Queen Elizabeth will not be attending the opening of the Houses of Parliament tomorrow

This is major

At 96 it's pretty much amazing that she still knows where she is and isn't just shitting herself all day. In all honesty, the UK public need to get use to Charles being King and I think sadly it's time for the Queen to effectively retire (though not abdicate).

I wish she'd just agree to be seen in the damned wheelchair.

I think the Queen is just hanging on to get thorough the Platinum Jubilee celebrations and then that's going to be it.

It's going to be very strange when she's gone, she's been such a constant presence in the world and in the culture (both Britain and the US) longer than any of us have been alive.

Didn't the queen of the Netherlands abdicate in favor of her daughter? We may have King Charles soon, one way or another.

The commentators were saying it was very unusual that she was skipping all the spring garden parties she usually attends. They're also saying she might not be able to appear at the Jubbly either.

Prince 🤴 Charles is 73 years old and his mother is still alive- that’s impressive.

Did she really not attend any of the garden parties?

Queen be like

R6 - and he didn't even lose his first parent until the age of 72.

🐻👑

How many people have you ever known who were 72 years old and had both parents still living? That's remarkable.

Circling the drain!

[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 really hope the old girl makes it to her jubliee.

Sad last days!

The statement says she's going to keep fulfilling her other duties, so why can't she do this one? Is it a matter of the room not being wheelchair accessible? Or just pride?

Can I have her stuff?

I wish she would candidly address the nation as part of the Jubilee and say, basically, here's what ails me. Because it seems to me she's in robust health except for her ability to move. If she is in a wheelchair most of the time for practicality she should say so and ask for the country's indulgence about her reticence to be seen as such. This constant she's circling the drain drumbeat is unseemly and unhelpful. She deserves better but she's about the only person who can secure better for herself and that will require some candour and dare I say, humility.

I am a bit surprised this woman of all women is too proud to be seen to be frail or in a wheelchair. I thought - and I mean this in a kindly way - her Christian faith would allow her to overcome her own pride and show humility and vulnerability - and strength as a result. I put no stock in it, but she's breaking commandments and other tenets of Christianity left, right and centre with this refusal to come clean and own up to the reality of soldiering on in advanced age. She is arguably sending a sorry message about age and frailty by allowing the speculation and hiding away. She can't abdicate, she shouldn't abdicate if she can exercise the functions of the role if not the visibility of the role. That is understandable. That would be fully supported, I believe. But leadership also requires courage sometimes and I'm surprised she isn't rising to it with the pragmatism and stiff upper lip she's famous for. I am surprised.

She is having mobility problems, and the long walk through the Houses of Parliament must be too arduous. She will not want to be seen in a wheelchair.

R16 Probably both. Old biddy refuses to be seen in a wheelchair. If I were a wheelchair-bound person, I'd be insulted by her attitude.

OK, I just read the commandments, she actually isn't breaking any of those but the pride surely lacks the humility of a good Christian.

Your majesty: pop a wheelie and show 'em how it's done!

She missed this two times prior. In 1959 and 1963 when she was pregnant with Andrew and Edward.

I think it's because Princess Margaret was photographed looking frail in a wheelchair and I expect she doesn't want to repeat that.

So unless it's possible to get her to a place with minimal walking, she won't do it.

"The statement says she's going to keep fulfilling her other duties,..."

and those are??????

It's not like she's got to mow the lawn, do laundry and clean house.

I don't think anybody would be taken aback or shocked that a 96 year-old woman was in a wheelchair.

Bye, bitch!

It’s really remarkable that after Cecil Beaton was fired from Vogue for hiding anti-Semitic slurs (like “kike”) in his drawings, Big Liz and all the Windsors scooped him up, got him a position with the Ministry of Information and a lot of work as their royal portrait artist. And note this was right in 1938, when everyone could see where things were going on the world stage.

Compassion? Discretion? No, it’s apparently just fine to be scrawling “kike” and “damned kikes” in your ads, even as Jews were being marched off to the gas chambers - no problem! The Crown will protect and even reward you.

There’s no reason why she couldn’t do it by Zoom or something comparable, is there?

I think having Charles stand in and read her speech is a major step towards abdication.

If she can make it past June 15th she'll be the second longest reigning monarch of a sovereign state behind Louis XIV.

Is it a real Parliament without the reigning monarch, absent a formal regency?

I believe that she is far more frail than the Palace and government have let on, and she is reserving every last ounce of her remaining strength to get through the Jubilee.

Charles is being "supported", in reality, ONLY by William. In terms of symbolism, it is a very clear message about the future of the monarchy.

Camilla and Kate will "be there", but the "support" mentioned really refers to William's step up into yet another place of prominence. The wives will do nothing but look good. William will be on his father's side on the lower chair - the message is quite clear.

I would be surprised if HM made it up to Balmoral in late July. I don't think abdication is realistic, either, because if the end is that close, why bother?

Abdication would only come into play if it really IS strictly a matter of being unable to function and be seen, but she could eke out a few more years alive.

Charles is probably de facto Regent now, anyway.

The Sussexes will be delighted: the moment the old lady breathes her last, their two kids become HRHs, and Harry can publish his vitriolic memoir without fearing her wrath.

Either she just don’t give a shit anymore or she’s dying

Harry and Meghan's two kids are being raised in California, they're Americans. Why should they have HRHs or be Prince and Princess when they have no connection to Britain or the Monarchy?

[quote]I think the end is near for her and all that bunting for her Royal Jubilee celebrations next month will be wasted.

[quote]I think the Queen is just hanging on to get thorough the Platinum Jubilee celebrations and then that's going to be it.

[quote]I believe that she is far more frail than the Palace and government have let on, and she is reserving every last ounce of her remaining strength to get through the Jubilee.

It's like you're getting off on the idea.

[quote]I think it's because Princess Margaret was photographed looking frail in a wheelchair and I expect she doesn't want to repeat that.

Then don't have a stroke, don't wear a sling and don't wear those wonky sunglasses. The wheelchair was the least of her look issues.

Seems to me she can still stand and still get up so why not be wheeled to a certain point and then show 'em there's some life in her yet. Unless it is back pain... perhaps she's actually in pain as a consequence of sitting. She spent a lifetime riding... that's got to affect your hip bones and your spine.

They should get her a tricked out mobility scooter for the duration of her reign.

She needs to just go quietly.

Her husband of 70+ years died. Her favourite son embroiled in embarrassing legal battles. Her grandson, another rumoured favourite of hers, throwing shade at The Firm.

She threw out her back in October, hence the cane and the (even more) pronounced shuffling and dragging of her feet.

Then she got COVID earlier this year.

All this at 96. It's a bit much.

R26- That QWEEN Cecil would have LOVED 🥰 the datalonge

Really is “Sad Last Days.”

R26- Prince 🤴 Philip’s mother reportedly saved some Jewish people during World War Two and SHE was considered the CRAZY 😜 one.

I wonder what would happen if she died a day or two before the Jubilee celebrations. I mean, obviously, in the short term, plans would change immediately, but in the long term, how would the length of her reign be spoken of? It would be a very awkward thing.

I don 't know; some people here think she's in her Sad Last Days, hence my questions, but I think it's normal for a 96-year-old to have trouble getting around, get fatigued easily, and want to stay close to home.

I hope she makes it through with plenty of time afterward, too.

[quote] At 96 it's pretty much amazing that she still knows where she is and isn't just shitting herself all day.

HAWT!!

The York girls are so nice. Maybe they could do more Royal duties.

R29, there always is a "reigning monarch." Charles becomes king the moment his mother expires.

Parliament is unaffected.

The absurdity in the excuses given ("The queen refuses to be seen in the inappropriate manner that she found in Princess Margaret's being recorded in a wheelchair.") ignore that Victoria thought nothing about being wheeled around publicly at an age 15+ years younger than Elizabeth is, and that THAT is a more relevant focus than her sister's seeming dishabille.

Ever since charles and camilla gave her Covid she hasn't been the same

R22, are we officially on royal baby bump watch?

Enough is Enough!

[quote]It’s really remarkable that after Cecil Beaton was fired from Vogue for hiding anti-Semitic slurs (like “kike”) in his drawings, Big Liz and all the Windsors scooped him up, got him a position with the Ministry of Information and a lot of work as their royal portrait artist. And note this was right in 1938, when everyone could see where things were going on the world stage.

It's not remarkable. Edward the VIII wasn't the only anti-semite. The Queen Mother was too. She lobbied the British government to appease Hitler. She was a cunt. An ugly bigoted, racist. Behind the scenes, she was both sides during the war.

She seems to be in good health other than mobility. It is understandable why she doesn't want to appear frail in front of her subjects. For one thing Princess Margaret's wheelchair photo at the Queen Mum's birthday party still haunts the Queen. Also, she takes her responsibility as the personification of Britain and Commonwealth very seriously, therefore she doesn't want to appear weak. I suspect that after the Jubilee we will not see her at events, unless something major happens. She will stick to Windsor and politicians and dignitaries will come to her, so that her mobility issues are less noticeable. This should also help ease the public into accepting Charles, who is still not very popular compared to his mother or his heir. He is actually lucky to have Camilla, because her popularity has risen. Charles doesn't want to admit it but very few people like him. People have liked both his wives more than him. Harry and Meghan are the only people connected to him that are probably less popular.

It’s not just mobility and that long walk through the Houses of Parliament it’s the robes of State and the Imperial crown and scepter.

R52, She stopped the full drag several years ago.

She stopped wearing the Imperial Crown some years back. At recent events, the Crown was carried in on a cushion.

I read Angela Kelly's book and she talked about the procedure for helping the Queen get into those robes. I never realized that the first thing is to put on a fur-lined (I think it was) collar that is fastened around the Queen's neck. The robes are hooked onto the collar. So it sounded like the whole heavy robe was pulled along through the collar. I think there are pages that carry the long train of the robes.

R26 The Queen hardly “scooped up” (whatever that means) Cecil Beaton in 1938 - she was 12 at the time.

Well I'm not a monarchist, but I like the Queen. I wept at her Covid message, honestly.

I know, MARY.

Totally understand, R56. It’s the familiarity of The Queen for most of us. “Mary!” away, dear.

It’s funny how many of us, myself included, wish her a speedy recovery, hoping she‘ll be on the mend soon, wishing her many more years…

She‘s ancient!

I’m amazed at some of the drama here. She’s 96: in a sense (obviously) it’s sad last days but she’s 96, has spent hardly any of her life in a hospital bed and has a role which makes her still feel valued and important. Many elderly people 20 years younger would envy her.

Unless she loses her mental faculties, she is never, ever going to abdicate. The abdication of Edward VIII was an extinction-level event for the Royal Family and I bet The Queen would regard abdication as a betrayal of her father’s memory.

One weird effect of covid lockdown is that it has become normal to see the Queen conducting engagements over Zoom. In a way, I think it has extended the time she can reasonably expect to fulfil her constitutional functions, I suspect she’ll make an effort to make a final balcony appearance in June. It’s likely to be the last big occasion of her life. But thereafter, she will continue to meet ministers, ambassadors and other heads of state at Windsor and over the internet, and will increasingly be expected to leave everything else to Charles and William.

R56 That is the reason that even Republicans in the UK have put off pushing it while she lives. Even people who don't like the monarchy aren't willing to push her aside. She is, I believe, the last contemporary link for most people to WWII, and the last world leader to have served in uniform during WWII. And, she has been a constant presence for most people's lives, especially in the Anglophone world. You can take a picture of her to tribesmen in the African bush, an out of the way tropical isle, or bumfuck, USA, and the majority of people will identify her.

When she dies it will feel like many people had an elderly relative die, like a great aunt, because she has just always been there, smiling, and waving.

R32 Meet the Swedish Princess living in Florida. Precedent has been set. She remains a Princess.

[quote] She missed this two times prior. In 1959 and 1963 when she was pregnant with Andrew and Edward.

I don't think she's pregnant, this time.

If mobility is the problem, I think people would love her more for appearing in a wheelchair and just being frank: "my legs are not cooperating," or however the hell she wants to say it.

R62 I think she should get a blinged out mobility scooter.

Yes, they can bling out the wheel chair - spray gold gilt on it, cover it in royal velvets, etc.

It’s funny you bring up Princess Madeleine, R61. If we’re talking about royals giving off grifter vibes, she’s at the top of the list.

She should put together a Master Class for the royals that will soon be out “jobs”.

[quote]I wish she would candidly address the nation as part of the Jubilee and say, basically, here's what ails me.

r18 honey, if I should live to 96 I won't be explaining anything to anybody. At that age, even 86, people should understand that she will not be able to do the things she used to. After that many decades we should be lucky that she publicly appears, at all. And the world needs to get accustomed to Charles handling these functions, the day will be soon.

