hundred where William is smiling and Kate is doing a pursed, stiff upper lip expression that in your mind is a smile.

Just for fun:

R125, you might consider them entertainment and ceremony does play a part in engendering loyalty. But, Kate being placed in the centre means absolutely fucking nothing.

If you were a Briton you might have a greater understanding of the meaning of the royal family to the British people and the British state.

R136, not so concerned about you, but for the safety of everyone else please get someone to teach you what this tells you every time you see it. Only one meaning, but you seem prone to resisting the obvious.

I get it that so many of the replies on this thread are from people absolutely gagging for a big dramatic funeral. And whether HM dies today or in five years’ time you’ll say “See? I told you she was dying!” and feel oddly self-satisfied sitting in their mother’s basement in Ohio.

R139, have you watched the ceremony yet? Here's the link for you again, so you don't miss it.

Are William Hill taking bets re the Queen's longevity?

I don't see my gurl Princess Michael.

Camilla Tominey, in the Torygraph, writes:

The clue was in the last-minute nature of the cancellation of the Queen’s attendance at Sunday’s service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph.

The decision went to the wire because the 95-year-old monarch had been so keen to attend what has always been a sacrosanct date in the royal diary.

For the truth is, no one will be more frustrated by her recent spout of ill health than the Queen herself.

News that she has sprained her back - after she was spotted using a walking stick for the first time in 20 years last month - lends more weight to the theory that the Queen’s health issues are largely mobility related.

As Buckingham Palace admitted in regards to the walking stick, which the sovereign used to attend a Royal British Legion service at Westminster Abbey on October 12, the concession to her advancing years was made for her “comfort”.

Although Buckingham Palace has stressed that the Queen’s back sprain is unrelated to her medical team’s recent advice to rest, and that she has not received hospital treatment for the injury, it is no secret in royal circles that the Queen has not been as mobile as she used to be, suffering particularly from knee and hip pain.

In 2003, she underwent a successful operation to remove a torn cartilage from her right knee, but like anyone five years shy of their 100th birthday, she does suffer from joint pain.

No r140, we're not gagging for a big dramatic funeral. We're aware that the Queen's passing will lead to dramatic changes in our country and how it sees itself. Britain is about to get its first real reckoning with what the collapse of its empire really means, which, truth be told, we have not truly processed yet and we have not yet experienced the necessary psychological shifts needed to understand our true place in the world. This is what the Queen's death - and it's just a matter of time, probably sooner rather than later - will result in.

We love you Your Majesty, get up!!

[quote]Charles is 73, not 83, and has good genes.

He looks like death. “Good genes” can’t overcome his severe alcoholism.

I wonder if she's loaded with opiates for the back pain. I hope so.

And what are the chances, even if she's alive, that Charles will read, on her behalf, the annual Christmas Day message?

[quote] But, Kate being placed in the centre means absolutely fucking nothing.

I didn't say it did. The British royal family has been gossip fodder for decades in the US but even more so in Britain. On DL we like to forget that.

R145 HM is head of state of my country as well, so I do understand the implications of her eventual death, and of course it will happen sooner rather than later - she’s 95 FFS!

By the way if you’re linking the collapse of the British Empire to the death of HM - the Empire hasn’t existed since 1949, well before the start of her reign, when it was superseded by the Commonwealth. Whether that “collapses” at some point in the future is anybody’s guess. But Britain has had 73 years to get used to its loss of empire - you might want to let that go and move on.

R50 = Doors To Manual, cunt.

Are there still rumours afloat that the Queen has leukemia?

That’s one I’ve never heard, r152.

Nice not to see the $u$$exe$ doing a DIY version of the event in California.

No doubt busy writing memoirs and recording podcasts and remembering things.

R154 - they were too busy in NY with their Netflix film crew.

A photo of Will & Kate's arrival.

Do you suppose William’s military coat is bespoke?

The out-of-season short weekend visit to Sandringham last week did have a final goodbye air to it.

In any event, I'd take my cues from the British press. When it comes to very very sensitive stuff they're extremely skilled at getting the message across without actually saying anything.

Who fucking cares if his coat is bespoke. I'd love to find out whether his Big Dick Energy manifests itself in an equally big schlong.

[quote]When it comes to very very sensitive stuff they're extremely skilled at getting the message across without actually saying anything.

So in that respect, considering Tominey, who is well placed, it is what it is: mobility issues.

Kate looks severely anorexic.

I think Kate is one step back from anorexic - probably on some kind of extreme keto thing that ensures she eats sufficient energy to maintain an athletic regimen, but is left without one speck of fat. She looks so intensely thin because she is very long-waisted with narrow hips.

I can’t imagine living like that but I feel that way about Kate in general. Her focus has always been extreme.

You mean “not fat”, R160?

Anorexics aren’t able to build the muscle tone that she shows in her legs in the attached. In fact if she were anorexic she’d hardly be able to get to the court, let alone run around it.

I notice lately the Megastans are attacking Kate again. Inability accept bad news and distraction strategy.

[quote]Funny. The Brits remember their veterans with great solemnity and dignity. In America we have Veterans Day sales.

The Brits came very, very close to being conquered by Hitler. Many civilians died in the Blitz. The US has never experienced coming so close to total conquest. The Brits know they barely escaped being squashed by Hitler, so that's why they're so solemn.

I imagine to the average reader of LSA and Celebitchy, she must look anorexic in comparison to what they see in the mirror.

She’s just not obese.

[quote]I wonder if she's loaded with opiates for the back pain. I hope so.

Is that a good idea? When my 88 year old mother fell and broke her wrist, her doctor and surgeon were concerned about an opioids because the elderly prescribed them are more prone to falls and they can impair renal function. (She had Alzheimer's and was starting to pace around which is how she tripped and fell).

If The Queen’s health problems are mainly mobility-related, then it is probably a relatively positive problem, in that it probably won’t end her life.

I wonder if she is simply experiencing the same problems her mother did in her last years. The Queen Mother appeared first with a walking stick, and then with a walking frame, and then in a wheelchair. As the Queen enters into extreme old age, she may be forced to go down the same route. If so, I expect the Palace to make the information known fairly gradually.

The US has Memorial Day to honor the dead. Veterans Day is for the living.

Anybody remember when Prince William was HAF?

R79 - I did not realise that. The "old biddie" cousins really means the Duke of Kent, who through some military hierarchical thing is the Queen's Companion at things like these, e.g., the Trooping the Colour, despite the Gloucesters coming before the Kents in the succession. So I believe he is required to stand in for the Queen at things like this.

That said, the papers absolutely later made a point of mentioning Kate at "center-stage" and standing "where the Queen ordinarily would have. There were almost no photos of the Duke of Kent (mercifully, he was never great to look at and in old age looks a bloody gargoyle), all the photos were of the three senior royal ladies, with Kate in the centre.

The photos, I am sure, were not lost on the public (or Camilla or Charles - or Harry and Meghan).

He has a face that needs hair, alas.

William's hotness is of a different kind these days. It's BDE hotness.

Yummy.

"But Britain has had 73 years to get used to its loss of empire - you might want to let that go and move on." - Exactly my point, r150. We need to let go of the loss of empire and move on, but the Queen's long reign has acted as a kind of block on truly getting over our post-imperial delusions.

It's also been less than 73 years because many of the former colonies only achieved independence in the 1960s or even later. So, there's been this staggered loss of empire that has extended the delusion.

[quote]Is that a good idea? When my 88 year old mother fell and broke her wrist, her doctor and surgeon were concerned about an opioids because the elderly prescribed them are more prone to falls and they can impair renal function. (She had Alzheimer's and was starting to pace around which is how she tripped and fell).

Opioids are best avoided in the very elderly. They cause confusion and delirium and lead to falls and mental impairment at that age. Tylenol and NSAIDs are preferred for pain management.

There hasn’t been an empire since 1949, R174. Unless you’re in your eighties I don’t see what you have to let go of.

R142 - Didn't William Hill give BREXIT only a 15% chance of winning the night before the referendum?

(Keep yer money in yer pocket, mate.)

I think he is still hot, r170. He’s just a grown man now.

I also think he is the person who most resembles his mother in looks, and his granny Windsor in attitude. He is a modern royal, but he seems to be the one who is most effective at seeming accessible to the public (interested, kind, active, chatty) while still keeping part of himself reserved. He has a dignity about him.

R165, Remembrance Day was established to commemorate the fallen of the First World War, not the Second World War. A clue, since you're a history buff: on the 11th hour, of the 11th day of the 11th month.

Mobility issues are the beginning of a downward slide. It happened to my mother, first it was back pain, then she broke an ankle, then her hip. She died a month later.

Elderly like her that start being unable to move become prone to blood clots, skin breakdown, bowel issues, and pneumonia. It's definitely the start of a decline.

Exactly r180. I suspect these people who are saying that "if it's only a mobility problem then she's fine" have never been around an elderly person - let alone an extremely old person like the Queen - who's had a slip or sprained themselves. The decline can happen very quickly after that.

r179 of course it was established for WWI, but the memories of WWII are also a part of it and the sacrifice of all soldiers.

And you're a fucking cunt, btw

Yes, r183, it is now about the fallen in all wars, but the solemnity and dignity of the ceremony were established prior to the Second World War.

Oh, God, please don't let the old lady die before she takes Harry's title and issues Letters Patent ensuring that Archie and Lilibet don't become a prince and princess!

She won’t do that, r185. I’ll bet she makes no major moves now. And Andrew is the one who should be booted.

Doesn't every country in the Commonwealth have to be notified before any public notice?

All of these things are hints that the Queen is entering a final decline. If she doesn't do the Christmas message, we'll know she's at death's door.

Sad Last Days!

Charles and Anne having some fun a couple of years ago.

I went out for a couple of hours. Is she dead yet?

Depends on your definition of yet. About a third have her dead if not buried, another third think the ravens are fleeing the tower and the balance are rightly focused on Prince William's BDF energy.