When the Queen dies, that will also be the end of all commonwealth countries and Northern Ireland will be given back to Ireland.

There's a legal reason behind this decision.

If the Queen's double stands on the BP balcony or attends Ascot, so what. But if Parliament were opened by a regal imposter it'd call into doubt all acts of that session of Parliament.

Opening Parliament must be boring as shit. I wouldn't go either. Having to read Boris Johnson's shit and pretend I wrote it? No way.

R68 Hold on, you think there is a double of her majesty going around and standing in for her? Other than her James Bond stunt double, I don't think that has ever been true.

R61 Madeleine’s father took away the HRHs of all of his grandchildren except Victoria’s kids in one fell swoop to streamline the monarchy and get them off the public teat. Madeleine’s kids are now private citizens in FL.

Actually, I looked at the photographs and I think Charles will be sitting in the chair the Queen sits in, and one isn't lower than the other. If William sits in the other chair, it will be immensely symbolic, visually.

R67 - NI isn't "given back". The deal according to the 1997 Good Friday Agreement is that at such time as a majority of people in both countries (the Republic of Ireland and NI) vote for reunification, reunification happens. At the moment, there is no majority vote in NI for reunification. Reunification hasn't got the numbers, it is still a strongly pro-Union country, just as Nicola Sturgeon doesn't have the votes to win an Indy/Ref yet, and she knows it.

A history book is always a good place to start.

What did you think would happen, the Queen dies, and King Charles III generously "gives" NI "back" as if he owned it?!

And all those Commonwealth countries are there VOLUNTARILY. This is the post-WWII Commonwealth, not the colonialist Commonwealth. It was totally reformed by George VI after WWII. Countries that left asked to rejoin at later times. They are all independent nations and have been for decades. There is no one and nothing forcing them to remain.

Sad last days

Some people seem to think that the Queen hasn't already made it to the 70th anniversary of her accession. She has: she did so in February. The reason why celebrations weren't held then is that royal events are often marked in summer when the weather is somewhat more reliable.

Also, speaking of geriatric children, Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter's eldest son is 75 this summer and both of his parents are alive.

The old bird needs to just fucking abdicate. She’s slowed down considerably but I think she’ll be around another 3-5 years. I know stubborn old ladies, they hang on to the bitter end, giving their kids the proverbial middle finger on their long way out. All of her contemporaries gave up their thrones for their kids (Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, heck even Japan and Qatar). Sucks for Charles.

As an aside, yeah, Charles is 73 and barely lost one parent. Imagine Camilla, 74 and still taking orders from her mother-in-law!

"they're there voluntarily" = "eight hundred years of oppression and British moving in"

Luckily attitudes are changing

R72 Yep, even though Sinn Fein just got elected as the majority party in NI, doesn't mean that NI is going to reunify. They will push for a vote, but around 2/3 of the electorate voted either for unionist parties or The Alliance Party, who is non-committal.

Hang in there Your Majesty, it's only a few weeks to the Jubilee. The show must go on!

R50 - Those papers, I believe they were Walter Monckton'a, were never released. It was rumoured that that was the reason (the Queen Mother favouring appeasement), but as the papers were never released, no one knows. Frankly, it seems out of character for someone like her to advocate for appeasement. She was very, very tough.

Casual antisemitism was endemic to the Britain's upper classes. Now, it's endemic to the lower classes, too. It is spreading like slime in Britain. So, what's the excuse for it, do you suppose?

And as for Beaton: Elizabeth became Queen in 1936, and it was then that Beaton was invited to take the first photographs of her. The VOGUE incident occurred in 1938. By then, Beaton and the Queen had become good friends, and she found him a job at the Ministry of Information in 1939.

The BRF were photographed continually by well known society photographers, from Dorothy Wilding to Margaret's husband, Earl Snowden. Beaton was not their "official" family portraitist, but one of several.

I would imagine that by the time the Blitz was in full form, any thoughts of appeasement by anyone were blown away like so much rubble.

Most countries in Europe have a troubled history with the Jews, and Britain is no exception.

In point of fact, Philip was more attuned to and friendly with British Jews than his mother-in-law and wife. His mother, Princess Alice, helped many Jews escape the Holocaust - she is buried in Israel and is recognised in the Garden of the Righteous.

So it's not as cut and dried as all that.

Hopefully Sinn Fein will sweep the elections in Ireland next, and the two other parties that are basically the same will have to sit it out for awhile.

R68, senior members of the royal family can officiate as Counsellors off State if the Queen is indisposed.

R79 Also, I wouldn't equate appeasement and anti-Semitism. There were many, many people who had lived through WWI who did not want to see a WWII, for very good reasons. Prior to the war Hitler's full plans were not known, either.

R81 There is a problem with that right now, though. There are four but only Charles and William can be called upon. Harry is not in the realm and no one wants Andrew to sign a law or anything.

Queen Elizabeth's mother lived to 101.

[quote] Those papers, I believe they were Walter Monckton'a, were never released. It was rumoured that that was the reason (the Queen Mother favouring appeasement), but as the papers were never released, no one knows. Frankly, it seems out of character for someone like her to advocate for appeasement.

The vast majority of Brits were pro-appeasement. As were the majority of the French. And the US was isolationist. And many other nations were determined to be neutral and stay out of any bloodshed.

The Queen Mother’s generation had grown up knowing for a fact that Europe had allowed itself to be gripped by a war fever in 1914, believing that it would be a limited affair like many other wars before it, and would be over in a few months. There was little awareness that mechanised warfare would turn The First World War into an unparalleled bloodbath. The generation pursuing isolationism and appeasement in the 1930snfimrly believed that they were seeking to avoid the mistakes made by the previous generation.

Most British people had lost young men on the battlefield, and The Queen Mother’s own brother died in action. She mourned his loss and saw many hundreds of other maimed young soldiers who were sent to Glamis Castle when it functioned as a convalescent home.

She was by no means unique in feeling that war must be avoided at all costs. Even George V is on record as saying that he would abdicate before he would see another generation sent into slaughter on the battlefield.

The tragedy is that half the world was determined to go to any lengths to avoid repeating the mistakes that led to millions of deaths, but the other half was intent on repeating the experience.

If she retired she could take up a second career.

R67 it’s probably best not to comment on that about which you know nothing.

You only make yourself look stupid and you obviously need no help in that department.

I don't think most people will care if she shows up in a wheelchair. We all know she's 96. Better to show up in a chair than not at all.

Is it an ⚡️electric chair⚡️?

[quote] At that age, even 86, people should understand that she will not be able to do the things she used to. After that many decades we should be lucky that she publicly appears, at all.

The Windsors are the ones who pushed the, "she'll work until she dies" nonsense.

It's ridiculous that she didn't retire years ago. And no, it wouldn't have been anything like Edward the VIII abdicating.

Now the Palace keeps having to give the press something, and then walk it back a week later.

She's the Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the BRF.

All I know is that, assuming I outlive Q E II, a nuclear crow-bar wouldn't be able to pry me away from my TV and the DL threads.

for her funeral^

She just seems to strong in mind and character still, not to be in control of this situation. I think this is deliberate PR to get ready for some announcement of the arrangement very soon that she'll be handing off her duties as reigning monarch to Charles. Or who knows, maybe Charles will be arranged to say he's becoming mom's formal caregiver and the role will be handed over straightaway to William (?). Physically, or mentally, I don't think Elizabeth will otherwise be going anywhere anytime soon. And yet, it's pretty amazing even in pop-culture, let alone years, that she is still the Queen of England. I was reminded of this watching recently the old "I Love Lucy" episode where Lucy and Ethel try to get into Buckingham Palace to see the queen. And just to realize that they were referring to the very same Queen Elizabeth who is till on the throne, and who is just as fascinating a figure in the world sphere today as then in the 1950s, seems rather amazing to me.

That’s pretty amazing r93. She’s been queen across eight decades.

R82, why can't Anne and Edward replace Harry and Andrew as Counsellors of State?

I'm sure you're a queen, R66, but you're not [italic]the[/italic Queen. She owes her people clarity.

They wouldn't be next in line, Beatrice and Eugenie would be the next two who could take over, and Charles has always insisted they will never have a royal role. It is the next ones in the line who are over the age of 18. Parliament would have to pass a new law to allow Anne and Edward to take those roles.

When Charles ascends the throne Camilla will serve as one, I believe.

The law provides for the spouse as CoS. Parliament could change the law at will and easily. It was adapted to include the Queen Mother, who as a widow was out. They could make it as simple as the sovereign the spouse, the heir and anyone the sovereign appoints, as needed.

Then could Kate be the fourth (when Charles ascends?) -- Camilla, William, Kate, and... well, that still leaves Harry in.

Yep, they just need to change the law -- risking Harry or Andrew is scary.

[quote]R55 The Queen hardly “scooped up” (whatever that means) Cecil Beaton in 1938 - she was 12 at the time.

But she didn’t say no, and kept using him for official portraits for decades.

Sensitivity was apparently of no great importance as long as the results served her ends.

She’s not the Queen of England, R93. Never has been.

The dais in the House of Lords is not wheelchair accessible so it would present a problem once she got there, and would definitely be embarrassing for her. I don’t blame her for sitting it out. Good for her for doing it her way.

They have to be in the line of succession and over 18. Neither Camilla nor Kate are in the LoS: their husbands are.

So it would be Charles, William, Harry, Andrew. No one wants Harry and Andrew signing state papers or representing the Queen.

Beatrice and Eugenie won't do, either.

They can remove people and reinstate others. The likely choices are Anne and Edward.

They need to amend the Regency Act, as well, to ensure that Harry cannot serve as Regent should William, as King, die before George is 18.

And they also need to hurry up and announce who is taking over as CG of the Royal Marines and Grenadier Guards. What the fuck are they waiting for?! The old lady's funeral?!

[quote] When the Queen dies, that will also be the end of all commonwealth countries and Northern Ireland will be given back to Ireland.

And you will continue to be an idiot, R67

R100 Whatever he did, his pictures of the Royals were perfection. I still watch Harvey Weinstein produced films, as well. Since he and Beaton did not appear in their art it is easier to separate the artist from the art, unlike an actor or singer.

R101 As she is Queen of the United Kingdom, which includes England as a constituent part, she is technically Queen of England and Queen of Scotland, which were two separate crowns that merged. Wales had already been added to the Kingdom of England prior to the unification of the crowns, so Wales has a Prince who is a vassal lord of monarch of England. She is also Queen of Northern Ireland as that descended from the Crown of Ireland.

R103 The Regency Act is usually updated when a new person takes the throne. More than likely if William ascends before George is 18, I am certain a bill will be passed naming Kate, as the Queen Consort, regent if needed.

Also spouses, of the monarch, are usually allowed to act as CofS. So when Charles ascends Camilla would be likely to serve, and Kate once William ascends.

[quote]She’s not the Queen of England, [R93]. Never has been.

In the US she's known colloquially as the Queen of England. Always has been and always will be. That's just how it is.

Maybe 50 to 70 years ago she was referred to as the "Queen of England" by Americans. Now, though, in the U.S., you just say, "the Queen" and anyone would automatically know who you mean.

[quote]it's pretty much amazing that she still knows where she is and isn't just shitting herself all day.

Amazing.

God save the bunting.

We're up for a co-regancy.

r105 I think a pet rock would be a more fitting choice than Kate.

Why does Edward get the short end? It is like he's invisible. I don't know why he has not been utilized more.

[quote]At the moment, there is no majority vote in NI for reunification. Reunification hasn't got the numbers, it is still a strongly pro-Union country,

Did Brexit help sway opinion towards reunification?

The only way reunification would happen is if the UK wipe the NI debt share, transfer £Billions to pay pensions and foot the whole bill for combining the territories.

All possible as ridding the UK of Northern Ireland would trigger street party's in Great Britain.

But probably not going to happen any time soon...

R106 So even if it’s completely incorrect, because some Americans use it, that makes it ok?

r114 it's what Americans call her. Get over it.

I'm not so sure the Queen's failure to appear in a wheelchair is about a lack of humility. Quite the opposite. I think the reason the Queen won't use a wheelchair for this occasion is that there will be something of a collective shock to see the Monarch wheeled up the aisle for the first time which could threaten to overshadow the event. She knows it's not about her, but another cycle of the institution. Can you imagine the ensuing coverage? Never mind her speech given by Charles or the PM's comments. It will be about the chair and more speculation about the state of her health. People are debating it enough already -- no need to stoke the flames

Back in the day, Diana decided to debut a new longer hairstyle to the opening. The papers went nuts either going on about whether it suited her or not or criticized her for choosing the event for maximum impact and drawing all eyes to her and detracting from the proceedings. Totally different situations and motives, but the point is that the press will make too much about it.

I wonder if the chair has a hidden port-a-potty attached. (Or not hidden?)