What is she's passed away? Should I take the day off work tomorrow?

Charles and Camilla headed off on a visit to the Middle East tonight, which would not be happening if The Queen was thought to be at death’s door.

At least Kate is learning to fake solemnity a bit better these days. Even a couple of years ago she couldn't really get the hang of it.

R194, unless old people have a terminal illness, it's hard to say when exactly they will be at death's door. But it's obvious the Queen's days are numbered. Charles and Camilla are on an official visit, they won't cancel it for no specific reason. If something happens to the Queen in the next couple of days, they can fly straight back.

Poor R195. How's the weather in California?

If the doctors thought she were in genuine danger of dying soon, Charles and Camilla would absolutely not be flying to the Mideast.

Re: Camilla's position on the balcony...as clearly seen in this video Catherine waits for Camilla to give the cue for them to leave and walks off second.

If they thought she was about to die tomorrow, they probably wouldn't be flying out for 3 days r198. But they wouldn't cancel an official visit because she might die in the next few months. That would cause even more panic.

Watch her live another 6-7 years. I think nothing is imminent tbh, but she’s having a hard time of it for sure.

The “old biddie cousins” are the Duke of Kent and his sister Princess Alexandra. Their father Prince George Duke of Kent was killed on active service during WW2. They had every reason to be there apart from representing the Queen.

My instinct is that the Queen still has a few years left in her. Who knows, though? People can deteriorate rapidly at that age.

One thing's certain: whether the Queen dies before Christmas or in 2030, the British press have entered the countdown phase. It was always inevitable that this would happen once Philip was gone.

A sprained back can take up to 3 months to heal in someone aged 95 and up to 6 weeks for someone younger.People are panicking too much.

When you're 95 you can sprain your back just getting out of bed in the morning.

A three month recovery seems like eons when you may not have many more months left

R204 It's interesting because the UK media have "death drill" for major royal deaths (e.g. Queen Mum, Philip and the Queen for years) and they always seem to screw it up slightly.

The message via Kate's Middleton placement among the three reads plainly to me: Kate takes precedence over Camilla because Kate will be the next woman to be called Queen. Camilla, as told years ago, will not be Queen. She'll stand with that cracker jacks box title they said she'd get years ago - Princess Consort, was it? Yes, Charles will still inherit.

The precedence issue was sorted out hours ago, I don't know why people keep bringing it up and then just making things up about it to "explain it." It doesn't need explaining, it's the same order it's always been,

So should I call in sick to work tomorrow or not?

One more time for R209 - precedence is reflected in their proximity to the centre balcony (I.e. where HM would otherwise have been). Hence Camilla (wife of the heir) then Kate (wife of the next in line) then Sophie (wife of HM’s youngest son). No Andrew and he doesn’t have a wife anyway.

As someone pointed out above - as the three left the balcony Camilla led, followed by Kate then Sophie.

It’s as it has always been - don’t look for something that isn’t there.

R158 did you see this?

[quote]I notice lately the Megastans are attacking Kate again.

Did they ever stop? It's honestly disturbing how much they hate Catherine, and for no apparent reason.

I think Jason has returned the sentiments on K's behalf.

The growing chorus from royal correspondents is that the Queen's condition is not life threatening but related to mobility. Apparently the Queen had sufficiently recovered from her previous illness but her back began bothering her on the weekend. Doctors felt that the 40 minute drive to London plus 20 minutes of standing in the cold would, logically, be a bad idea. The whispers form the Palace suggest the Queen well be heavily scaling back when (if) she fully recovers. It's unlikely she will attend large ceremonial events again and there her engagements by become increasingly virtual. Charles will likely be the front man now on almost every major state occasion.

My partner's friend said on Friday (!) that he'd heard she was dead. Source: his co-worker's friend who is in the police, said they were told to report to Balmoral in some exercise they only do when she dies.

Why Balmoral? Don't ask me, she leaves there in October, right? Anyway, I know you'll all flame my ass but if I didn't report a rumor to DL, I'd feel bad for holding out on you all. So there you go.

OMG, R217.

R218 I doubt they would be able to keep a lid on her being dead for three days. That being said, the military and police do practice the Queen's funeral fairly regularly at all the royal residences. Back in the early 2010s my boyfriend and I were up near Sandringham and we actually saw a mock funeral procession happening at about 2 am in the morning. We were told they do this once a year or so should the Queen die while at Sandringham.

[qoute] Back in the early 2010s my boyfriend and I were up near Sandringham and we actually saw a mock funeral procession happening at about 2 am in the morning.

That's just creepy. I would have assumed I was having a drunken hallucination if it had been me.

R219 When I lived in London, I remember walking up the Mall in the wee hours and witnessed a practice for the Queen Mother's funeral including a casket. This was probably 1995 or something. It was before Diana died.

Britain was on a 20-year deathwatch for the Queen Mother. For two decades, the nation held its collective breath every time she coughed or sneezed.

"Crikey, this bloody well might be it!"

Remember when Charles left the hospital looking devastated after visiting Philip? That was on February 20th. Philip didn't die until April 9th.

It's quite possible the Queen has received a terminal diagnosis, but not one that will require the family to put all immediate events on hold.

I don't think she'll be here for the Jubilee.

And it's quite possible she's got back pain and you hysterics are dreaming in jewel tones.

r221 That reminds me I recall reading in a serialised biography or interview with a royal correspondent back in the 1990s a story about Princess Diana almost fantasising in contemplation what outfit she would wear to the Queen Mothers funeral. Strange how things turn out in life.

R209, Camilla, like every one of Henry VIII's wives, will be called Queen. She will have paid her dues and penance by then.

Saw a picture of the Queen at a previous years Remembrance Day Ceremony. What is the significance of the multiple poppies she is wearing? Everyone else is just wearing one poppy.

I think the way it'll play out is that we will see candids of the queen outdoors now and then. She will do the Zoom things, and Charles will do all the highest level state occasions that require a public presence. But he will continue to focus on administrative shit as he has been doing. Camilla, William, Katherine, Sophie, Edward and Anne will do the lower level, but still important bullshit.

The York princesses will be over, as far as official duties, etc. But because they are being advised by their relentless Mummy, they will develop a "brand" and a public profile of their own, separate from the RF, kind of doing what Meghan and Harry are attempting to do, except the Yorkies are going to succeed and not lose a thing, not a title or anything else. Because they were smarter.

See, Charles downgrading the Yorkies is a knife that cuts both ways. If they no longer have official duties and status, they will still have their titles, and they will do WTF ever they want including selling fucking tequila or opening nightclubs on Mykonos for a fee. LOL! The Yorkies will be like Kardashians.

R228 No, the girls will not turn into Kardashians. They're completely unlike their mother and don't seem comfortable at all in the spotlight.

R227.... there's two theories and apparently no clear answer: three could represent the three branches of the armed forces: air, navy, army. The occasional five poppies may represent the first three plus Civil Defence and women.

Hello! on the whole Kate at the centre of the universe symbolism:

"There has been speculation as to whether the Duchess took the Queen's place on the day, as she was standing in the centre between Camilla and Sophie, but the three royal ladies were actually positioned on the left balcony.

The Duke of Kent is thought to have taken up Her Majesty's position on the day as he was standing on the central balcony (where the Queen usually watches) alongside Princess Alexandra.

Camilla, Kate and Sophie are also believed to have stood in order of precedence, with the Duchess of Cornwall being the future consort.

The monarch, 95, is close to the Duke of Kent, Prince Edward, 86, who is her first cousin through their fathers, Prince George, Duke of Kent and King George VI.

He was by the Queen's side at this year's Trooping the Colour parade at Windsor Castle to mark the monarch's official birthday in June."

DL doesn't seem like the link or sometimes, I gather, sites won't allow their links to connect through other sites.

R228 Beatrice and Eugenie have never had official duties, nor are they funded by the Sovereign Grant. There’s nothing to downgrade them from.

B and E seem like okay people, but none of that generation of royals seems particularly sharp or intelligent. I doubt either one of them has the sense or drive to build a personal brand. They’ll more likely just keep hobnobbing with other rich people they grew up with and hope their husbands don’t have public affairs.

Exactly. And there's worse ways to live.

If Edoardo has any affairs public or private he can start washing his own socks.

Maybe left on their own what you're saying would be true, but they have always responded to the pushing they get from their parents. Andrew and Fergie will force them to try. Beatrice is more vulnerable being close to Mummy.

[quote] none of that generation of royals seems particularly sharp or intelligent

I can't think of *any* generation of English royals that seemed sharp or intelligent.

I doubt Edward I, Edward III, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I or Charles II maintained their supremacy by being dim, r236.

Saliva, you'd certainly know unintelligent.

In the upper classes and the nobility, smart people educated people were not admired.

Queen Mary's knowledge of history was acknowledged as was her deep knowledge of the royal collection (cue the klepto accusations but whether she was or she wasn't, she knew what she was after.)

It was her seamstress was the klepto. I seen it on Downton Abbey. So it must be true.

That storyline really pissed me off, r241. Lord Fellowes is such a crashing snob that he had to exonerate Queen Mary and blame an envious member of the “lower orders”.

Eliz I was certainly a sharp woman, well-educated and extremely well-versed in statesmanship.

Actually, Elizabeth I had a very smart mother. Historians are finally starting to acknowledge Ann Boleyn. But taken as a whole it was frowned up socially to be too smart. When the upper classes got together they played whist, gambled, and they drank and told dirty limericks and the latest fashion and the latest fads. Yes we can cite exceptions, but the generally acceptable behavior was not focused on intellectual development and education. Evelyn Waugh lampooned the upper classes very nicely for their vapidity.

R238, geez, was the supposed to be witty?

Waugh lampooned the upper classes for their supposed vapidity at a time when the class system had been tamed to such an extent that it was safe to do so. If he had done so a few centuries earlier he would likely have found himself knifed and thrown in the Thames.

It’s a mistake to believe that a lack of intellectual curiosity equates to a lack of intelligence. The English upper class were increasingly anti-intellectual after the reign of George IV, but they have always retained a sharp survival instinct. Even a figure like George V, who was notably anti-intellectual (he was once encouraged to send birthday greetings to George Bernard Shaw on his birthday, and sent them to his gardener who had a similar name) kept his throne while they were toppling across Europe in the aftermath of WWI, and he did so by anticipating what the people were feeling, and acting.

[quote]Historians are finally starting to acknowledge Ann Boleyn.

Just because she had six fingers. And it's Berlin.

The Yorkies can't build a personal brand, as they lack the hotness factor. The Kardashians are freaks, but they are fuckable freaks.

R246 During the reign of Queen Victoria, Prince Albert attempted to "intellectualize" the royal family and it largely failed. The truth is, the modern monarchy works best when the monarch is not intellectual with a more subdued personality.

By the time of George V, it became clear the monarchy had to align itself with the working class in order to survive. George V's 'simpleness' made him perfect for that task. His son George VI was also seen as very simple and there were fears that he wouldn't be able to do the job, but once again during WWII that simpleness endured him to the people. The Queen is also not well educated and not remotely intellectual. That's to say she's not bright but with the Queen what you get is what you see and that's one of the reason she's hugely popular. Diana was pretty much acknowledged to be dumb as rocks but beloved.

Truth is, the British people don't like royals who are particularly smart (or at least act like it) and try to be a personality/celebrity. The minute royals make things about themselves, it doesn't work. I think in fact being anti-intellectual is key to surviving mentally as the monarch. The Queen allegedly once told a cousin that part of the reason she has done so well in her role as Queen is she possesses a chronic lack of imagination.

[quote]The Queen is also not well educated and not remotely intellectual.

She was privately educated and is fluent in French. You make it sound as if she's illiterate.

These so called "back sprains" sound like vertebra factures cause by osteoporosis and aging. HM has the Widows Hump that is an indication. My mum had these hairline fractures. The occur spontaneously and are very painful. Nothing the doctors could do.

R251 It could be osteoporosis though at 95, the symptoms should have appeared decades ago. I think the Queen's stooped posture, which she has had for over a decade now, is more indicative of osteoarthritis. It's been rumoured for years the Queen should have had a knee replacement years ago but stubbornly has refused.

R249= Jackie K

The Duke of Kent is very unfortunate-looking, even for a Windsor. The Gloucesters are growing on me, especially the duchess, who I had no idea was Danish. I'm not that familiar with those outside of the queen and her direct descendants, so it's only recently that I became aware of the cousins of the queen.

The Gloucesters were destined for a quiet and anonymous life when they married as Prince and Princess Richard of Gloucester. Then his older brother died soon after and his father had a stroke and died not long after that and Prince Richard was unexpectedly the new duke and had to give up his career as an architect.

Interesting, R255. I recently saw some pictures of Brigitte wearing some stylish and unusual clothes, and she gave the impression of having a good head on her shoulders.

R256 Brigitte also has an amazing jewellery collection inherited from various royal relatives.

It’s said that she has more tiaras than many queens (and I’ll MARY! myself for that).

Offhand, Philip's the only RF member it might have been fun to chat with. Charles has his hobby horses like architecture, but I suspect you have to listen to him pontificate, no real chat allowed.

I always assumed that the royal rulers were kept deliberately dumb and ignorant, so the royal advisors had it easier to control them and rule the country based on their own agenda?

Edward might be intellectual but has repressed it along with the gay.

[quote]hey will do WTF ever they want including selling fucking tequila or opening nightclubs on Mykonos for a fee. LOL! The Yorkies will be like Kardashians.

Wasn't it reported that after the incident where he was photographed with the women on the boat, he left Casamigos and took a position in his father's be accounting firm? If true, I'm not sure that nightclub openings are in their future.

I enjoy reading all the posts from DL's Royal Historians. Lots of interesting information. We had a Queen Mary of Teck thread a while ago that was wonderful.

Charles is rumoured to throw in pretty sarcastic one-liners when you'd never expect him to.

Fat Mary?

The Queen speaks French as she addresses the French Senate.

[quote]Edward might be intellectual but has repressed it along with the gay.

Hardly.

When Charles was sending his letters to government ministers, it put people off...not because it looked like the monarchy was treading into political waters, but because it gave him the image of being more intelligent than the government ministers. That's exactly the wrong image for royal family. They should be folksy...despite the diamonds and emeralds. When Sophie Wessex said, of Harry and Meghan's Oprah interview, "Oh, families...", it was a very smart PR move. Make this exceptional family look like every other family: not everybody gets along. The message "We're just like you, only we live in palaces."

^folksy?

Obviously an American Datalounger. There's so much crap on this thread.

No one in the UK wants views the royal family as "just like the rest of us", nor do they necessarily want to.

I love when people speak for all people...in this case, all Brits. If only the world really were so absolute.

Kate is probably the brightest of their family group. She had to tutor William to pass classes at Edinburg. I think to some degree, she hides that intelligence.

r270 Not hardly.

No one is particularly bright in that entire lot. Anne and Sophie, to an extent, perhaps.

That's interesting, r270. A lot of men would be too insecure to be tutored by their girlfriend. It also shows that he not only recognizes her intelligence, but also appreciates it. Let's face it a lot of straight me want a girlfriend who isn't as smart and/or is passive. Lot's of women dumb themselves down for guys. While she's supposed to appear so publicly, I'm not sure Kate's passive in the relationship. VF did a piece about her during the wedding coverage and reported a source said Kate was observed admonishing Will when he and his pals started to get too rowdy. Something about being in a situation that wasn't too private.

I guess we really don't know how bright they really are, except for Anne. She never went to university, but she's very well spoken in interviews and spontaneous. She comes off the best of any I've heard. I suppose we assess the family's intelligence using Andrew and Harry, who've demonstrably stupid their whole lives, as the benchmark.

[quote]In 2005, Middleton graduated from the University of St Andrews with an undergraduate MA (2:1 Hons) in the history of art.

Could someone explain this grading system? I assume it's honors, but what does 2:1 mean?

That was the main reason the 1969 Royal Family documentary failed. Nobody wanted to see Liz and Phil roasting weinies or popping into the corner shop. Royalty is not supposed to be relatable.

R273, degrees are awarded as First Class (top grade), 2:1 (upper second class), 2:2 (lower second class) and third class (a pass, but barely).

St Andrews (founded in the early 15th century) is one of Scotland’s four ancient universities which offer a four-year degree structure, which leads to an Honours degree. There is generally an option to take an Ordinary degree after 3 years, but that is a much less popular option, I think.

A 2:1 Honours degree from a university like St Andrews( which retains a certain social cachet and reputation for academic rigour) is a very respectable qualification, and would grant access to a large number of graduate training programs.

Interesting:

[quote] Nearly 86% of [St Andrew's] graduates obtain a First Class or an Upper Second Class Honours degree. The ancient Scottish universities award Master of Arts degrees (except for science students who are awarded a Bachelor of Science degree) which are classified upon graduation, in contrast to Oxbridge where one becomes a Master of Arts after a certain number of years, and the rest of the UK, where graduates are awarded BAs. These can be awarded with honours; the majority of students graduate with honours.

I guess that makes my MA degree (obtained after the BA degree) a 'real' one whereas William and Kate's degrees would commonly be regarded as Bachelor degrees. High reputation BA degrees, but only BA degrees nevertheless. Or am I getting something wrong here?

Anyway, I graduated with highest honours (summa cum laude) with all of my studies, so I'm pretty kewl, you know.

After dealing with his own thick-as-a-plank mother, William probably wanted a smart wife. It seems like his basic template for a lifepartner was someone who was as different from his mother as possible. The only traits Diana and Kate have in common are great hair and great legs.

IMHO, the Scottish MA system is pretty confusing, tbf.

But at least now I know that Kate, among doing higher level courses, must also have written a Master thesis. What about William? Did he also do a MA at honours level or is his MA degree akin to an ordinary BA degree?

R276, I think William and Kate’s degrees are higher than a BA. a BA is a three-year degree. An MA is automatically a four-year degree.

For them, at St Andrews, an MA Ordinary degree would be the equivalent of a BA, but by completing the four-year MA(Hons) course they are acknowledged as having attained a higher level. Even a third class MA(Hons), which most people regard as a vaguely disappointing pass, is superior to a three-year Ma(Ordinary).

An Ma(Hons) opens the door to the type of grad training in accountancy, management consultancy, law, etc which would not generally be available to someone with an Ordinary degree.

At least George, Charlotte, and Louis will be expected to get university degrees and, in the case of the younger two, take up meaningful work. We might avoid the curse of the spares with that generation.

R278. William did an Honours degree in Geography, at the same level as Kate’s. His dissertation was on the coral reefs of Rodrigues in the Indian Ocean.

R280 I hope so. Andrew and Harry may serve as a portentous warning as to what happens when you indulge the spares.

R281 thx! Their MA theses aren't available online, are they?

William was looking for a woman who'd take care of him. Katherine is a nurturer. She calms him, cheers him, supports him, helps him and advises him. She is his Rock. She does everything from making sure he doesn't have lettuce on his teeth, to making sure his fly is zipped. I had to laugh at all the talk about William having an affair, because if anyone in that family ever decides to have an affair, it would be Katherine. But honestly it ain't gonna happen. Katherine is true blue.

Who's Katherine?

Basically, Kate gives William the support and nurturing Diana couldn't give him, for all those photo ops. IDK why people think Diana was such a great mother when it's clear she ignored Harry in favor of William while also making William, then a young teenager, into her main emotional support and confidante. It fucked up both boys and helped lead to their current estrangement.

[quote] She was privately educated and is fluent in French. You make it sound as if she's illiterate.

Conversational fluency for sure, but probably not much beyond that.