The Times: It is not uncommon for older people to have “episodic mobility problems”. The term simply means that, not all of the time, but some of the time, they have trouble getting around (Kat Lay writes).

The issue can take different forms. For instance, sometimes mobility problems will mean someone freezes and is unable to move, sometimes they will struggle to co-ordinate the movement of their limbs. They may reflect general age-related frailty or be symptomatic of specific conditions such as arthritis.

Mohammed Abbas Khaki, a London GP, said: “As we get older, wear and tear of the joints and the back can mean that we have more arthritis. It also means that when we try to get up from sitting down for a long period of time, or unless we’re “warmed up” a little bit, our muscles and joints are a little bit harder to get going.”

He said that time spent immobile, for example while suffering from a Covid infection, could lead to muscle atrophy or breakdown of muscles.

He said: “When you have arthritis, your joints are not as strong so that means that you need your muscles and ligaments around them, to support them [and] take off some of the burden of what your joints will be doing. Because they are now weakened from the illness and weakened from the immobility, that’s not happening.

“And the problem is, it’s very difficult, particularly in the elderly, to put on muscle mass and get strength. In fact it’s nigh on impossible because you need to overload your muscles to put the muscle mass on. You need to eat a lot. You need to be active, and really it’s about retention of muscles not putting on muscles.”

He said that it was therefore hard to come back from muscle loss and this meant that sitting through a ceremony or walking a long distance would be difficult. “You’ll be in a lot of pain and discomfort generally. And if you’re sitting for long periods of time, you’d find it hard to get up [and] need help and support,” he said. A monarch might not want to project a picture of frailty.

Age UK said: “It is not unusual for people who reach a good age to experience declining strength and flexibility in limbs, impacting their mobility, and to have their good and not-so-good days more generally.”

r117 Brings up another point. On top of the mobility issues, and loss of muscle because of it, she may well have now developed toilet issues, and adult diapers can only go so far. It's one thing when it's a quick 5 minute handshake, chat, photo op, now get out of here engagement. It's another if the engagement is lengthy with a lot of people close by who can, I'll be blunt, hear and smell if you have an unexpected "event". Not to mention what a microphone could broadcast. So personal dignity is likely at play here as well as professional dignity. I could only imagine how mortified she would be, as Sovereign, to have something like this happen at such a honored state occasion as this, so why chance it?

I am not 96, but I have IBS. I'm 54 and the older I get, oh god...the horror. My guts now have a mind of their own. I can eat nothing solid the day before and day of (which for her would only make her weaker) take an entire fucking jar of extra strength Imodium, and still have a VERY unhappy surprise. (Thank god for remote jobs).

So it's likely a combo platter of optics (wheelchair), discomfort/pain from sitting so long, having the energy and concentration to slog through the pomp, circumstance and speech, all along having the worry that her intestines will rebel, and tell Parliament what she really thinks of the lot.

R119 It is so funny how times change, now that the monarch has no power, she worries about such things. When her ancestors were on the throne, with real power, they would just get a boy with a bucket to walk behind them in case something slipped out.

I think hers is the much more dignified route.

The Queen won’t abdicate and it’s less due to the memory of her uncle and more because the king or queen of England/UK is essentially also a religious vocation. She was anointed with holy oil at her coronation. Blame Henry Vlll for this, he’s the one that basically fired the pope and appointed himself the head of the COE. Charles won’t abdicate but I suspect William will put some framework in place where he will “retire” when George is around age 45-50. The queen is only going out feet first. Bless her.

r119 you could be right about the toilet issues. I had a great uncle who became incontinent in his eighties and he had to wear Depends, but Depends only do so much. He shat his pants all the time and it was very obvious to everyone around him when it happened.

r121 that seems like bullshit consider her continued commitment to protecting her pedo son. Where was that in the Bible?

R123 He was always her favorite child, everyone knows that. I suspect it is due to him being the Duke of York, as her father was. Remember QEII wasn't supposed to become Queen, she was born into Beatrice's position.

But, even without that parents tend not to believe such things about their children. Also, it isn't like he was Jimmy Savile. In the UK, the age of consent is 16, which seemed to be around the age that he liked. That isn't being a pedo anymore than every man on here who has had sex with an 18 year old twink being one. You can call it creepy and he broke laws because the girls were apparently trafficked but he isn't a pedophile.

Also, one of her closet spiritual advisors was Billy Graham, she even gave him an honorary knighthood. He was big on preaching forgiveness and hating the sin and loving the sinner. Most people think evangelicals only trot out that line about homosexuality, but they use it to cover many things.

Ok R115 - as I suspected, Americans get it wrong but because it’s clueless Americans getting it wrong, it’s right.

How very American. This is why we laugh at you.

How’s the President of New York going?

Who gives a damn if he's her favorite. A good parent can look past that crap and still not cape for a naughty child. Not to mention a grow ass man, that mother-child favorite crap should have ended decades ago.

And she KNOWS that it was all true and knew it for years because the Palace directly got involved in pushing back against the US's investigation. So she knew her son was garbage but still put that before her faith, those young girls, or anything else. There is zero excuse to see terrible behavior by not only turning a blind eye but supporting the cover up.

She's been a solid monarch but she has personal faults that poke holes in her idea of faith and religion. She's almost no different then the Popes that used their power to cover up the abuse of their subordinates.

There could be some dementia, brought on (or worsened) by the covid. At least that would explain everything - even not doing the main balcony event, which some British "royal experts" or whatever they're called, see to be cautioning about.

And one of them, just several days ago, "Neil Sean from the heart of London", said they had been busy making arrangements to make it easier for the Queen to discreetly get in place for the speech to Parliament - though maybe the family are staying very quiet about the details.

oh, and you'd think the private garden parties could have worked - wouldn't the specially-chosen and curtailed list of attendees be discreet if it were simply a wheel chair?

R129 They invite a lot of ordinary people to those things, people with cell phones.

If this is really simply mobility problems and she's embarrassed to be seen in a wheelchair, at fucking 96, isn't that a pretty extreme insult to wheelchair bound disabled people - like the Invictus Games veterans? Does she think they should be ashamed to show themselves in public?

I have a disabled loved one, and I'm insulted that she thinks it's so horrible. IT'S NOT !! IT'S PART OF BEING HUMAN AND NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF.

I don't know about the UK, but in the US: New government research finds 61 million U.S. adults – about 1 in 4 Americans – have a disability that impacts a major part of their life. Does the Queen think they should hide from the world no matter what because they should be embarrassed to be seen in public?

[quote]How very American. This is why we laugh at you.

We don't care.

Americans call her the Queen of England just like British people refer to the United States as America even thought that is not the proper name of the country.

r126 people in other countries call the Queen the Queen of England as well. It's just a thing with people. Just as Diana, Princess of Wales was always called Princess Diana the world over.

She looks an awfully lot like George Washington

The Queen will never use the "A" word. But it would be nice if she made a speech at the Jubilee recalling that at 21 she promised her whole life, whether long or short, would be devoted to her subjects, and that she intends to keep this oath. However, her strength has ebbed to the point where she does not feel she is able to serve as Britain's Head of State to the extent that the UK, or the Commonwealth, deserves. Prince Charles will therefore become Regent, and will be Head of State for practical purposes. She will, however, maintain her oath in that she will continue to take an active interest in her realm and will provide advice from her long experience wherever it can be of assistance. The people will always have a primary place in her heart, etc.

If Letters Patent are required to allow a Regent at the end of a reign as well as at the beginning, then do it. It could easily be needed at the end of Charles's reign too. Obviously it could only occur at the behest of the monarch, or at a point where several doctors guarantee the monarch is unable to make such a decision any more. Otherwise Charles will always be watching his back for William (and William for Charlotte!).

She's probably saving all her strength so that she can appear on the balcony at Trooping the Color and at the church service the next day. There are many other events that weekend, but those are the ones she seems to most care about.

I agree that after the Jubilee weekend is finally over, she won't be seen much in person for the rest of her reign. She'll do short meet and greets at Windsor and some Zoom appearances, and everything else will be handled by Charles and William.

The sane course of action would be to let the poor woman retire after the Jubilee, but it's clear she'd never go for that.

R126, I'm American and have been reading about the RF for 37 years. Not all of us get it wrong. I find myself correcting people on some of their ideas. The one that staggers me is the idea some Thick Yanks have to say TQ should just abdicate, Charles should forfeit his reign and just hand it over to Wills.

I don't know where they get these ideas. And even after I give them a basic answer as to why not, they still continue to allude to it.

Charles presiding over the opening of Parliament is about as strong a statement as you'll ever see from The Queen that her days as an active monarch are done. She'll do her best to make a balcony and maybe a church appearance at the Jubilee, but after that, it's Charles' game, even if he doesn't get the big title for a couple more years.

Prince George will likely be the last monarch and then the monarchy will be dissolved, as Britain will be majority non-white and Muslim by the end of the 21st Century.

George will save the monarchy by marrying a beautiful Muslim fellow!

it’s possible that HM might get a little confused in certain situations, and even though she’s opened Parliament 50+ times she might be afraid of messing up the ritual. Plus the long walk up the aisle, and wearing the heavy Parliamentary Robe. Wearing the Imperial Crown is out of the question.

It's no crime to get old. But if the Queen can't perform the basic rituals anymore, then a regency probably would be a good idea.

JFC, she hasn't done that for awhile. Last year she had a nice dress and hat. What are you even attempting to contribute?

R9, I lost my first one at 5; my second, at 57.

R79

[quote] Casual antisemitism was endemic to the Britain's upper classes. Now, it's endemic to the lower classes, too.

There has never been anything “casual” about Britain’s vicious Jew hatred, which, like in the rest of Europe, has been socially-culturally entrenched within all “classes” for almost two millennia by Catholic/Protestant churches. Jew hatred is as endemic in England today as it was in 1190, when Jews were herded into a tower and burned alive by the Jew-hating scum of York. Jews were banished from England in 1290 and not allowed to return until 1656.

[quote] His mother, Princess Alice, helped many Jews escape the Holocaust - she is buried in Israel and is recognised in the Garden of the Righteous.

In point of fact, Princess Alice saved ONE Jewish family, the Cohens. She is buried in Israel because she requested to be buried next to her aunt, Princess Elizabeth of Hesse and Bei Rhine, who is considered a Russian Orthodox saint and is buried in the Church of St. Mary Magdelene in Jerusalem.

[quote] Prior to the war Hitler's full plans were not known, either.

R82 Rubbish! Hitler's "full plans"were well known from 1925, when Mein Kampf. To say nothing of the increasing attacks, harrassments and exclusion of Jews. It's not that "no one knew", it's that no one saw anything wrong with Hitler's methods against Jews.

British new media are saying HM won't be opening Parliament due to "mobility issues".

At nearly100 am not surprised Elizabeth isn't getting fitted out with gown, train, regalia, etc... then attempting to manage procession in and out. There's no way HM, the RF and their handlers are going to allow the Queen to be seen wheeled into Parliament. That's just right out. Can you imagine the audible gasps both in audible and across Britain? such a thing would likely been seen as a clear indication HM is not only going on, but not long for this world.

[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.]

She has to sit there for hours and spout shit (i.e. the government's legislative agenda). Of course she'd try to get out of that if she could.

HM has always been rather vain about her looks. It took her years to wear her specs in public and even longer to allow snaps of her with them on for public consumption.

Most openings of Parliament aren't State occasions and HM dresses as she would for normal public appearances. The last two formal State openings, when she had to do the full drag, the Imperial Crown was born on a pillow beside or in front of her as it is far too large and heavy with all those jewels for her to wear anymore. It would have snapped her neck.

*I believe* the Queen did attend parliament last year or the year before and it was without all the regalia w/ Charles by her side. I just saw the photo.

I agree w/ R116. I don't think there is shame in HM not wanting to be seen in a wheel chair. She is damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. If she goes in a wheel chair, the press, DL, etc will all be in a frenzy about how frail she looks and the sad last days the Queen. If she doesn't, as evidenced on this thread and in the DM comment sections, not going, she should just get in the chair, nobody cares. As someone pointed out, she was horrified to seeing Margo in a wheel chair. Remember when Phillip was entering and exiting the hospital to go home to Wood Farm and die - he insisted on walked to the car at 99 with ramrod posture. They are the last of a certain generation.

Remembering HRH the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinborough.

I wonder what a teenager with cerebral palsy would think, hearing that the queen has mobility issues and does not want to be seen in a wheelchair? If I were that child, I'd feel very sad that such a person, supposedly representing and serving ALL of her people, thought that my situation was disturbing and beneath her. People used to be ashamed to be seen sitting in a restaurant with an black person, too. It just wasn't done.