R286 - Yes, it’s funny that her accent in French is just as strange as her accent in English!

She knows better than to accommodate them too well by pronouncing it perfectly. I am just glad she didn't remind them that Normandy is still part of the British kingdom.

And that she is Duke of Normandy.

I remember reading that QE I was able to deliver an address in Latin extemporaneously, so she knew it pretty damn well.

R286, as a matter of interest, in how many languages are you fluent? Just so we can write them off in complete ignorance of the facts.

r291: I’m CERF level B2 in Spanish and French, which is a high degree of competency but not native fluency.

^CEFR

Sure, Juanita.

The Queen is quite smart enough to have built up one of the world's finest private art collections. She's smart enough to keep ratings that make politicians weep with envy. She runs holdings that include multiple estates. She had a long, happy marriage. She held the monarchy together through rocky changing times. She's worked with 14 prime ministers.

She's dumb like a fox.

The only thing she was really dumb about was her children.

Killer line in the Telegraph this morning in an article about how Camilla, Kate and Sophie are quietly guiding the monarchy toward the next phase:

"Missing from the picture were the Duke of York and the Duke of Sussex, both of whom are now in the wilderness, having proved unequal to the task of representing their country and their family, despite having spent their entire lives being schooled in it."

Ouch. Imagine reading that over your breakfast.

And a second:

The Countess of Wessex, in particular, has spent years quietly working hard to support the Queen, and will become more noticeable in the absence of the only other commoner to marry into the Royal Family in recent years – the Duchess of Sussex, for whom fame, rather than duty, appears to have been the driving force.

Fresh evidence of Andrew's grifting just coming to light, a "loan" of $2 million received in 2017, with no apparent security or enforceable requirement to repay:

The Queen's message to General Synod of the Church of England.

[quote] despite having spent their entire lives being schooled in it.

A fair knock on Harry, not so much Meghan.

Charles and Camilla are in Jordan today.

On this day, eleven years ago, Will & Kate got engaged.

R301 - The UK’s official plane used by the Royal Family and senior government ministers is making its first ever flight using new lower carbon jet fuel. Charles & Camilla flew to Jordan on it.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Penny Junor knows her stuff, but Cam seems like she’s happy as long as she has her booze, a nice lunch, and Charles around. If she can tolerate being Charles’s companion then being the Queen Consort will be easy.

Queen Raina’s had some unfortunate work done on her face.

Well, I'll tell you this. If the Media keeps doing documentaries dredging up Diana periodically, then it will be very difficult for Camilla. The point is, Charles and Camilla belonged to the same set, and everyone cheated all the time. Diana was literally still a teenager, 18-19 when she got engaged to Charles. She had an adolescent perspective on the whole Prince Charming notion.

In everything that happened, IMO Charles bears the biggest burden of responsibility for the way things unraveled. But since then, he has stepped up. I'm all for redemption. He was a good father to his sons. He's a good son to his mother. but he has very little support within the family. He and his sister are close. But there's no love lost between him and Andrew and I think Edward is too young. He doesn't seem close to Margaret's kids or Anne's or the Yorkies, or Edward's two. I think he probably holds himself apart because of his rank.

His Grandmother and his Uncle Dickie Mountbatten are gone. Long gone. So Camilla is really all he has, and he is reportedly close to her kids and grand kids. I think William and Charles get along well enough, but I get a sense that William is a priggish sort. Catherine is much warmer. In truth, Camilla is doing a good job in her position and she seems to be a warm, down to earth, kind person who projects empathy when she out among the common folk.

I will say this of Camilla -- she does seem interested and at ease with the public at appearances , from what I've seen. Can't be easy being her.

Penny Junor, who has spent much of her life observing the Royal Family for her biographies on the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall among others, believes the three women also have altruistic personalities that will safely carry the Royal brand for decades to come.

“They are all very natural women who come from solid backgrounds, who seem very comfortable in their own skin and there is no tension or conflict between them,” she says.

“Princess Diana was always in competition with her husband and the Duchess of Sussex is super-ambitious, but Camilla, Kate and Sophie all seem to get on and they don’t take themselves too seriously.”

“What you have to remember,” said one former courtier, “is that the Duchess was 57 when she became a member of the Royal Family.

“She has spent the vast majority of her life living outside the Royal Family and so she understands the differences between the two worlds.

“She understands how strange the world of the Royal Family can be, and how the public sees that, and knows that at times her husband, the Prince of Wales, can’t see that.

“When she goes to her house in Wiltshire there is none of the apparatus of Royal life; it’s just her and the dogs, and maybe her children and other guests, so she regularly engages in a fairly ‘normal’ life, where her children will tell her how the outside world views things the Royal Family are doing. It means she is better able than almost anyone else to persuade certain members of the Royal Family of a certain point of view that they might not see otherwise.”

The Duchess of Cambridge, who was very much a “commoner” when as Kate Middleton she married Prince William, coming from a middle-class family of self-made entrepreneurs, and the Countess of Wessex, formerly PR woman Sophie Rhys-Jones, comes from even more humble beginnings, having worked for a living before Royalty beckoned.

They have the sort of real-world antennae that help them steer clear of controversy. While the Duke of York saw no problem consorting with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein (and compounded the error with his disastrous BBC interview), and where the Prince of Wales saw fit to retain the services of Michael Fawcett long after others might have let him go, none of the “commoners” on show at the weekend have been tainted by such controversies since getting married. They have the savvy to see what does and does not pass the “smell test” in the opinion of ordinary subjects.

This desire to just get on with the job rather than expending energy on etiquette or in-fighting was very much in evidence at Sunday’s Remembrance parade.

R300, yes, it was specifically about Harry.

It is racist to exclude Meghan from being the same kind of failure as Harry! If she grew up with his advantages she could fail just as bad as him. Klan Grannies!

^Ha!^

The soft bigotry of low expectations rears its ugly head!

I'd love to read Penny Junor's take on Fergie.

William and Anne were in attendance at two investitures today with 120 people honored.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

^"Put your finger in slowly and twirl it around a bit love. Ohh yes, just like that".

Now THAT is embarrassing. They don't believe that crap.

Doesn't Charles? His mother is very religious.

He will be anointed with the Holy Oils!!

Lissin. Camilla believes it and so does he. Maybe he didn't a few years ago, but as you age, you start getting more spiritual. Plus someone told Cammie this was the water Jesus turned into wine...

Camilla and Queen Rania both looked good tonight.

Camilla did.

Why she wears white so much. She ain't queen yet...

Camilla desperately needs a good bra.

Camilla would need more of a metal undercarriage at this point, an underwire isn’t going to change much.

In: Suits of Underarmour

Out: Saggy tits on aging queens

Tell me about it, r327!

New statues of The Queen and Prince Philip.

I was just going to post that, R329... the resemblances are... resemblances. But you look at those and think of that bird perch they made of Diana and you have to ask... is it impossible in 2021 to carve a realist statue of someone? Because Diana and the two offering look pretty crap to me.

I’ll never get over the giant, eyewateringly ugly belt on that statue of Diana.

Camilla looked like she was in desperate need of a g&t and a cig at the River Jordan.

Which she wore, R331

She wore it well.

Too bad she didn’t wear a seat belt.

A "symbolic outfit"....LOL.

R306 - Rania went to great lengths to Anglicise her features in her teens, starting with a classic Arabic large nose. In middle age, however, something seems to happen to earlier cosmetic surgeries, they seem to collapse, or not change subtly with the aging face, making what worked in youth very obvious and less authentic later. I thought her very beautiful in her twenties and early thirties, but now she's looking increasingly plastic.

Camilla has a relaxed quality because she's never tried to be anyone other than herself. She just learned to handle herself in public, but without losing any of her authenticity. I say props to Cammie for that, and it's probably why Charles loves her.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

What a peculiar dress. I wonder what Queenie is wearing under it, if anything at all.

(No shots including Sparkle Harkle-Markle amongst the family photos amassed back there on that table in the background in R338...)

How clever of you to notice, R340! Those are displayed in one of the pleb crappers over at Clarence House, next to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother’s 2002 Viz calendar.

The location was thought, by some, to be rather a good fit.

Thank you, Your Majesty. I appreciate it. Be well and prosper. -R340

The images aren't clear enough for you to say that there aren't any photos of Harry and Meghan, r340. The only really clear one is of William and Kate. I can imagine Harry is in there somewhere, with Meghan too, an official wedding photo probably or the pic with Archie.

Interesting tidbit - The Prince of Wales is flying ‘five or six dozen bottles’ of Holy water taken from the River Jordan back to the UK with him which will be used for future royal baptisms.

I hope the DL death mavens aren't too gravely disappointed.

There is a photo of Harry and William, looks like black and white, sitting side by side when they were younger. That background is certainly plenty clear enough to see what it is in those photos on the table, and MeAgain isn't visible. Not to say she might not be in one that is not visible in the pic, maybe behind the man in uniform that the Queen is speaking with, but she's plainly not there in what can be seen. It's not an accident. -R342

I don't know why she would have any photos of Meghan. She's been nothing but trouble since she started dating Harry.

It might not be an accident r346 but it's also not a cunning strategy. Half the stuff people obsess about over the BRF are the same sorts of things that every family has to deal with.

There are also other photos on other parts of the shelves that are obscured, r346. You could easily ask where are the photos of Beatrice or Zara or Peter.

R343, R348, R349

There is no water that is holy. Grow up, folks.

She doesn't look good at all, r345. The point about very old people in their final demise isn't that they become completely immobilised and bedridden or hospitalised. They can certainly have good days and periods when they're better. But what happens is that they become more and more prone to accidents, illness, things going wrong, and that really is the final downward slope. And then it can happen very quickly.

[quote]The Prince of Wales is flying ‘five or six dozen bottles’ of Holy water taken from the River Jordan back to the UK

As someone who has both hiked along the River Jordan as well as swam in it, all I can say is Ewwwwwwwww.

I didnt put up photos of those cunts during my 2019 and 2020 Christmas messages, and I am not about to start now.

The Queen has lost that sturdiness she's always had. For the first time, she looks frail.

Her hands are purple

She's lost weight for sure and looks like she's aged a lot in the past few months but she still standing unaided so I don't think she's done just yet. I mean at 95 something is bound to go wrong, I mean lets be real, a stubborn bowel movement at 95 can be trouble.

We do not have bowel movements. How vulgar and common.

Agreed that she doesn't look well. Look at her hands; they remind me of Charles's purple, puffy hands or (shudder) Mitch McConnell's. Something circulatory. Let's hope we keep her longer than Mitch, however short her life may be from this point.

The photo of the Queen right before her hospital trip showed bruises on her legs. At the very least, she's on a blood thinner.

I’ve never seen her wear such a psychedelic print! Maybe she’s on those small doses of LSD or shrooms they’ve been giving people with terminal illness.

However, if you bruise easily, a minor bump — one you might not even notice — can result in a substantial bruise.

Some people — especially women — are more prone to bruising than others. As you get older, your skin also becomes thinner and loses some of the protective fatty layer that helps cushion your blood vessels from injury.

I am less than half HM’s age and I’m on blood thinners (long covid blood clots) and I bruise at the drop of a hat and any sort of cut (even a tiny shaving cut) takes months to heal. It’s a PITA, but better than dying.

The blood thinner suggestion is a very real possibility. I remember, at least twice in the last 5 or 10 years the Queen has been seen out with a burst blood vessel in her eye (also common when on thinners), and another time she had a huge bruise on the back of her neck.

She seemed to be a little self-conscious of her hands in that video.

I don't think so, r365. She's had the same thing in the past and wasn't hiding. I think she was just trying to stand up straight.

From what I’ve read HM isn’t that invested in the length of her reign as in her view the only reason that she has been monarch for so long is because her father died so young. Which is one reason why she doesn’t celebrate the February date of her coming to power as that’s the date of the death of her father. She marks it alone at Sandringham.

HM's dressers should be slapped quite viciously for not putting a bit of body make-up on her bruises. It takes very little to tone things down considerably. I made this remark about leg bruises a few years ago It's negligent.

R368 She’s the Queen not some random Hollywood celebrity. It’s probable that she’d have no time for body make-up, if indeed she knew what that is.

The Queen is 95 and deeply religious. She doesn't fear death: She's probably looking forward to being with her parents, sister, husband, and all the friends she has buried.

R370 I agree the Queen is not frightened of dying, but I think she is determined to keep going for as long as she is able to. Up until she was ordered to slow down, I got the sense she was determined to enjoy the time she has left.

R370. That's sweet, dear.

Bless her. She looks so tiny and frail...

[Quote]She seemed to be a little self-conscious of her hands in that video.

She's developed Madonna syndrome.

All royal babies are baptised with water from the Jordan. The Queen herself was.

Lilibet still hasn't been christened yet, has she?

Page Six has put it out that despite an invitation being extended, the Sussexes will not be flying out to spend Christmas with HM.

This is, of course, the Harkles getting in front of the real story, which is that no such invitation was extended. At least, not one on the Harkles' terms, i.e., lots of photo ops with the family to show that all is forgiven and We're Still Royal, World!

The "royal sources" for the nakedly pro-Sussex Page Six assurances that such an invitation was extended to the proven perjurer and her lying husband were Meghan and Harry, via Sunshine Sachs.

She did say, r371, "I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong." She ain't going until she's taken.

Charles and Camilla have left Jordan and are now in Egypt.

Will was at the Microsoft headquarters today showing some chest hair. He was seeing how AI can help stop illegal goods at airports. His charity, United4Wildlife has already done major work to stop the illegal wildlife trade in both the transport and financial sectors.

I think the invitation story is true. There is no way they would want to be accused of excluding them just as there was no belief they would accept. Meghan Markle only fights from a distance. Remember, the Sandringham Summit, when she was safely half way around the world.

R379 - it's a Sunshine Sachs story. They do it all the time. They have to earn their money by keeping H & M in the news.

I actually think the royals did extend an invite, the Queen would not want to look petty, but did so knowing full well H&M don't have the balls to show their faces in the UK again ... more Meghan than Harry.

Fine it's a Sunshine Sachs story... it's probably also true.

^ This time.

I 100% agree they were probably invited. That being said, no way they are going to be a the Jubilee next year (or coronation if the worst should happen to Elizabeth).

William would be handsomer with hair, but he still has loads of BDE.

Harry and Meghan will definitely be at Charles coronation. Are you fuckin crazy? They would crawl over hot coals to be there. They'll be at the Jubilee too. If there is one. At some point the Sussexes will have to realize that it's only because Harry is Royal that there's any point to their celebrity and their image and their $$$ value is enhanced by an injection of proximity to remind the public of it. He's not always going to have that cache' so they have to do SOMETHING at regular intervals to be SEEN. and all the whining and complaining has decreased their popularity so they have to know that and stop bitching. Distance themselves from negative shit and start emphasizing the positive in terms of their charitable activities.

If he does attend the Jubilee with or without the wife, he'll have to be kept away from crowds or audiences. The possibility of booing is too strong. If the couple was booed inside the Royal Albert Hall by a ticketed audience of relatively well-heeled people, imagine the treatment at the hands of the plebes.

Will & Kate have arrived for the Royal Variety Performance at Royal Albert Hall.

Kate looks great!

Kate is stunning in a green dress. She reminds me of a mermaid.

It's the green Jenny Packham dress from the tour of Pakistan.

She's trolling Meagain on her big Ellen day! Meagin wore blue sequins to the RAH!

Harry and his children are family members so there is an open invite for them to visit whenever they want, especially at Christmas and especially when the Queen is not doing so well - even with his wife. It's not like he needs an official invitation. If Harry and his wife and kids aren't visiting his family at Christmas, then that's Harry and Meghan's choice.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

How tedious of the Guardian. They're constantly trying to create fake scandals around the royals, Charles in particular.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Bring on Philip's Will.

^ The Mail comments are kind of hilarious. Lots of Kate love and then along comes a Megastan:

PrincessMeghan4Queen, Leicester , United Kingdom, 13 minutes ago

Vomit

---

They don't just class up here.

R334 I'm old enough to remember when The Guardian was a serious paper.

Kate looks fabulous. She's definitely had some cosmetic dermatology done, maybe dermabrasion?

Will and Kate brought some of the Middleton's to the show.

Kate & Will talking to the flower presenters.

How good is it that Kate has such a great relationship with her family?!

I don't think the Queen gives fuck all about that now.

Every couple of months there's a story about how Harry and Meghan could be flying out to see Betty!

The Queen knows William and Kate won't stay in the same room with Meghan. And megh6was just exposed as a perjurer.

No Andrew. No Meghan. No Harry.

The Queen won't buck the polls on the Harkles. The monarchy is more important.

They weren't invited and they know the Palace isn't going to bother getting into the weeds on this one.

No one wants them there unless they only visit the Queen and Charles privately. And the only reason the Harkles want to come is to refurbish their images as British royals with bug smikey photo ops that include the kids.

Harry's memoir is still in the works.

So is the bullying report.

^*big smiley photo ops

You know what, r404? I think MM WOULD go for bug smikey photo ops!

I think smirky fits better than smiley, personally.

[quote]The Queen knows William and Kate won't stay in the same room with Meghan.

It's pretty obvious that William detests Meghan, even if it hasn't been explicitly stated.

[Quote] Kate looks fabulous. She's definitely had some cosmetic dermatology done, maybe dermabrasion?

I like to think that rubbing one's face against Willz cock and balls would give anyone a glow.

R408 Will gives her a special facial.

Wills should give her a platter of cheeseburgers.

R410 there were none left cause you ate them all in your parents basement while sobbing.

Philip wasn't worth that much - 10 million, maybe, personally. It's not as if the will is likely to be particularly explosive.

My guess is that the Graun are after blowing up a precedent that allows royals' wills not to become public records like everyone else's.

It's the Queen's and Charles' estates that the Graun probably want to ensure are made public, so that everyone knows how rich they are.

R412, what is the Graun? Google was no help.

It's just the Graun trying to create a sore spot about the monarchy... undermining by degrees.

But… what is the Graun, r414.

R415, "Graun," nee "Grauniad," is an olden-day typo for the "Guardian."

R412 is just being pretentious.

R26, The British citizenry also remembers the Blitz, being bombed and going it alone. They remember the courage of their monarch. They remember Churchill.

The British are the very best and pomp and ceremony. Even at the simplest level. That's why they still need the Royal Family. They are front and center and have a real connection to the glories of English history. The horrific historical mistakes are quietly ignored. And the money keeps rolling in.

R417. Exactly. The remembrances for WW 2 are really important. The country was literally staring into the abyss. And ER 2 is their last true connection with that time. I just finished reading three books about WW 2 from the British perspective. I urge everyone who is interested in the RF to read them. The first is just amazing. The Splendid and the Vile, about Churchill and the Blitz.

It was a very dangerous time for the country. They had Nazi sympathizers at home, they were being pounded by German air force, France had been invaded and surrendered, All of Europe was under the cloud of Nazi Germany...and no one was sure of what Stalin would do. What a harrowing experience.

The Second was Princes at War, about the Royal Family and the new King George VI, and their experiences during the war. I had no idea Winston Churchill, on whom the new king depended, had serious bouts of pneumonia and a heart attack during the War. And yet he chugged along. Churchill was wrong about a lot of things but he was right about Hitler and the Nazis. The rotters in the bunch was Duke & Duchess of Windsor. Pure filth. I now understand perfectly why Elizabeth, the Queen Mother was so had on them.

The 3d book was called The Rose Code. Fascinating true story that reads like a novel. About Bletchley Hall. Great read. This book really sheds light on the bombing of Coventry and the devastation. among other things. So Remembrance Day is very personal to most people in the UK, most especially members of the Royal Family.