That's what this reminds me of, and I think far less of her now than I did before. I guess all her life she's laughed and sneered at all the gimps who lost legs in wars or were born with diseases like muscular dystrophy or, in her day, polio. How disgraceful, I guess she thought. Well, I think she's the disgraceful one.

Erratum R152 E d i n b u r g h

R153, where is your evidence? She is patron of many charities which advocate for people with disabilities, and injured veterans.

I don't follow the royal family - so I only have this to go on. It's beneath her to appear in a wheelchair, apparently. To give that excuse, it's just insulting. If she's having problems with her stamina or memory, fine, I understand that - it's an appropriate reason. Vanity is not, when it's insulting to the many who have no choice but to appear in wheelchairs.

R95, Edward and Anne were Counsellors of State until William and Harry reached the age of 21. They might need to be recalled with Andrew and Harry’s removal from public life, or Kate and Camilla could be called up.

Yeah, it’s obvious the end is unfortunately sooner rather than later. I was hoping she would hang on as long as her mom did.

[quote]I think the end is near for her and all that bunting for her Royal Jubilee celebrations next month will be wasted.

All that bunting going to waste is the real tragedy.

The Queen will pack a warm thermos for Charles to have in the State Landau then she'll return to the telly to watch horse racing.

[quote]I was hoping she would hang on as long as her mom did.

The Queen Mother liked her booze.

[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.]

She doesn’t look down on wheelchair users. On walkabouts she always goes and talks to wheelchair users, because she appreciates the extra effort they have made to get there.

The reason she does not want to use a chair is because she doesn’t want there to be speculation about her health, and in turn because speculation about the state of the monarchy is something she has always sought to avoid.

Meghan must be utterly gratified that she and Harry and killed Prince Philip with that godawful Oprah interview and now the Queen is dying of the broken heart syndrome. What an evil pair of Sussex twats.

R164 Give it a fucking rest you dumb bitch.

R150. The queen had always worn the robes and crown except for one occasion in the 70s. Abandoning them is very recent, unusual, and due to her age.

I'm the disability rights advocate and I'm going to drop this line of attack - for all I know, her advisors made the decision... but I do believe if she appeared in a wheelchair, alert and otherwise well, there would be less speculation about her health and fitness to carry on.

R18, interestingly, the Pope has recently posted on Instagram about just this issue.

R163 Oh, yes she does. It’s fine for the peasants, the lessers, not for her in some misplaced sense of majesty. That’s why she was so offended by Margaret in a wheelchair. It was beneath their station. Like another poster mentioned, big fat Victoria was wheeled around in public without issue. Not one person would care if Elizabeth was in a wheelchair; she’s old, we all get it. Elizabeth is plain out of touch, stubborn, snobby and vain.

Thank you R169. Glad it's not just me. Snobbery does not become her - and I was a fan (not a subject, of course). I think I've become a Republican! Get off your high horses, your "majesties", the lot of you.

Republican in the British sense -- NEVER in the American sense

A bunch of Americans commenting on the Head of State of another country, which ultimately amounts to nothing, especially as it’s based upon a complaint lack of understanding of how that role works.

I know that you like to think that your opinion matters, but in this case, it doesn’t.

Because Americans know best, R137, even when they don’t. Which is often.

Like you've never had an opinion about an American head of state - like Donald Trump? Never entered your mind that he might have a flaw or two?

We seem to forget the train wreck that was THE Princess Margaret, R169. Much of her infirmity could be traced directly back to her lifelong excesses (drink and cigarettes) that neither parent saw fit to curb. It doesn’t help that The Queen also gave into her little tantrums and let her do as she liked most of the time.

It must have been jarring for The Queen to see her notoriously vain sister in such a state, let alone in public.

The Queen knows that any showing of weakness (even when it would be perfectly understood) would be another mail in the monarchy’s coffin. She’s shrewd and she’s doing everything she can to present dignified strength (at least in numbers).

However, you’re definitely right about the snobbery that ALL members of the BRF have let slip in recent years. They’re a “cut above” and sometimes don’t even bother to hide their feelings.

R172 And you and like-minded Brits will not be commenting here on Trump, Biden, Koch and other US politicians, will you.

R153, pipe down. You're ridiculous.

Pedo is fake news, probably supporters of a different kind of trash. He's odious, but he is not that. Continually referring to him as that is trying to make a lie the truth. The truth is unseemly enough, but if fair isn't fair, fact is still fact. Go back to LSA.

The Queen Mother lived a relatively carefree life ever from the moment her husband the King died. For decades, she was pampered and pleased — of COURSE she lived to 101!

Charles will do just fine. In full regalia and with the added benefit of being elderly himself, he‘ll form a very smooth transitional regency. Long may he reign, I like the old sod.

O God, just die already.

DL's mobility scooter brigade is NOT taking the Queen's decision to eschew a wheelchair well!

R176, the Queen isn't a politician. Do try to understand what a head of state is in most European countries.

R176, there's a distinction. As so many of your sort like to point out, the UK is powerless, antiquated, pointless and the monarchy, in its symbolism, more so.

The rest of the world takes an interest and has an opinion on the United States because it affects the whole world, even now, as it rots. So you're just gossiping in ignorance. We're commenting in dread.

Clear enough for you?

R131 It's more than the optics, I suspect she is in a fair amount of pain, for which back injuries are notorious. If they dope her up enough to mask the pain, her other faculties may be affected. And, lastly, they may also be concealing from us what else is wrong with her.

Lastly, i suspect that she is trying to conserve all her remaining energy for 2-3 of the marquee Jubilee events.

Her bones must be incredibly fragile by now.

She is allegedly meeting with the PM this afternoon to discuss the legislation in the speech.

I noted that the royal reporter on SKY covering the opening today mentioned that Charles and William were acting as Counsellors of State today via Letters Patent that she issued at the 11th hour.

But said reporter also mentioned that the next two on that line are Harry and Andrew, which presented a problem due to their "controversial positions" in the royal family.

So someone finally mentioned it in public.

That's why I think it is important for clarity. There's this tasteless camp certain they know she's moments from death, there's this conspiratorial camp determined they're propping her up with gin and plaster casts to keep her alive for the Jubilee, there's a critical camp thinking she's dissing the disabled, and there's a sympathetic camp wishing they knew what was going on.

In fairness, it has been made clear these mobility issues will result in decisions that will be made at the last possible minute with regard to attendance at events, reflecting her desire to be present and be seen. That is exactly why CoS and the necessary Letters Patent are issued relatively last minute. It is a measured to resolve the sovereign's absence in a specific situation (i.e. she's on a tour from August 1 to Aug 16, so there's a need for an understudy. She can't read the Queen's speech to Parliament, so she needs an understudy.) It's the equivalent of shit, it's raining, we need an umbrella.

So unless it is a vast conspiracy - for which there really is no reason - it's fair to say she's not circling the drain at high speed and if she could move would move and attend. Which suggests pain and discomfort and likely restricted movement.

But given all the chatter from the swivel eyed loons and the stupid, and the general gloom the uncertainty and the regular withdrawal creates for everybody else, it would be best if they'd be more specific about what ails her. It is fair. It is honest. It would at least send the Twitter doctors, real and imagined, down a path of talking about the specific, not the general or the wildly imagined.

Thank you, r186

I'll just write what I've been thinking but didn't want to write it out loud.

I read the article about the elaborate chain of events when "London Bridge is down".

Maybe Q E II is just plain old tired and worn. Maybe she's thinking, "it'll save the country a lot of fuss and money if the Jubilee is changed to my State Funeral."

I know, I know - I've given myself a sound "Mary!" thinking all of this.

Here's Charles giving the Queen's speech. It's about 10 minutes long. The government's agenda for this parliament is so shit, you can tell he's struggling to get the words out. The Queen simply cannot be arsed with having to say this crap anymore.

Oy… "Her Majesty's Government" has a different ring to it than "My Government"

Health is so personal an issue but when you’re dealing with a figure like The Queen, it’s natural for the public to ask questions.

Optics are everything for this family. Regicide eased the transition from one reign to another less than 100 years ago. We will never know the extent of The Queen’s health issues.

Della…sigh. You just wrote what has been at the edge of many minds. Those interested want to enjoy her Platinium Jubilee but the thought that she may not make it through the celebrations is a very real one. We know it will come one day but when it does, it’ll hit hard.

R184 Of course it's clear. The English snowflakes here want to think they're special and so try to ringfence out anyone else's comment.

We’re not all English, R191. Not even British.

But of course being American, you blithely assume that we are.

R192 Anyone can claim they're anything here. Can't they.

You don’t get it, do you, R193?

All those self-appointed experts on the British monarchy and yet nobody has pointed out the identity of the chap carrying the crown on its cushion.

Prince George should be betrothed to Princess Haya's daughter with the bad dude from UAE. That way the future of the monarchy will be preserved by combining the traditions of the British monarchy with the wealth of the middle east.

[R195] Oh, he with the strangely pronounced surname, no?

He and Rose are yesterday's news, no one cares about him now.

R190 - I beg your pardon? In what way was a reign, as recently as less than a century ago, accomplished through "regicide", meaning the murder of a reigning British monarch? If it is less than a century ago, the only candidate would be George V, who died in 1936. (moaning, "After I am gone, the boy will ruin himself in 12 months," which proved prescient - less than a year after his father's death, Edward abdicated for Wallis Simpson). George's father, Edward VII, died in 1910, so that "less than 100 yeas ago" mark is inapplicable - and even it weren't, no one murdered Edward VII.

So, who murdered George V?

If you're referring to doctors who administered a bit more morphine than the man may have needed, that doesn't count: George V was dying. That was palliative care, not "regicide".

[quote] If you're referring to doctors who administered a bit more morphine than the man may have needed, that doesn't count: George V was dying. That was palliative care, not "regicide".

Definitely regicide. The King's death was hastened so that news of it could be published in the morning's The Times.

Every time we comment on Trump, Biden, etc., we're told to fuck off, we have no business commenting on American politics.

The fact is, Britain is a G7 nation from which America itself derived its language, many cultural roots, a huge literary treasure, laws, customs, etc. Britain isn't over, even though the extreme haters here would like it to be, any more than Denmark is over because it retains what is, in fact, the oldest monarchy in Europe.

Most of the West is suffering from the same issues that currently afflict Britain AND America: the impact of a two-year pandemic, inflation, fuel costs, etc.

No one from a country that elected Donald Trump, whose adherents in the Republican Party are still insisting, as David Perdue just did in his bid to get re-elected to office, that the 2020 election was completely rigged and stolen, and whose Supreme Court is about to overturn Roe v Wade, has any business jeering at Britain.

The state of political polarisation in America dwarfs that of pool old Blighty. You're country has the highest rate of income inequality in the developed world.

Take your hauteur and delusions of grandeur somewhere else, Yank.

William looked bored AF.

R199 - No, it was not regicide. He was at death's door with no way back. Richard II was regicide. Richard III was regicide. Charles I was regicide.

George V was a dead man 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.]

^ I would, too, if I had to listen to Boris Johnson's shyte.

R145 - My reference to "casual" antisemitism was meant to distinguish it from pogroms and concentration camps and laws excluding Jews from many professions. It was a reference to precisely the built-in class-based antisemitism you define - but violence is another level and that was what my wording was meant to suggest. We are not in disagreement on this.

Re Princess Alice: we are so used to seeing her as an old, deaf woman in religious garb that it is forgotten that she was quite beautiful in youth.

As for the "she saved on family":

"She stayed in Athens during the Second World War, sheltering Jewish refugees, for which she is recognised as "Righteous Among the Nations" by Israel's Holocaust memorial institution, Yad Vashem. After the war, she stayed in Greece and founded a Greek Orthodox nursing order of nuns known as the Christian Sisterhood of Martha and Mary."

I don't know why it's assumed that a 96 year old woman with mobility issues means she can be hustled out for a strenuous event because there are such things as wheel chairs. Opening Parliament is not the same as sitting in a car and waving. Mobility issues could mean bouts of vertigo which can happen from merely turning your head.

As someone said, it's likely she's resting up for the Jubilee, or just...slowing down. It might even make her happy to give Charles duties while she is still alive. At any rate, my point, and I do have one, is that it's a bit of a stretch to accuse her of thumbing her nose at disabled people when we don't know what the health issue is.

Agreed, the shock and fury over the disabled was by someone you'd think would have a greater interest in the developmentally delayed.

[quote]George V was a dead man already.

R202 George V was in a coma, but still breathing. He was dead right after his physician gave him a massive dose of morphine and cocaine. Definitely regicide.

[quote] It was a reference to precisely the built-in class-based antisemitism you define - but violence is another level and that was what my wording was meant to suggest.

R205 Jew hatred in England was never based on "class" but on deeply entrenched social/cultural inculcation at every level of society. Using the qualifier of "casual" is a deplorable mitigation of the scourge of Jew hatred.