R418 Yeah the theatre of the monarchy is so deeply entrenched in British culture it's impossible to imagine the country without it. I mean British gays love the monarchy, even if they don't say it publicly, because of the entertainment it provides.

R416 - No, but he has been reading the Graun for decades and feels comfortable being matey with it. (Lots of us call it that. It's actually "Grauniad" that sounds pretentious.)

I also call The Spectator "the Speccie". (I do the matey thing with the right and to the left, you see.)

You should hear what I call the Flying Scotsman when I take it to visit friends who live Tyneside.

^*R10

74 year ago today, Elizabeth and Philip married.

I don't know if it's reliable or not but according to The Sun, William and Catherine will attend August Brooksbank and Lucas Tindall's joint christening tomorrow. Maybe the Queen will be there too. Prince Charles has stocked up on holy water from the River Jordan so this would be a good time to share.

The Queen Mum didn't like Prince Philip at all. And she refused to move from Buckingham Palace. She considered herself to be her daughter's advisor -and butted into everything. It took a good while for Philip to get her moved out. and taken down a notch.

"The remembrances for WW 2 are really important" - We don't have any remembrances for WWII, r419.

R425, admittedly, I don’t keep my ear pressed to the ground, but I’ve never heard that the queen’s mother didn’t like her son-in-law. Any sources you’d like to share?

^*Actually, the Queen Mother was treated rather badly by quite a few courtiers when she ceased being Queen Consort. And Elizabeth had been quite a bit closer to her father than her mother. That, however, didn't blind QEII to her mother's charisma and place in the affections of the hoi polloi. Upon showing up for an official event soon after she became Queen, where a dutiful crowd was clapping and smiling, demurely the Queen was heard to murmur sadly, "If it had been Mummy, they'd all be cheering."

The Queen Mother didn't dislike Philip so much as his Uncle, Earl Mountbatten, and the crowd the Earl ran with that the QM neither liked nor trusted, and she carried that mistrust through to Mountbatten's influence on her grandson, Charles. It has to be remembered that Earl Mountbatten had originally backed King Edward VIII's desire to marry Wallis Simpson and make her Queen. He trimmed his sails to tack in another direction when, like Churchill (whose wife, Clementine, had told Winston he was wrong to back Edward and the Grifter), the Earl saw which way the wind was blowing, but the QM never forgot it.

It was Mountbatten who advised Charles to sow plenty of wild oats and then marry a sweet, malleable young girl.

And we know how that went.

It would be only too delicious if the Queen AND the Cambridges AND the Cornwalls all showed up at the dual baptism of two well down the line newbies, and yet, somehow, no word on the christening of dear little Lilibet that the Sussexes so nakedly hunger for.

I wonder if it ever occurred to the Sussexes that naming the kid with the personal endearment with which the Queen signed the card on her husband's funeral wreath, just two months after the funeral, might have been seen as just a tad in . . . bad taste.

I suppose it's too much to hope for photos of this private event, although it would be a simply fabulous bit of shade thrown the Sussex's way:

"See where you could have been and who surrounded by and in what historic environs?"

Wasn't it George VI who disliked Philip initially, thinking he was too coarse?

Queen Mum didn't like Phil. SHE thought he was too coarse and his family "odd." Bertie just wanted him to understand his role and do the right thing.. George 6th was motivated by love of his daughter and paternal protectiveness. Mummy was anxious to hold on to power and influence. She like to say her daughter was not prepared for the burdens. R425 is correct.

Both boys' middle name is Philip. They're being christened on TQ and PP's wedding day.

I think that's perhaps why Bea's daughter is being 'left out' of this particular christening - and also why Lil Diana is being 'left out' ... although that's due to her parents being fucking morons.

I guess Duke Dim and Duchess Diva wanted Lil Di to be baptized on Nov 20th, too, with her being the most prominent kid out of those being christened within the line of succession. And of course it would've been another PR 'success' for them - "Our precious daughter got christened LILIBET the very same day her namesake got married - soooooooo cute!"

^*Not that I ever read. In fact, Philip had in fact a perfectly fine pedigree (also a descendant of Queen Victoria and by blood a member of the Danish royal family - the Greek royal family was a newer creation), had served gallantly in the British Navy, a career sailor, and George VI admired him. He wrote to his daughter that he "likes Philip, he thinks about things in the right way . . .") but it was also true that Philip had had a chaotic upbringing, was penniless, and there was doubt that as what used to be called very much a "man's man" [sic], he would be happy walking behind his wife for the rest of his life.

In the event, Elizabeth probably chose wisely. An English or Scottish aristocrat like the ones everyone hoped Margaret would marry (and how much better off she would have been if she had married Johnny Dalkeith!) probably would have bored the shit out of the populace. And, anyway, she fell in love with him at thirteen and made it clear she wouldn't marry anyone else. So, finally, her father caved.

I wonder if there will be photos of the baptism considering they're not senior royals and don't represent the monarchy.

Has Beatrice released a picture of her daughter yet?

I don’t think the royal family schemes half as much about arranging things to hurt Harry and Meghan as the Meghan haters here would like to think. If they think about them at all in the context of a different family baptism, it’s probably with some sadness or worry about the breach in the family and wishing Harry and the kids were present. They’re all busy with plenty to think about, not just constant scheming.

I also think Lilibet may already have been baptized out in CA. Harry and Meghan were so against anyone publicity for Archie’s baptism that it wouldn’t surprise me if they just haven’t said anything. I don’t think we even know Archie’s godparents, still.

R429, if they cared deeply about being surrounded by that sort of stuff you’d think they wouldn’t have moved thousands of miles away.

I’m pretty sure all we’ve seen of baby Sienna are her footprints and her stroller, when they took her out for a little walk (who knows if she was even in it).

It's funny how The Crown has muddied everything... at least it feels that way to me. The stories are indelible but usually far off the mark. I wish I knew what are regarded as the definitive or authoritative biographies of all the principals.... I was interested in reading something about Wallis Simpson the other day, particularly in her later years, but I can't tell fact from fiction amongst the alternatives. I know Shawcross wrote the official biography of the Queen Mother, which is hugely long but apparently short on colour... that may not be a bad thing. I wouldn't trust a word out of LCC, though she's no doubt hugely entertaining.

I thought Battle of Brothers seemed like the most plausible take on the relationships between and among Charles, Harry, and William. They all, plus Kate and Meghan, come off as flawed people (as we all are), but the author takes pains to assume good or neutral motives and refused to turn anyone into a villain, just people caught in difficult dynamics.

And The Queen comes off as a remote mother but a good grandmother who tries to make time for both William and Harry but has a lot going on besides them.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I’m sorry to the royal family but that documentary sounds extremely juicy and I want to see it!

R443 I suppose vicious in support of a clearly outlined agenda to undermine a family and an institution and "juicy" aren't mutually exclusive if you find the sickening spectacle easily digestible.

It just sounds like the repubublican activist version of Meghan and Harry's Oprah interview.

And we know how much good that ended up doing for the one with the agenda.

Personally, I refuse to give this shit ratings. I've never watched a single episode of The Crown. I didn't watch Oprah or Dax. I knew perfectly well I'd get the whole sickening mess in the UK papers for days afterwards.

And I don't want an elected Head of State. Jesus, elections are bad enough as it is.

No more begowned bejewelled state banquets with the guests clearly thrilled to get their photo ops with the Queen?

Fuck that shit.

Did the Queen go these christenings or not?

The guy behind that documentary sounds like an arrogant troublemaking little twat.

R419, Just now added "The Splendid and the Vile" to my Kindle. Thank you!

But "The Rose Code" is described on Amazon as a novel, "historical fiction."

Hopefully the Queen can attend church today - August Brooksbank (9 months) & Lucas Tindall (8 months) are getting christened at All Saints Chapel in Great Windsor Park.

R448 God, I hope there's photos.

I need some Bad Hats Therapy badly.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

r444, you don't want an elected head of state? Explain?

Lucas is a good name. Zara and Mike are the only people in this family I think I could stand to hang out with.

If the BRF line of succession were based on merit, Anne and her children would be at the tippy top. Zara and Peter both seem so grounded, fun, and unpretentious (even though their mom is said to be similar, she's also considered somewhat aloof and humorless).

R448 - That's Windsor Great Park to you.

There's going to be a Royal rumble. But honestly, I'm surprised they've been able to bury these stories for this long. It might be good for both William and Harry to realize their "advisors" only served to stir the pot.

R452 - Oh, I'd take Camilla after a few G&Ts any day. She looks a laugh riot, earthy, and shrewd.

Peter looked like a bit of an idiot doing that milk commercial…

[quote] It might be good for both William and Harry to realize their "advisors" only served to stir the pot.

I agree, and add Charles’s to that. The Queen’s seem focused on professional tasks, unlike the rest of them.

So any photos from today? The christening should have happened already.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

The Queen has pulled out of the double christening, again at the last minute. Given it's a small service and she would be able to sit through it necessary, this is more alarming than pulling out of the standing for the outdoor Cenotaph service.

Perhaps the Chapel isn't heated, or there is a risk of catching cold from the assembled guests.

So far, the only photo is Eugenie arriving by car.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

One source is Richard Palmer.

Confirmed: The Queen did attend.

R462 - interesting to see Harry's ex-gf Cressida Bonas at the christening. Maybe she's a godmother.

The Queen was in green.

Palmer is pretty reliable. If she did attend, photos are advisable to reassure the public.

And stick it to the Sussexes.

It's not easy being Queen

It seems you blend in

With so many other royal things

And people tend to pass you over

Cause you're not standing out

Like flashy Markles across the water

Or Dianas in the sky…

Brooksbank looks hot. Cressida and her husband both look gorgeous; she would have been such a pretty princess. Bet Meghan's jealous.