[quote] sheltering Jewish refugees, for which she is recognised as "Righteous Among the Nations" by Israel's Holocaust memorial institution, Yad Vashem.

Phil's mum was recognized by Yad Vashem as a Righteous Gentile for sheltering the Cohens and thus saving them. There is no evidence that she sheltered other Jews.

R208 is right. George V was euthanised.

Or murdered, depending on how you look at it…

Only because he was a king. He wasn't killed for a political end or as a power play. He was euthanised, as many are and always have been, because he was suffering (and, if the legend is correct and it probably is, to make The Times first and not the Daily Mail.)

[QUOTE] R203 William was like "let's get this bloody thing over with already."

William had to get to Manchester with Kate for a prior engagement in the afternoon, they are unveiling the memorial to the Manchester Arena bombing where 22 people died (and many seriously injured) in 2017.

Her passing will mark the passage of the Greatest Generation into history. How many people who lived through WWII are still living after all?

Seven, I think.

R210 King George died the way millions of elderly die in the developed world. In fact I was at my father's bedside when he was given a dose of morphine to ease his immense suffering. He died peacefully a few hours later. I was at my sister's bedside as she was dying of cancer - and yes, she was put on morphine to ease her suffering and died in an opiate haze, but pain free.

It is called palliative medicine, and MDs can complete a fellowship in this. It is a subspecialty of internal medicine.

Plenty of Japanese members of the greatest generation are alive.

"Japan's centenarian population has just hit a record high of 86,510, according to its health ministry, an increase of 6,060 from 2020 – and up from just 153 when records began in 1963.Sep 29, 2021"

He was gravely ill and suffering - but apparently the decision on the shot was not made by his family, but the doctor acting alone. Looks like if he had seen a courtroom he would have had a hard time evading accountability. However there's nothing to suggest anything was done, even wrongly, for any reason beyond easing a dying man's suffering.

"Lord Dawson of Penn was the most admired and respected doctor of his generation. The skill with which he managed King George V's respiratory illness in 1928 undoubtedly saved the king's life and made Dawson a national celebrity. He was also respected within the medical profession. He was president of the Royal College of Physicians, elected twice president of the BMA, and honoured with a viscountcy.

His reputation would have been considerably diminished, however, had it been known that when the king was suffering from cardiorespiratory failure in January 1936 he administered a lethal combination of morphine and cocaine at a time when the king was already comatose and close to death. His action remained a well kept secret and the truth came to light only 50 years later when his private diary was opened, Dawson having died in 1945.

The king had been in failing health for several weeks when Queen Mary summoned Dawson to Sandringham on 17 January."

Anyone have any idea why Prince Charles got decked out in a uniform for the opening of Parliament, while Wills showed up in a morning coat??

R218 Because I'M the star now!

Probably personal choice. When Charles accompanied the Queen last time, he worn a morning coat, but that may be because she did not do the whole nine yards and wore a coat dress and hat. His father used to wear full uniform when he accompanied the Queen but in those days she was crown and robe. When Charles and Diana accompanied the Queen and Duke once, he too was in uniform. So that argues the secondary male is exempt. It's either personal choice or William didn't get the memo.

He's done morning coat twice

Full court press

And full court press with Camilla and DoE.

So William either chose or fucked up. Probably chose so as to let his father pop.

R219 R220 R221 R222 R223

Thanx for your sage input.

What is the purpose of the London Bridge code name.? If any human being with internet access can determine what it means, what is the point?

R218, I wasn't R219, and to be honest I thought I was being extremely boring. But I am avoiding the unpleasant this morning and I will do anything to avoid the unpleasant. If anyone wants a photo essay on Camilla's hemlines at Ascot, I'm on it.

r157 commoners should not be the counselors of state, no matter how high up the pecking order the dick they ride may be. Blood royals are the only ones that should be counselors of state. Why? Because we have loads of them sitting around Crown Property with less than 40 hours of work. I think I'd make more sense for the York Sisters to be counselors before Kate or Camilla. At least Phillip came into the family as a royal in his own right, those married girls are great but they are not royal.

r180 damn Camilla has some nice clothes for a woman of her age. That coat and hat are gorgeous.

R225 it's the code name for what happens after the Queen dies.

It makes perfect sense for Kate and Camilla to be CoS. Status extends from the husband. Camilla will be Queen. Kate will be and is mother to a future king. The York girls will holiday and dine in Mayfair and be photographed in terrible clothes. It's like the Order of the Garter... the sovereign should be given sole discretion to appoint who he or she deems appropriate for the job in the moment. No formula that gets buggered up by old men who think with their dicks or young men who haven't got anything to think with.

R229 what R225 is getting at: Why bother with a "secretive" code name when everyone knows what it stands for.

Well R225, Operation London Bridge sounds a lot better than "Playbook Death and Funeral of QE2"

Recall too, there's only so much a CoS can do and there have to be two at a time.

"In the event that The Queen cannot undertake her official duties as Sovereign on a temporary basis due to illness or absence abroad, two or more Counsellors of State are appointed by Letters Patent to act in Her Majesty's place.

Counsellors of State are authorised to carry out most of the official duties of the Sovereign, for example, attending Privy Council meetings, signing routine documents and receiving the credentials of new ambassadors to the United Kingdom. However, there are a number of core constitutional functions that may not be delegated:

Commonwealth matters The dissolving of Parliament, except on Her Majesty's express instruction The creation of peers Appointing a Prime Minister"

Naw, it should remain a position for actual royals, not commoners. If this had been Sweden where girls that marry into the royal family are made Princess in their own right, then it'd be different, but that's simply not the case in the UK. The girls are royal but they are not blood royals They are still commoners by blood, royal by marriage. Princess Sofia is a Princess of Sweden, Kate and Camilla are not, no matter how many birth certificates they issue with that as their profession.

Well what about the noble blood of Prince Andrew makes you so excited about the ugly stepsisters?

Beatrice and Eugenie are in no way responsible for their father’s behavior, R234.

Actually now I think on it, the whole royal blood/commoners argument is so snobbish and fairy tale. The present royal family either earn their position through respect for their work and service or they don't, but the notion there's any actual superiority on a blood basis is just stupid. And I'm 100% monarchist.

Look. I can totally understand why, if she has slurred speech or retention problems she may not want to be seen in public where she has to read a statement to Parliament. And even if she is sitting down, her hands may tremble visibly. And maybe she has a bit of drool. My own suspicion is she had a mild stoke not too long ago and has weakness. It isn't personal pride so much as her own assessment of being able to effectively fulfill he duty. And I get it if she felt that she couldn't project Majesty effectively in front of Parliament. Sitting in church or waving from a balcony are easier. That's what you'll see from now on. A smile and a wave. Anyone who has had to care for the elderly or been around elderly people knows it isn't just one thing, it's a whole constellation of things. And if the Queen has become incontinent, there are options for how they address that, including a catheter. I'm certain her "servants" now include nursing staff.

The Regency paperwork has already been drawn up because the possibility of her losing consciousness, or in other ways becoming unable to carry on is real. She has been turning things over to Charles gradually for a few years. It's like a living will thing. Already signed and prepared to activate under specific circumstances. I loved William's expression today while Papa read her statement. He was not simply solemn, but serious and sad. Someone needs to work on that with him. Charles does a much better job. But then, he has been practicing for years.

A regency is an act of Parliament. It is not a living will. Parliament is supreme.

She'll be dead by the end of the year.

R240, I agree. I just hope she can hang in there until we get through the fucking January 6th hearings. I do not want the TV coverage to overshadow the hearings.

[quote]Japanese members of the greatest generation

Not to nitpick, but I think that by definition, there is no such thing. Doesn't "the greatest generation" refer to those who lived through WWII and picked up the pieces in its aftermath?

[quote]R146 British new media are saying HM won't be opening Parliament due to "mobility issues".

Is this code for “bowel mobility”?

R206 And lets also not forget most disabled people are not the head of state of 14 countries. I actually think it's in the best interest of the monarchy for the Queen to remain the monarch but to turn over virtually all the public side to Charles to allow the country time to get use to the idea of Charles taking center stage.

R203 Hi, Meghan.

(Yes, that nice speech mentioning he own loss and grief he made was sooooo Let's get this thing over with already . . .)

There was a blind item on CDAN (which I fully realize is 99% bullshit) about some younger royal who got screwed out of $5 million by his cousin's husband. Sounds a little too detailed for CDAN's usual drivel. Could be Harry getting screwed by Eugenie's grifter husband.

The Queen does NOT wear the robes for the official June opening of Parliament.

She wears them for the autumn opening. Hence, the comments about Diana choosing that autumn opening, newly pregnant with William a few months after the wedding, draped in ermine and diamonds, debuting a new, longer hairdo. It was considered disrespectful to debut it at that moment and deflect attention from the Queen and the proceedigns.

Shades of Diana'a daughter in law. No, the other one.

If that was regicide, hospice centres everywhere are guilty of murder for doing the same thing at a soft murmur from relatives that they thought Dad could use a bit more morphine.

He was not just in a coma: he was DYING. He had been on the decline since the late twenties. The seriousness of his condition wasn't made known to the public, just as his successor's, George VI, wasn't made know. No one knew George VI had cancer apart from his immediate family. That's why they packed the black clothes (now a safety custom on foreign trips) as she and Philip set off for Africa.

He had suffered from septaecemia and chronic bronchitis and was drifting in and out of consciousness that night. No one would have given him that dose of cocaine and morphine if they didn't know he was dying.

This happens privately in hospices everywhere, often. If you think that's murder . . . well, we can discuss that on another thread.

George V's death was hastened, but not the result of regicide in services to putting another Sovereign in place - especially when the heart sank at the realisation of who was next on that particular chain in 1936

R203 - Odd, everyone else who watched it observed William choking up as he gave that speech in Manchester today.

Man, you Cambridge haters really belong in institutions.

William knows something. He looked as sad as his father did when Charles exited the hospital after visiting his father. Though Philip wouldn't die for several more weeks, it was clear he knew the end was approaching.

During the broadcast, William had the sad, shocked look of a man who's finally, really realizing that his grandmother is dying, his father will soon be king, and he will soon be Prince of Wales. Whatever duties and responsibilities the Cambridges are shouldering now, their lives are about to get a lot more hectic.

I wonder if William is wishing he'd married Kate 5 years earlier so that his children would be a bit older when their parents became Prince and Princess of Wales?

I think William was so spooked by his experiences with his mother, having to serve as her advisor discussing all her love affairs, he must have been incredibly leery of committing to one woman.

It's really paid off for him, though. Kate has turned out to be the perfect royal consort.

My partner's father just went through this "mobility issues" thing last year at age 86. Well actually it went on a couple of years. He was too proud to be in a wheelchair and as a consequence, never went anywhere and starting having depression because he was stuck home (this was right before lockdown). He WOULD NOT go in a wheelchair, not even to get fresh air. He kept thinking the doctors would fix him. He was a marathon running until his 40s and they said all that impact wore away the cartilage in his knees and lower back - I suppose the same type of thing could be happening to the queen.

In the end, bless him, the old codger was so curled up in pain and agony (refusing help) that he looked like a toddler curled up in bed. It was horrific. Even until the bitter end (and believe me it was bitter and horrifying) he refused to believe that he couldn't be fixed. He died one year ago. I think of him with all of this with the queen, there are so many similarities. I hope she doesn't go out the same way.

I hope the queen is still able to enjoy her evening gin.

[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.]

^Apparently Charlene will get $10 million EVERY year that she continues to do appearances.

Good for Charlene. She will have plenty of money in a few years to jump ship and head back to Africa.

r247 it's so weird that a woman's hair can be disrespectful. Sadly that might have ended her flirt with longer hair which I loved on Lady Di. Jill Biden wore that same style with Uncle Joe ran for President in the 80s.

R233 You are full of nonsense. Kate is a Princess of the United Kingdom and nothing you do or say will make her anything less than a princess.

She is as much a princess as is Princess Michael. PRINCESSES both of them.

See how that works?

The Queen Mother was born a commoner and yet served as CofS.

London Bridge is the well known code name for QEII's death but I think her previous US Secret Service codenames were cool, Kitty Hawk and Redfern.

Counselors of State are not MPs. They are there as placeholders for the monarch and as such could be anyone close to the monarch.

"Royal blood" is bullshit. Their blood is no bluer than anybody else's.

Jeez…some of you guys do the most. There’s a huge difference between palliative care and giving a dying patient enough morphine to end their life for the SOLE purpose of the death appearing in a certain edition of the papers.

[quote]R250 During the broadcast, William had the sad, shocked look of a man who's finally, really realizing that his grandmother is dying

Or desired it appear that way for the paps, more likely.

That family hasn’t made a spontaneous move for decades. Big Liz taught them well.

r259 I know the distinction may be stupid to you, but it matters to the RF. Princess Michael of Kent, Kate and Camilla are similarly princess via marriage, but because it's via marriage they must curtsey to Anne, Beatrice, and Eugene. Diana had to bow to Princess Margaret and Anne when Charle's wasn't present. Kate defers to Anne in public and private when working engagements together because despite Willian's rank, Kate is below Anne when alone. If she were a princess in her own right it would likely be in reverse. Why do they do this? Because they aren't royal in their own right and are showing deference to the blood royals of the family.

Even Prince Phillip, who was married to the heir and then Queen, wasn't an official prince of the UK UNTIL the Queen issued letters patent to make him an official prince of the UK. in 1957 Meaning, he was then a prince in his own right. Sure, he held Elizabeth's rank as her consort, but he was not a prince, which left him at a lower rank than his children (British Blood Royals) when unaccompanied by the Queen until 1957. He was a prince before marriage but relinquished his foreign titles and ranks prior to marriage.

Correction, Kate may be the only one bowing to the York girls given the other ladies advance age and stature but either way, blood comes before anything else, until you reach the big chair of King or Queen.

The Queen Mother was a Counsellor of State, and she wasn't royal. It's about proximity to the monarch.

It makes more sense for the wife or mother of a future king to be counsellor of state than the offspring of the disgraced Duke of York, who have no future as working royals.

r266 everything changes when you reach the level of Queen. The Queen Mother was a queen consort. A queen consort that served in that role during WWII, so it's different ballgame when you reach that stage in the Firm as I said earlier.

r267 what Andrew has done has nothing to do with his daughters. The fact that you blame them for their father's sins is freaking stupid.

R263, stop projecting your crappy personality onto other people.

The York girls are work-shy liabilities to the BRF. William knows this. They are desperate for money and well trained in the art of the grift. Desperation makes for bad behaviours. See Prince Michel and his wife and their Russian mobster pals, in addition to the Senior Yorks. William will ensure the grifting Yorkies stay far away from his family and the firm.

Especially the one married to the bartender. They are already trying to scam a free grace and favor home. The husband can't afford his wife. And the Yorkies can no longer vacation for free with their Russian oligarch pals - that would be too unseemly even for them.

Yes, but even if their father wasn't a louche idiot, Bea and Eugenie have no future as working royals. It would make no sense to have them as Counsellors of State.

I was just reacting to William's bored expression, which I thought was funny. I can't stand that grifting cunt Meghan.

r270 it's not like William is some go-getter himself. He was lazy as hell and had to be dragged south to start working. But he and Kate enjoyed tons of time doing next to nothing. Even today, or prior to COVID, they aren't knocking it out of the park with engagements, despite their age. Post 2019, the Queen and Charles would running circles around the Cambridges with event schedules. Honestly, all of the Queen's grandchildren seem to be lazy as fuck so I don't begrudge the York girls for acting like do-nothing heiresses. I still think they should have been invited into the firm to cut robins but understand it's not my place.

r258 Diana looked great with longer hair, she should've kept it.

I feel bad for Beatrice and Eugenie. They seem like two perfectly nice girls and have absolutely no control over the fact that their father is an epic asshole and a pervert. They should not be tainted by that.

Also r270 it seems like a chicken and the egg situation. They were brought up by spoiled parents that have never had a real job. They are the only royal princess of their generation in the family. Their father supported them and probably thought they'd have a role since the Queen kept on distant cousins as working royals. Charles pulled the rug up from under them but the girls were already too far along to change their ways. I know I don't want to ever work but I have to in order to keep a roof over my head. If housing and money weren't an immediate consideration, I don't think Id be keen on finding employment either. Let me show up to grocery stores via royal helicopters or something. Beats deadlines and being bossed around by commoners.

R273. There is no place for these thirsty women in the BRF. By partying with Russian oligarchs and Middle eastern despots - they have forfeited every right to ever represent the monarchy.

This is a great scene:

The Princesses admit that their "work ethic" has been bred out of them and it's not their fault.

Having just read the comments about lack of bowel control, I'm thinking maybe this is the issue. She had a lot of kids. My mum had the same amount and now she wets herself a lot and she's only early 70s so I hate to think of brown-town is coming up.

The Yorkies were raised by a pair of spongers. It is no surprise that they expect things to be handed to them on a plate.

R231, because they're British.

R279. A half tab of loperamide would block up HM for days.

r277 and The Queen Mother's generation was partying with Nazis, who were also close relations. So, we can play that game but billionaire families are always hanging out with other powerful or wealthy folks. I'm sure, like the Nazi's, the Russians will become excommunicated but wealthy people will always have a small degree of separation between them and crooks, because money is money.

William and Kate were purposely given room to raise their young family so as to avoid future success stories like the Yorks girls and Prince Harry. The older generation, including the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, Charles, Anne, etc. etc. did the volume. By design. This board bitches and bitches about what a lousy mother the Queen was and they make a change to provide for a focus on normal family life for the young Cambridges and then Kate and William are work shy. You people are exhausting.

r280 everyone in that family have their entire "success" and "status" handed to them on a plate. None of them deserve to be royal, King, or Queen, it's all birth right bullshit which is why they are all lazy and aloof assholes. I just think It'd be better to use the York girls over that aging irrelevant queen, Edward. Anne can stay cause she's bad ass and has an even better title, but like, the core of the Firm is ancient.

But again, not my decision so it doesn't really matter.

r284 I don't like the term work shy, those bitches are LAZY.

I think the speculation about her bowel control really adds a lot to the discussion. If we can, could we schedule the bacterial vaginosis conversation for a specific time because I really want to be in on that.

And since all is fair game, R279 types like she wipes improperly - all the time. Red and inflamed.... I can tell. Just IMHO.

R283 Strawman argument. LOL to compare the 30s with 2010s - 2020s.

What was permissible 50 years ago is not now. You know this. Civil rights movement, minority rights, etc - well, you get the drift.

Oh and social media.

A lot of social media.

Why even the BRF have a big social media presence.

Nothing can be hidden, not even for a few hours in this day and age.

People now care deeply about who their "betters" are cavorting with.

r288 wants to bring up Civil Rights? In a conversation about the British Royal Family? Can we stay somewhere on topic?

R277, The Queen Mother’s brother was killed in WW1, and she was vehemently anti-German for the rest of her life. I know you’re American, but do your research.

R290 I have not mentioned at all the Queen Mother!

I am discussing the York girls.

Pay attention!

The York girls are better off a posh socialites. They're unattractive and pointless, without vision or ambition or taste. They are better off going to press release parties with the other vapids of what passes for society these days.

^

Rather R283.

The York girls seem really nice and they will be called upon to do more royal duties soon.

r290 did I say the Queen mother was hanging with Nazis? No. I said her generation. As in her brother in law. Even Elizabeth's husband had close ties to Nazis. Powerful people will rub shoulders with powerful people. Money always comes before all else. I know want to protect the old drunk, I get it, but make sure you read what's written before you try to check someone.

Again, everyone can have bad takes at one point or another. If they can be forgiven for Nazi salutes (hidden at the time) then the York girls can be forgiven for hanging out with wealthy Russians. Chelsea was bought out by a fucking oligarch, so Russian ties before Ukraine's war is not a big deal.

She's going to have a fabulous funeral.

Almost everyone feels either neutral or warm towards her. She has been, and is, an excellent Queen.

When she dies, the Royal family is well and truly fucked.

Is there someplace you can place a bet on whether the Monarchy will survive beloved Queen Liz?

It will. It's part of the fabric of the country.

Of course it will survive. Things wont go south until George takes the throne. By them I assume other parts of the UK will kick the royal family to the curb as feign agents work on their divide and conquer techniques with the UK. Then you have a browner UK (whatever remains) which may then look for a referendum on royalty. No matter how or when or if it happens, it will be very hard to achieve so not likely to happen in our lifetimes or at least not for generations.

R285 you sound highly intelligent and extremely well informed. Such a pity that it’s not your decision!

foreign agents

R299, I gather the York girls are the least lazy aloof assholes.

God save us from the Tik Tok philosophers.

I just hope Kate eats something before she's coronated in 15-20 yers. The queen consort's crown is heavy and needs a sturdy gal to hold it up.

I think it will be sooner than that r302. Charles looks as old as his mother.

I have long said Charles might get his wish to exclude the York girls but he better hope Anne and Edward keep up their heavy schedules for years to come or he will have to hope that the subjects will accept the royals not attending as many events, especially since Harry has flown the coop. William will want George and Charlotte to have years before they take up royal duties just like he was afforded. I think if Andrew were to die or truly exile himself from public life, they might have to, at some point, invite the York Princesses back to the firm to do the extra appearances.

I’ve thought for years that Lady Louise may be called up into the ranks of the premier league royals. She and her brother are of the right age to bridge the gap until George, Charlotte and Louis enter public life. And they have the advantage of parents who are fairly stable and already part of the inner circle of royals.

In ten years time, there are going to be very few royals under 50. Charles, Camilla and Anne will be in their 80 (if still around), Edward and Sophie will be nearing seventy, and William and Kate around 50. Lady Louise will be 28, just the right age for more of the fun royal engagements, and for a nice Royal Wedding.

Isn't she special needs r305?

While the hereditary nature of the monarchy grates for some people, it's not a deal breaker for most.

If we had a President instead they would also have zero political influence, just and elder statesman rubber stamping and acting a head of state the same as The Queen.

Parliament is the supreme authority and would remain so.

R306 No, she is or was cross eyed. It was long said that Edward would be made Duke of Edinburgh, after his father's death but he hasn't been. Then around Phillip's death we got many stories about her special relationship with her grandfather built around their love of carriage racing. Phillip tried over and over in the early years of the reign to modernize and leave his mark on the monarchy. I wonder if he worked out a deal that Charles, or William will break with tradition and make Lady Louise, Duchess of Edinburgh in her own right building on the gender policies recently enacted allowing females to maintain their position in the succession. Especially because I could see her dedicating her life to the Award scheme.

R308 Someone forgot about the rules of Heredity regarding the Duke of Edinburgh title, Charles can rectify it when he becomes King.

r308 why would they keep her around but toss out the York sisters? The Yorks are even higher ranked than Lady Louis. But all three have or will grow into attractive women. Can't see the harm in keeping them around. I don't even see the point of this slimmed down monarchy thing.

Beatrice and Eugenie are both closer in age to William and Kate. Louise is 15 years younger than Beatrice, and a much better fit to fill the age gap until William’s kids are older.

Rightly or wrongly, I think the antics of Andrew and Fergie will keep their daughters out of the spotlight once The Queen has gone.

He was to receive the Edinburgh dukedom when both his parents died, because it passed to Charles and reverts to the crown when he becomes king, so can be created newly for his brother.

R310 Charles is in a different position to his Mother at the beginning of her reign, he has more siblings and adult children.

The Queen in 1952 had an unmarried sister, her Mother, her Husband and two toddlers. She needed her extended family, Charles doesn't even with Andrew and Harry out of the picture.

.

The York girls are ovah.

Sad last days for the ugly step-sisters.

Lest we forget....

Where are Trinny and Susannah when you need them?

William will be in a similar position as his grandmother was at the beginning of her reign if he becomes king before he's 50. His kids won't be ready to take on royal duties for another 15-20 years.

He will probably just tell his advisors where to sign on what documents of the day. Make a speech here and there and basically phone it in. Bare minimum Cambridge style.

[quote]R206 As someone said, it's likely she's resting up for the Jubilee, or just...slowing down.

If the olde cow can’t be arsed to show up for work, her bloody paycheque should be cut off.

Of course she’ll never suggest that, herself. Sodding leech.

Poor Edward never gets a break. Yet he's the one who seems the most "noble" to me and the one most interested in the whole crown & country thing. They should all abdicate to him.

R308 - a perfect example of someone who has no idea but feels the need to share their cluelessness with the rest of us.

^*That's abdicate for, not to.

It really is astonishing how flimsy a grasp outsiders have on how a constitutional hereditary monarchy works.

Repeating for the 1,000th time: the ONLY entity with the authority to change the order of succession is PARLIAMENT. Neither the Sovereign nor any of her offspring can decide to rearrange who succeeds him/her.

The Sovereign is the only person who can abdicate, there is no "all they". And even for her direct heir, who by law is the next in line, Parliament would have to approve any shift. It would take a massive earthquake of screams heard on Jupiter just to get rid of Harry and Andrew.

So the idea that the, what is it, dozen people or so standing between Edward and any such destiny, seven of whom are children under ten, can just be slid over on a whim, and who have no position from which to :abdicate", is so fucking gobsmacking ignorant that I don't know where to start.

The point of a line of succession is the stability that a monarchy is supposed to confer.