Very interesting that Cressida was there! And looking very pretty. The Queen, Cressida - Meghan must be grinding her teeth.

All it would have needed was Kate and William.

If only Cressida would have taken one for the team. And when I same team I mean UK, the Commonwealth and good taste.

Still, big ask all things considered.

Any sign of Andrew at his grandson's christening?

Mike Tindall looks like the type of burly hunk that can give you a good pounding.

Cressida and her husband look great. I dont blame her for dumping the paranoid, immature, balding ginger and marrying a sexier man. She is still around royal circles but doesnt have to listen to "they killed mummy cause she was with a non-white man" day and night.

I'm surprised they didn't go ahead and christen Bea's baby as well, especially given the Queen's health.

I was wondering about that, r474, but Sienna is comparatively tiny. She's just 2 or 3 months while the others are thrash out and about at 7 or 8.

So that everyone can say "Sienna is tiny, they must have had a completely unprecedented triple christening because they're worried the Queen might not be around in 2-3 months", r474?

At least Jack's father made it to his grandson's christening. Now, he's gone.

Oh wait. He died BEFORE the christening. I wonder if it was Covid related long haul. If I remember correctly, both Jack's parents had Covid.

That's weird, because I'm sure I saw a photo of both of Jack's parents in the car on their way to the christening, although Jack's dad looked asleep.

They probably just haven't buried him yet.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

It's been archived, check out the photo with the caption "Jack Brooksbank's parents, George and Nicola Brooksbank, attend the christening at the Royal Chapel of All Saints in Windsor"

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote]The Queen is not attending todays Remembrance service. Just announced. They say she strained her back.

Yeah, that can happen to a power bottom.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

The Queen's message to the people of British Columbia.

R483 and R485 - Peter Phillips’s divorce was finalised early this year.

His ex wife is Autumn, not Savannah. The latter is their daughter.

Big Willy has arrived for the Tusk Awards.

Big Willy smile.

Queen Alexandra's Kokoshnik Tiara.

What are the Tusk Awards?

Let me Google that for you, R491.

The obvious when your lack of inference and lacking critical thinking skills denudes and stymies your progression , r482? You want it really bad, but your lower intellectual skills make Fergie's toe-sucking skills look positively benign.

Another example of the patients trying to run the Asylum.

Yes, sorry r487, I meant Autumn, which I got right in the second line!

It seems a bit stage-managed to have held the news of Jack’s father dying until after the Christening. It would be strange to be tied into the royal family through marriage and have to coordinate with the palace on announcements like that.

It may well have been shared, but not reached the newspapers. He's not really anybody in the scheme of things.

Kate was chased by paparazzi for a long time BEFORE she married William. I don't remember Meghan having to deal with this sort of treatment.

William at the Tusk Awards with Africa's leading wildlife protectors.

R495 - I think it was stage-managed only so that the double christening could go forward as a joyful occasion, instead of either being postponed again, or to have it done with the shadow of the Reaper grinning in the background. I doubt there was any more motive than that.

Kate visited a school today.

The Queen held an audience at Windsor.

The repercussions for the BBC are happening. No Christmas concert for you!

A video of the Cambridges at the Royal Variety Performance. Will and Kate tease each other about Will's coughing. Too much singing, she says.

Has anyone seen the BBC program? Could you give a little synopsis?

Which program? The one the BBC just got denied is a carol service yet to be held, at St. Paul's Cathedral, I think.

^ Sorry, no, Westminster Abbey.

The documentary about the rift between the brothers that caused the boycott, r505.

Ah... yes. It's nice to see them pushing back. A couple months ago the BBC was opening a vein over the Bashir scandal and then they turn around and do this, in a program led by an admitted republican. You don't expect the BBC to be People or Newsweek but letting a republic helm the show doesn't exactly show regret or learning.

The first part of the BBC show (The Princes & The Press?) claimed that Kate didn't get anyone screaming at her or any big crowds when she appeared like the Sussexes did. Ahem. Wrong. How can you take a documentary seriously when they can't even get an easily provable fact right?

R504, There have curiously not been many summaries published about it, but ITV has this analysis. One of the bombshells unrelated to family dynamics is that the press hired private investigators to basically stalk Harry’s ex-gf, which might explain some of his paranoia. Otherwise, there were allegations (but seemingly not concrete details) of the brothers leaking against each other or in ways that pulled attention from each other.

In the days following, the Sun got a leak that William had told aides never ever to brief against the family (seems like palace damage control) and ITV announced they had, at a late stage, secured the rights to broadcast a Christmas choral performance hosted/put together by William and Kate (seems like a lash against the BBC).

I’m curious what the second part of the documentary will say.

R510.

The BBC has the best VPN defeating capacity of any broadcaster I've sought to watch. Yet their programming is tricky to find elsewhere in relative real time. They are obviously protecting the rights and leasing value of their material, but damned if I can find it many other places. A bit of a paradox but the BBC is pretty much an insider's club and prone to cluelessness as most are.

R512 I’ve just searched the title on YouTube from the US and found what appears to be it - see if that works for you (not sure it’s kosher to link it).

"the Sun got a leak that William had told aides never ever to brief against the family" - What does this even mean, r510? Would aides have briefed against the family unless William had instructed them not to?

R514 - It’s a bit mysterious because only half of the documentary has aired, but apparently it includes tabloid reporters discussing that they have gotten stories leaked to them from inside William’s office at the palace (and not just his - Harry’s too). Because the Queen’s, Charles’s, and William’s offices at the palace were angry they didn’t have a chance to review the BBC program before it was aired, they refused to participate with it at all other than sending a short written rebuttal that was featured at the end. After the first part of the program aired this week, The Sun reported:

[quote] A senior royal source told The Sun: “William was clear from the start we were never to brief and never to say anything about anyone in the other households. He’d lived through that in the ’90s with his parents in the War of the Waleses and doesn’t ever want it happening again. “He’s in a much better place (with the Press) than his brother.”

This is a very clear authorized rebuttal against that allegation in the BBC show.

I didn't watch the BBC documentary but the royals issue with it appears to be two-fold:

1) According the BBC's own charter, anyone (or organization) discussed as part of a journalistic investigation or documentary is to be given a right of reply. This means that before it can go to air, all parties discussed are generally given a copy of the documentary to view or a detailed synopsis of all the major points raises. The BBC did not give this option to the Royal Family but they apparently did to Sussexes' whose lawyer appeared.

2) This documentary was filmed in 2020 and is over a year old. Apparently because of the court case the documentary has had to undergo major edits, but there is still an issue with many of the claims (particularly about William and Harry allegorically briefing against each other) that are not factually accurate. Indeed, the biggest controversy is that Omid Scobie appears in the documentary even though he is now a proven liar and even ITV refuse to hire him anymore. The BBC is claiming they kept Scobie in because he was the only mixed-race person who covered the royals, even though The TImes Roya Nikkhah is part of the documentary and is a royal reporter. The documentary's producer and host, Amol Rajan, is a known republican who has called the monarchy "rubbish and embarrassing" numerous times and so there is a question of impartiality (again all BBC documentaries are supposed to be impartial).

Numerous royal reports (even some who appear in the documentary like Camilla Tominey, Roya Nikkhah, and Dan Wootton, have come out and said the documentary is hogwash. That it is not an accurate reflection of royal reporting and of facts.

It is shocking that after the whole Bashir thing, the BBC is airing this. Apparently William is heading the charge to boycott the BBC and there is even talk of legal action.

"The BBC is claiming they kept Scobie in because he was the only mixed-race person who covered the royals" - The BBC actually claimed this? It's not even relevant and no one cares about the ethnicity of the reporters.

After watching via YouTube, the thesis of the special is that William has chosen to “play the game” with the media, while Harry has chosen to fight/sue the media—the program is about what’s driving these different approaches and how they’re working out for each brother. It mentions Meghan lying about not cooperating with Omid Scobie and shows both Kate and Meghan (and Chelsy Davy) were basically harassed by the press. It doesn’t seem lopsided to me, more than no one comes out of it looking “above it all” - that the palace and the press both need each other and use each other - and it makes the press look stupid as well as the monarchy (saying the press wanted revenge on Kate for covering her face with her hair in the early days, like she was some kind of zoo animal). It certainly has republican themes because it makes the family all seem like politicians who trade access for favorable coverage.

The way the show is made is also interesting. The journalist breaks the fourth wall, talking directly to the camera and showing the filming set whenever he interviews a journalist, like he’s saying to the audience “I’m not hiding anything, we’re going to show you the truth behind the facade of the press.” He shows a headline and then brings in the journalist who wrote it to comment on it, what they were thinking at the time, what they think now. He’s more than a little bit smug but it’s a neat show.

R518 R519

I wonder if the real issue with the documentary IS the fact that it shows the press games the Palace plays. They like to portray themselves as above it all, but of course publicity is a huge part of the institution. Having that called out by their pet network, the Beeb, has to be discomfiting.

That, and show makes the tabloid press look like a pack of awful people who use all the different royals as pincushions. One of the interviewees openly admitted that the “Workshy William” stories began out of resentment that William and Kate weren’t giving them enough material and were obscuring their pictures. It’s just that William and Kate responded by cooperating more through access, while when Harry went through the maelstrom with Meghan, he responded by withdrawing even more. Either way it doesn’t seem like a humane system.

^ and that’s why the tabloids are willing to join in with the palace now to say the documentary is dog crap.

I like pushback of any kind these days. Pushback works.

R516 - seems very devious and suspicious that the BBC didn't allow the Royal Family to view the doc as is normal procedure. After the Martin Bashir shit storm, you think they would be a little more careful and accomodating. Why are they taking a completely different pather? What are they hiding?

I am really curious about that too. There was nothing in this episode that was shocking or relied upon staying secret before air. The presenter kept emphasizing that he was not examining the truth of the coverage he described (like whether William is or isn’t workshy), but wanted to figure out how the coverage was arrived at (the admission that the press started that storyline to get back at him).