Why don't you write to the PM and suggest that amongst all the rest of the turmoil Britain is experiencing right now, hevshould bring a bill forward in the House to strip Charles, William, William's three kids, Harry's 2 kids, and Andrew and his two kids and his two grandchildren of their places in the libe of succession?

Don't forget to tell Boris what a favour he'd be doing DL, which would implode with 24 hours under threads reaching 600 posts within twenty minutes of the bill being introduced?

The figure skaters politicians actors porn stars Tasteful Friends recipes and Let's Be threads wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell.

R321. I don’t think R320’s suggestion was as serious as you made it out to be.

R322 Well, he's free to inform me that he was attempting ironic flippancy.

For the record, my own view is that only the image of William and Kate are keeping the monarchy viable.

There's a reason Charles had William with him yesterday, and that Charles and Camilla took Kate with them on an official outing last month.

Charles knows he's starting his reign on the back foot and that the Cambridges are far more popular. So he's, somewhat sadly, keen to remind the public that William is next up and Charles' reign won't be that long, so . . .

That both are Counsellirs of State was a factor, but HM could just as easily have deputised only Charles. Deputising both served a second agenda.

The tension between tradition and modernization is confounding. One on hand is the reflexive criticism of their lifestyles and skepticism about their value in role, on the other hand a real desire to preserve the royal family as a massive operation peopled by every cousin you can produce. In the last six months we've seen the (ceaseless) promotion of the York girls, the invention of Louise, Duchess of Edinburgh, various arguments for the elevation of Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips. Makes me think of The Crown when Wilson told the Queen: we don't what we want (from you.)

Of course everything that lives must die. But she has been such a visible & important part of the world for so long, it will be a lurch. Her ,"We'll meet again" speech during Covid lockdown was so epic. I will miss her.

Serious question—why are these “engagements” necessary? Has there been any analysis that shows—for lack of a better term—what the return on investment is? Is it better to take that money that goes to the monarchy upkeep and give it to the charities?

I know there are intangibles, and the question actually has a complex answer, but I’d be interested to know if there was an economic/scientific analysis done on this aspect.

r321 I think what the poster means is that every member of the family would line up and all sign abdication papers one by one till the crown reaches fugly Edward. How that would work with William and Harry's offspring is a mystery that only Parliament could solve. As you said, it's a stupid idea but I don't think the poster was any more serious than the posters that wished for frumpy Anne would take over after her mother.

Great question r326. Charities in other countries aren't dependent on a politician or royal to keep them afloat and in the press. I always though this charity and ribbon cutting was just a 20th century creation by the Firm's PR to give these people a "purpose". I doubt the UK really needs a visit from a royal to keep their spirits up. I'm sure it's nice to meet the The Princess Royal or Duchess of Cambridge, just like it would be nice for me to meet Obama, Biden, Macron, or Trudeau, but I'm perfectly capable of carrying on without celeb encounters.

Since they see so many charities is it really all that special? How much press can you generate by seeing someone as insignificant as Prince Edward opening up your grocery store?

After these rocky royal tours, I think it's apparent that people aren't as star struck by royalty as they once were. Maybe they should switch from just being patrons on paper and roll up their sleeves to get into the weeds of some of the charities activities.

[quote] After these rocky royal tours, I think it's apparent that people aren't as star struck by royalty as they once were.

Not only that, they are outraged!

It's not a simple answer, so leaving aside the intangibles after Googling I found this from The Telegraph in 2010, no enemy of the RF admittedly, reporting on a survey (not it's own) that put the royal pull for tourism at half a billion annually and noted tourists from other countries spent £4.6 billion on “culture and heritage” – including theatres, galleries, pubs and premier football. So there's a knock on effect.

Also read a Royal Warrant can add as much as 10% in extra revenue to the warrant holder, who pays his own supply chain, pays employees, pays tax, etc. etc. etc.

Economic value or impact is never one number. It ripples (if not trickles.) The value of the visits may be solely intangible. Couldn't find anything on that. I would say that every business has loss leaders - activity undertaken that involves selling a product or service at a price that is not profitable but is sold to attract new customers or to sell additional products and services to those customers. Part of the job of the monarchy is to engage in the life of the nation and draw attention to life in the nation that otherwise might not get any attention. So perhaps the visits are loss leaders. More to the point, no one is forced to hold a royal visit. They don't invite themselves.

I called this one. The Queen wants the volk to get used to Charles on the throne. She's fine--zipping around the castle on rollerblades.

Don't know about other countries, but when we talk about "getting rid of the monarchy" we're talking about an entire infrastructure of nobility, economy and social structure that is so much a part of the country it would be impossible without demolishing all of it, and that would radically change everything, both socially and more important, economically. The impact would be far reaching. And not necessarily good.

The Imperial State Crown has always arrived at the opening of Parliament in either in its own carriage, or car. Always separate from the Monarch, who wears the Imperial State Diadem and changes before entering the House of Lords. What's the big deal? Its the symbol of the Monarch and nation.

The "gray men" of the Palace are banging thieir canes up and down at R321 and again at R323. Of course only the sovereign can abdicate and of course there is the line of succession. It just points out how unfair the rules are, when Edward and Sophie would likely make the best King and Queen or Queen Consort out of that whole sorry bunch, yet Edward has no chance.

This is why I think before you get too that point we will see the RF really diminished, as we see with the Spanish Royal Family. Massive change does have a snowball affect sometimes. You can keep titles running but remove the monarchy. Many European countries allowed hereditary titles to remain while axing the institution of monarchy. There is a way to replace them with a ceremonial President and be done with it all. All of the oldest heirs from Williams line will call themselves Prince Windsor of the UK just like decedents of other deposed royal families.

I think when it happens, because let's be honest, it will one day, it will be swift in the way that BREXIT just sort of snowballed into a thing. A thing that's brought on some regrets but a thing that the British just had to get on with despite the pain.

At least the government will have a treasure trove of jewels and palaces to really open up to the public.

r334 Edward and Sophie embarrassed themselves during their royal tour when they didn't have an answered prepared for the inevitable reparations questions. Those two are not Prime Time royals. Why would people settle for those two when you can have much more attractive William and Kate. If we are going with aloof, at least give good face. Kate dazzles, I've never seen Sophia dazzle, but maybe it's the cheap clothes she's regulated to wear.

[quote] Charities in other countries aren't dependent on a politician or royal to keep them afloat and in the press. I always though this charity and ribbon cutting was just a 20th century creation by the Firm's PR to give these people a "purpose".

That is partly our fault in the US. UK charities know that if they can send a royal to a fundraiser in the the US, they can rack up more donations than they normally would. Sometimes the charities work with their US counterpart and split the proceeds.

I would just like to play cribbage and Scrabble; is that acceptable after 96 years and 70 years of that on the job? May I have another martini, just like the last one? Thank you.

Sorry, R323, she could not have solely deputized Charles - she was sending Counsellors to perform her duties due to incapacity and that requires at least two at a time. William was obviously and rightly chosen to symbolize the continuity of succession and because at present the only other pickings were the estimable Andrew and Harry.

"Two or more can carry out most Royal functions. They cannot, however, create peers or dissolve Parliament without the express permission of the monarch. A Regency has not been required in the UK in more than 200 years. Counsellors of State, however, have often carried out Royal functions. In February 1974, for example, the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret declared a state of emergency and dissolved Parliament."

"And while a male monarch’s consort was retained as a Counsellor of State, two Counsellors were to act jointly, thus “diluting the power of a single Counsellor of State”.21

Right--Sussex style: fly the coop and shit all over the family, is vastly superior.

[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.]

C does love those lace appliqué coat dresses and they look kinda good on her.

R342 I think she learned the Queen Mum's rule, if you aren't very attractive find the one style that works for you and maintain it for the rest of your life.

That Nicholas Fairford person should be consulted. He can easily take over some of the queen’s garden party duties? Both the UK. and America have utterly embraced him.

I loved Anne's outfit and she looks so happy and engaging. Now you want someone who shoulda been Queen after Elizabeth it's Anne. She would be perfect.

Anne's outfit his frumpy, as usual. No one really wants a frump Queen. Her mother was always put together, I don't know what Anne's problem is. She dresses like a long-suffering closet lesbian.

I don't wish to be hyperbolic, but whoever chose this headline needs to be put up against a wall and shot:

R345 It was said Prince Phillip agreed with you.

Anne has always been a more serious and admirable person than Harry, but didn’t she have to mature into the role herself? I recall her making obscene gestures in public and insulting pensioners for the the gifts they offered even in her 40s.

You tell in those photos that Camilla was thinking, the whole time, "I just hope I live long enough to have some of their heads *chopped off*!!"

Next year they can just carry the royal laptop into the Lords on a cushion and she can read the speech from an easy chair at home.

[quote]At least the government will have a treasure trove of jewels and palaces to really open up to the public.

The palaces and jewels which belong to the Nation are already open and on display. The others are the personal property of the Monarch, and would remain in the BRF, unless they were given to the National Trust, which would be unlikely.

Those garden party pics are nice. Charles looks dumpy rather than elegant, and on him, something about the suit seems very outmoded, as if we're looking at Lloyd George or a Japanese politician in the 1930s instead of the heir to the throne in 2022.

Camilla looks good and knows what suits her. Thank god Anne finally made an effort! I generally find her quite hard to look at. The hat, thankfully, covers her scary poof of hair.

Ann's coat love it. Her dress peeking out from it looks quite fabu as well. the hat goes well, but not extreme,but she has never favored wild bonnets.

Charles needs a decent haircut - especially all that untidiness at the back of his neck.

Ghastly!

This is a good look for them. All 3 of them going out in the rain- as all those invited were getting wet too.

Well done, BRF.

Charles' charity Prince's Trust has helped many young people get employment experience.

I agree, somebody needs to give Charles a proper haircut. And teach William to button him damned jacket.

I have been a lifelong republican, but even I feel a bit sorry for Her Maj. All these people speculating about when she is going to die. Tasteless.

R326 these organisations invite the royals for these engagements, the RF don’t go hustling. They receive far more invitations than they can handle, that’s why they have staff, and offices just for planning these engagements.

Anne would have made the best Queen no doubt.

Looking at Charles' hands always makes me cringe...its like they're red balloons which someone has over-inflated.

R334 The rules aren't "unfair" that is totally modernist virw5of something that has its roots in ensuring stability and continuity. As for your assertion that the Wessexes are the best choice - that's strictly your opinion and. It backed up by a shred of evidence in the polls, where William and Kate outstrip EVERYONE except the Queen.

William has been in training for years, how to steward the Duchy of Cornwall, what the political pitfalls are, the potential issues around matters of state in those daily dispatches the Sovereignhas to plow through. . .

Edward and Sophie are dutiful and dull. No one cares whether they live or die.

It is around the Cambridges, the commanding aura around William, and how perfectly Kate has comported herself, that the sheen of the future cling to.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Edward has no preparation whatsoever to take on the job.

When the Sovereign could pick who his successor was, chaos and corruption reigned. Go read The Lion in Winter, as Henry II's four sons fought for the crown.

The system works. It's too bad you prefer Edward, but he's just a bit of a fool.

William is the one sporting the BDEvand who has the training behind him and the perfect consort.

Hereditary monarchies aren't based on "fairness", it's a naive observation.

The Cambridges are the monarchy's only hope of survival.

Take a look at the crowds around Kate and William in Glasgow today.

The Wessexes would never generate that response.

Fair isnt the issue in this game.

^*It is NOT backed up by a shred of evidence . . .

[quote]R363 William has been in training for years, how to steward the Duchy of Cornwall….

You mean, how to bleed them of gold?

Yeah, he’s mastered that.

Anne's "frump " problem is not peculiar to her. Look at her. I love the coat. I love the hat and the dress peaking out. BUT: Black, obviously worn out gloves, black shoes, black purse. No. Her shoes should have been at least a grey or grey/green, if not deep green with a hand bag and gloves to match. She looks like my Polish Aunt Ethel who dresses for every occasion as if she is on her way to Sunday mass. Sophie and Camilla often have the same problem especially with shoes and handbags. As does the Queen. It is not 1960 anymore. Kate knows this. The others have no idea of the importance of looking ...Majestic. There is a danger in appearing too odinary.

I really like the pic of Charles in his morning suit flanked by his wife and sister.

[quote]There is a danger in appearing too odinary.

MARY!

R368 The monarchy does court the goodwill of the people. Now. You as an ordinary citizen who has perhaps been a super volunteer these past ten years for some local non profit, have though happenstance, been chosen to attend the Royal Garden Party at Buckingham Palace. You get a very formal invite in the post. You are apprised of the dress code and the arrival time and the code of etiquette, etc. So you go out, all excited and spend a small fortune on just the right outfit. This is important to you. So you EXPECT the Royals to look... Royal.