I believe there’s a type of gag order in the British legal system that we don’t have a parallel version of in the US, where a person can ask a judge to require the press not to reveal information publicly. Maybe the BBC was worried the palace would seek that type of order if it was able to view the piece?

Interestingly, if they had let the palace see it, it could have proved the theory of the show in action, if the palace did leak information about it to the tabloids to discredit the BBC. The BBC could have said, look, this is exactly as the show portrayed.

Some of the people who think this doc is tilted to Meghan have said that because her lawyer was willing to appear, that means she was given the ability to review, but I don’t think that’s the case—she just seemed to be the only one willing to send a spokesperson in blind. While they do include Omid Scobie, the technique they used placed his interviews alongside other journos who asserted contradictory arguments. The BBC didn’t use any of the interviewees as particularly truthful sources, it was more like they were casting suspicion on all of them.

^ path not pather at my R525.

I think William's problem was that the royals weren't able to review the programme before it was aired. Plus the title - the Princes and the Press - with its implication that William and Harry were being set up against each other as well as against the media gave the impression that this was going to be a deliberately damaging programme.

It was clever marketing on the part of the BBC.

R528 - In the long run, I think it will not be good for the BBC. If the royals continue to boycott them and turn to ITV, their revenues and reputation will suffer.

I don't think it works like that r529.

Cutting off the long-standing BRF relationship with the BBC would be yet another problem on the pile that’s been building up with the strife between the brothers, Randy Andy, Charles’s aide being into bribery, etc. The family is going to really need smooth sailing when Charles becomes King because it’s going to be a tough cultural transition to be without QEII. Instead, the waters seem to be getting choppier.

R530 - the upcoming Cambridge Christmas concert was once slated for the BBC and has now been given to ITV to air according to what I've read.

I think that’s particularly interesting because ITV aired the Oprah interview…it makes clear it’s not so much “we like this network” but “we don’t dislike this network quite as much.” Hey, competition is a good thing for the audiences of the networks and the backstage drama is fun to track.

Maybe it will become a UK version of the US Late Night wars

Will this be like when the Brady Bunch would sing?

[quote]One of the bombshells unrelated to family dynamics is that the press hired private investigators to basically stalk Harry’s ex-gf,

This was reported around the time the Sussexs gave the woe is us interview in an impoverished African country. Not quite a bombshell.

[Quote]Numerous royal reports (even some who appear in the documentary like Camilla Tominey, Roya Nikkhah, and Dan Wootton, have come out and said the documentary is hogwash.

Of course they have. They know which side the bread if buttered on

[Quote]Amol Rajan, is a known republican who has called the monarchy "rubbish and embarrassing" numerous times

It appears he let his contempt for the RF leech into his work and led him to violate the BBC charter. He essentially thumbed his nose at them which doesn't enhance his credibility as he seems to think. What I don't understand is why the BBC in house counsel gave the go ahead to withhold it from the family, assuming s/he was consulted. Or does the broadcaster typically give this much "creative control" to their journalists.

A bit late to the thread, but looking at the pics from the Jordan trip, was I the only one wondering why Charles and Camilla were hanging out with Caitlyn Jenner?

Sure r532, William was so angry for no specific reason that he cancelled a contract with the BBC and moved the show to ITV with just a month left till Christmas. And, conveniently, ITV didn't have the schedule for its most important period already booked.

This is exactly the kind of overblown reporting that William complained about.

R537 - Caitlyn Jenner = Queen Rania of Jordan. Very unfortunate plastic surgery for the Queen.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

well R541 everybody, including her younger son, mentions her name every 5 minutes to make a buck

Diana will haunt the Royal Family for years to come.

R539 she looks fantastic!

Rania's plastic surgery was horrific and it never resumed a near normal appearance.. She debuted her new face when her daughter with King Moon-face graduated from Sandhurst three years ago, and it still does not look like it's settled or relaxed.

Must be industrial strength fillers on top of bad knife work. Why does someone like Rania with money and access choose to butcher her face? Or is there some cynical plastic surgeon deliberately making formerly beautiful women the most haggish crones imaginable? It would be a great movie or Netflix treatment. Angry surgeon butchers beautiful women's faces to resolve long-harbored resentment since Brittany not only rejected his prom date offer, but recorded it and posted it on her IG!

How does a formerly beautiful woman look in the mirror and reconcile her new fat-faced Cesar Romero look with the beauty she used to be? Is cognitive dissonance really that strong? Her husband likely has dozens of concubines, so he doesn't have to fuck her anymore, but he does have to look at her face at family dinners or formal occasions. If she has grandkids, do they cry when they see that plastic mask?

Sorry for downright derailing this thread - but here's Rania's eldest son, Jordan's Crown Prince.

This thread seems to have wandered far and wide (haha). I think major plastic surgeries are a lot riskier for very beautiful women like Rania because their natural faces are strikingly unusual. It would seem to be easier for a surgeon to take on someone like Kylie Jenner who was born looking fairly generic—I’d think a doctor gets a lot of practice with that.

Personally I think plastic surgery is nearly always a mistake because at some point it’s obvious what’s happened. People don’t interact with their own faces, so they rely on the mirror or photography, which doesn’t capture how awful Botox and fillers or a facelift can look in motion. There’s an uncanny valley effect you just can’t hide.

Imagine Big Willy showing up at your house to talk about your job.

Will gets personal.

And yet others had to call HR for help! Oh, the inhumanity.

Another worthy cause especially since the pandemic. First responders have so much stress in their jobs and many have died from Covid just by helping others.

Today, The Queen held a virtual Audience with His Excellency Mr. Zakri Jaafar, High Commissioner for Malaysia and with Sarafadeen Tunji Isola, High Commissioner for Nigeria.

His Excellency Mr. Zakri Jaafar, High Commissioner for Malaysia or Sarafadeen Tunji Isola, High Commissioner for Nigeria looks so grim and is wearing a mourning hat.

OMG SHE'S DYING!

The cynic in me says Kate privately thinks: I'm focusing on children's mental health, I've got a king to raise. You do mental health, she was your crazy mother.

Alternatively, r554, Kate has three young children and children's mental health is something she can contribute to as a mother.

She's still alive r552, but she wasn't able to go to Buckingham Palace to perform her duties.

OMG SHE'S PARALYSED AND DYING!!!!

She seems to be better in terms of being able to meet people. But is she still at Windsor? So the invitees come there to meet her. Which is fine. But she does seem to be frail. And that's just in the last couple of months that she appeared to be frail. It's starting to catch up with her. She's still pretty amazing for her age.

Some invitees are going to Windsor, the two ambassadors today were on Zoom with her from Buckingham Palace while she was at Windsor.

The Christmas decor at Windsor.

The Old Girl is feeling better.

How did HM celebrate Thanksgiving?

R562 - England doesn't celebrate a Thanksgiving holiday.

R563 - really? What other countries don't celebrate Thanksgiving?

It is celebrated in the U.S., Canada (second Monday in October), Liberia (November, because Liberia was colonized by free American slaves) and some islands in the Caribbean.

Surely Turkey celebrates Thanksgiving!?

Do Americans eat turkey at Christmas as well? Surely it must be boring eating so much turkey, so close together.

^ LOL... just asked that question on the Christmas dinner thread!

Princess Anne is a work horse.

A lot of Americans eat ham or roast beef on Christmas.

You have to realize Americans eat turkey year round. Turkey is probably the most popular lunch meat, so we don't tire of it too easily. The mistake is usually that people get too big a bird and/or overcook and neglect to baste it enough or put butter under the skin. So there's a ton of dryish leftovers. You know, turkey soup, turkey croquettes, etc for what seems like weeks.

I wonder why goose never took off in the U S. Every time I read about a Christmas meal in the UK, goose always comes to up. Too fatty? The turkey lobby is cock blocking?

We usually eat roast chicken or steak on Christmas Eve and a Virginia ham on Christmas Day.

Sliced deli turkey is a popular lunch meat, but roasting a turkey at home isn’t that common except on Thanksgiving here.

How often does HM eat turkey?

Why would HM eat turkey when she can eat pheasant from her own backyard?

I thought she would have turkey sandwiches from Subway delivered from time to time. They're delicious!

Are you leading up to a crow joke?

Are you leading up to a crow joke?

Who was that dishy kilt-wearing fiddle player in the video at r569 and what was that tune they were playing???

Dows the Queen have pierced ears? Or are all those giant earrings clip on? You never see her lobes sagging.

R579 Her ears are pierced.

Behind the scenes showing the role of Ushers.

I wonder what other countries will decide to cut the cord with the Queen - or Charles - and declare their independence. Now that the Bahamas have gone and done it who else will do it? Especially when the Queen dies?

When Big Liz kicks the bucket, the whole things is going to fracture. What survives is anyone's guess.

32 Years ago today the Queen met with an AIDS patient publicly for the first time. Princess Diana and Princess Margaret and previously visited AIDS hospices. Apparently the Queen had wanted to do something like this earlier but there was resistance from the Thatcher government.

I doubt it. So much happens automatically it's over (the transition from one reign to the other) before you know it. Then there's a week filled with the sweep of emotion and ceremony, one of the greatest strengths of monarchy, and all of a sudden King Charles seems like a good sort and did you see lovely Kate and blah blah blah.... the only time it's recently come close to fracture was Diana and all it took was a walk around London and a short TV speech.

Monarchy is an act of faith... you have to want to believe... it delivers the magic and then most people do.

And they'll all be looking forward to King William, r585.

Just a note for American and other foreign observers: we Brits don't care if the British monarch/head of state is also the monarch/head of state of several former members of the British empire or not. It's really not relevant to the position of the royal family in the UK. Personally, I'd be happy for all those countries to move to different ways of selecting their head of state - it's a bit weird to have a foreign monarch as the symbol of your nation. It would also be a good move in terms of deflating all the pomp and ceremony around the royal family.