It got to be weird to be the Queen at this stage in her life. She’s moved at the pieces into place, everything is ready for Charles to succeed, she just needs to die. But she won’t ever see how it all turns out!

r363 William does not have big dick energy. He just gives of spoiled man with a short fuse vibe. Same vibe many Saudi Princes give off, except they have slaves they can smack around. William is almost allows clenching his cheek as if in a rage. He's always looked like a spoiled, mean little brat, since he was a small child. I'm sure he will do fine as king, but like previous Kings, excluding Lizzy's father, he's going to be so far up his own ass.

No one but r363 is enthralled with William. He's popular because everyone else is so bland and boring AND because he has the entire BFR PR team, besides Charles, pushing him as the next Sun King. It's smoke and mirrors. William is lazy and mean. Not that others in that family are all that nice. Kate is also a stuck up bitch, but that comes with her status. Before anyone starts, I'm not one to think this make Harry or Meghan saints. Just noting that William is not that impressive. Kate's boring ass is far more interesting because of her outfits.

You know William and Kate, R371?

Monarch's don't have to be impressive, most are just in the background, unless something major is taking place

It's what happens when you separate The Head of State from The Government.

Do you r372? r373 the way r363 raved about William you think he was some charismatic conquering hero.

No I don’t, R374, which is why I wouldn’t be throwing around phrases like “stuck up bitch” and “lazy and mean” about people who I don’t know. If you are so well-connected with the BRF (absolutely laughable, I know!) you’re not a particularly loyal friend, are you?

William seems like he's growing into the role of and old fuddy duddy. Priggish. Judgmental, tightly wound.

Oh please, as if DL doesn't have thousands of comments about other members of the RF. r372 we are free to share our opinons of these do-nothing people.

R376 William is not a fuddy duddy at all. If you watch him interact with regular people (like today when he hugged an old man in the crowd, or when danced with a little girl to help her stop crying) he's got his mother's charm, however, I think he has learned from his grandparents that royal events are not about him personally it's about his role and so he doesn't display his emotions very often. I prefer that personally.

R373 The main value of the few remaining European monarchies is the continuity. The best monarchs are the ones (like the Queen) who are rather dull and rather unremarkable but who provide reassurance (particularly at troubled times) by just being there. I mean, look when the Queen delivered her covid speech back in 2020, no other head of state in the world's message carried the same weight. And not because the Queen herself is remarkable but because she's been there so long. Monarchs are really the nation's symbolic parent/grandparent.

[quote]r370 It got to be weird to be the Queen at this stage in her life.

Don’t you imagine she’s half in a fog? Maybe she thinks she’s 18 again… or not even royalty at all.

No one knows where her mind’s at at this stage.

Bullshit R379 - she has continued to engage with people such as the PM, representatives of charities, Ambassadors presenting their credentials etc via Zoom and in many cases in person when they have traveled to Windsor to meet her. These events are all available on the net. She just has trouble moving, which she has been open about.

You sound like one of the people on these threads who is getting off on the prospect of a world in mourning and a grand funeral. Get a grip. She’s 96 - she’s had a very fortunate life. She’ll die sooner rather than later but there’s no need to hasten her into her grave fir some light entertainment.

But we have tired of her! Time to make way for the new.

Another vote for Anne's lovely red garden party coat.

Can't imagine how all of those people felt standing in the pouring rain waiting to see/meet the pinch hitters. Sure, one day soon Charles will be king, but still, after the magnificient reign of QEII, he is a bottom drawer act in comparison.

The queen needs to literally get off her ASS or pass the scepter.

Do they need to pull her off the public teat by force?

I'd actually prefer to meet the pinch hitters. Anne has always fascinated me.

[quote]he is a bottom drawer act

In more ways than one!

Charles actually got a very enthusiastic reception yesterday in London talking to people about their lives.

As did Kate and William up in Glasgow.

Everyone forgets that Britain watched him grow up, too, just as we had his mother.

He does have a tough act to follow, but there's more affection than you might suppose. And that goes with the affection for the monarchy itself.

I think that Charles has had a better run over the last couple of weeks than, say, the PM, Keir Starmer, Dishy Rishi, and, yesterday, Michael Gove attempting a Scouser accent.

For all his trappings of privilege, Charles seems more in touch than they do.

Why are Charles' hands and fingers always so swollen?

I tried to look it up R387. Didn't really figure it out - could be heart failure or some kind of kidney or liver disease. Especially kidney because the body swells up with excess fluid: "Chronic kidney disease can affect almost every part of your body. Potential complications include: Fluid retention, which could lead to swelling in your arms and legs, high blood pressure, or fluid in your lungs (pulmonary edema)"

But I don't know if he has the other symptoms. Maybe it's something else - but I haven't seen that in other people before. Usually it's the ankles and feet that swell up, as you see a lot in the elderly.

I believe it’s from arthritis r387.

I have been laughing at the comments about William. I think he’s shown a lot of empathy in public appearances.

As for HMQ, I don’t believe the wheelchair story. I think something else is going on. The light has gone out of her. I suspect she’s winding down.

Arthritis might be it - that's the best reason, healthwise, I think:

Psoriatic arthritis can affect people who have a skin condition called psoriasis. It often causes sausage-like swelling in fingers and toes. Both arthritis types are serious and can cause joint damage and other body problems without treatment.

All these people asking why the Queen doesn’t abdicate do not understand her. She is not like the more modern thinking (and sensible) continental monarchs who can retire. They were sworn in rather than crowned in a religious ceremony. She is a very religious woman, and her coronation oath has a profound meaning and importance for her.

She could allow a regency to happen. That doesn’t require her to abdicate. If she cares about the institution, she should have things over soon.

William has BDE and then some.

I used to repeatedly point out his lack of charisma. Now, however, through the magic of power, or being close to assuming it, suddenly, he has it. And yes, that's says more about the observer, me, than the observed.

Does he actually have real charisma? Of course not, but I see now at his public appearances, he's developed professionalism and "relatability" (ugh) with an unmistakable Royal presence that being the future King of the United Kingdom and the commonwealth realms provides.

Indeed, smoke and mirrors, but let's give those two devices their due because they're only as effective as those who wield them, and, in this instance, with skill, the Cambridges do so.

And that's a good thing, because neither of them have exciting personalities, but they don't need them.

As for William being cold and mean, I too, based upon what I've read of him, have no problem believing that, privately, behind the public appearances, if he doesn't like you, trust you, or doesn't want to bothered with you, the frigid blast of distance from him can be lethal.

I gather that from reading accounts form his long-time friends who say that he's developed a keen sensor of the people around him whose motives he suspects or isn't sure of.

Which brings me to Markle. It's pretty obvious that William, plain and simple, just dislikes her, and would, whatever her relationship, or, non-relationship, would be with Harry.

And that makes me have some sympathy for her when she was still in the UK and having to live in close proximity to her in-laws.

One can believe as I do, that both the Sussexes have behaved badly. One can know that they have painted themselves into a corner overestimating themselves.

But damn, it makes the hair on the back of my neck rise when I picture, behind the scenes, in private family moments, what aloof, cool, distance William deployed on Markle. I don't care who you are, that would make anybody uncomfortable.

Here's what visits can do. Something in that old man was drawn to the Prince, who responded to him with humanity.

Regencies are for when a monarch can't do the job. Her principal difficulty seems to be she can't go many places or very far in comfort. Fortunately, there are other members of the Royal Family who aren't 96 and sore who can go on her behalf.

That doesn't say she can't do the rest of the job. And I would argue you can rely on someone so dedicated to duty to recognise the point at which she can't do the most important parts of the job. It's obviously something she thinks about or she wouldn't have delegated as much as she has already.

I enjoy watching movies about Royalty. And if I recall, in at least one of them. Elizabeth's grandfather was made to sign some paper regarding regency. George V. Am I confusing him with someone else? The two movies that come to mind are Bertie and Elizabeth, and The King's Speech. Because V had dementia.

You are, paradoxically, confused about the dementia.

George V did not have dementia. He had cardiovascular disease and reigned until his dying day.

The last regency was George III.

This is the scene I was thinking of, from The King's Speech. He did have dementia, and they made him sign papers for Councilors of State "to act on his behalf." So no Regency, but it illustrates the Councilors of State. function.

[quote]It's pretty obvious that William, plain and simple, just dislikes her, and would, whatever her relationship, or, non-relationship, would be with Harry.

He's probably far more concerned about her relationship to his wife and daughter, if the rumours about the way she treated them in the lead-up to her wedding are true.

Yes, I think they study the King's Speech as part of the history curriculum at Oxford and Cambridge. I gather they're using The Crown going forward as well. The accuracy, you see.

[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.]

Edo is gorgeous!

Beatrice's stigil is the raccoon...

Horrible dress and worse shoes... she can't seem to resist doing her eye make up to make things look worse. She is capable of minimising the 3D bug on the windshield look. She should definitely do more royal duties. Strong add to the team.

Again with the Black shoes! WTF.

Excuse me, Torygraph journo linked at R394, but WE are the humanitarian royals, the royals with the common touch, the People's Prince and the People's Duchess, and the true heirs of Diana (we know because she told us during last night's séance)!

R404 She looks like she is going for a Lana Del Rey look.

She enhances her eyes to distract from her Teef.

OK. To be fair, Bea has lost a LOT of weight. She has a cute figure. She needs a stylist.

OK. I have to ask. When Elizabeth 2 dies, who will inherit. I mean she is personally wealthy so who gets it? Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew of course. But who else? Do you think William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, and all her other grandchildren will get a dime?

R409 I suspect some will be given to the grandchildren, because they will have longer lives to use it. William will probably get the least because she know he will inherit the crown and all the fortune that goes with that.

What fortune goes with the Crown, r410?

I guess everyone is wondering if the Queen will attend the Windsor Horse Show? She was there last year looking radiant and happy despite recently losing Philip. It's in her backyard practically and they can make her very comfortable in the stands. She can just sit if only for one afternoon. If she misses, the speculation about her health will get worse.

R411 The Duchy of Lancaster, among other things. The Monarch makes around 20 million pounds from the Duchy every year.

[quote]Everyone forgets that Britain watched him grow up

Charles grew up?

How many people are alive who were aware of Charles as a child, and then growing up?

Wasn't he born in 1948?

I didn't think Charles gave that speech very well. His heart certainly wasn't in it. (I understand it wasn't written for him but the Queen.)

And when not speaking he was kind of slumped in the chair.

Not a regal showing for Prince Charles.

Where does Eug find these hideous outfits? I'm sure they aren't cheap, but dear God.

I think The Queen should leave her fortune to those who are less fortunate. So Princess Anne's children and the civilians and second borns and spares. All the others will do fine. But those who opted out for their mental health need support too!

R416. It’s written for the Queen in the same sense that your phone bill is written for you. The Queen doesn’t exactly read it with gusto either—that’s not really called for by the occasion. He has a more pleasant voice than his mother. He did find.

Between that photo of the old man bursting into tears at the sight of William and these people pretending that the Queen was some great orator, it's crazy how some people freely look for some subservient role, gazing up at the greatness of the Royal Family. I'm glad continental royals aren't treated in such an elevated manner. They are just privileged government workers, nothing more, nothing less.

R420's pussy certainly stinks.

The Imperial Crown will have to be rebuilt in order to fit Charles’ head. It had been fitted for Edward VII and worn by George V and George VI, it was too large for Elizabeth so it had to be remodeled. I bet that project takes months, because they are dealing with something so precious. All the more reason why Charles’ coronation will be a good year, at least, after his ascession.

[quote]R387 Why are Charles' hands and fingers always so swollen?

From grabbing and secreting gold from the public coffers? It’s a full time job.

R4222 it will definitely be at least a year after he ascends unless the government is getting ready to call an election and wants to manipulate the timing.

[quote]R391 She is a very religious woman, and her coronation oath has a profound meaning and importance for her.

So Big Liz is deluded on that most fundamental level, believing in a big sky fairy?

R425 she is the head of a church. She would be a hypocrite if she wasn’t a believer.

r426 yet it never stopped her from trying to cover up for Andrew's actions. You royal ass kissers sure like to pick and choose when her faith pops up.

NO ONE who's ANYONE believes the slightest bit of that Xtianity crap. Even the Pope knows it's a bunch of hooey.

The Queen's fortune will probably pass in the main to Charles. Bequests from sovereign to sovereign are untaxed. And recall the Queen personally funds the expenses of those members of the Royal Family who serve (Anne, Edward, etc.) so some will go to that under him. The sovereign also pays normal tax rates on profits made from the capital (and from the Duchy of Lancaster revenue), so it isn't tax free tax free but it does escape 40% death duties. There is also a provision in UK law that bequests made seven years prior to the death of the grantor are exempt from death duties. So it is likely she has made provision for family but it was probably done long enough ago to clear the duty threshold.

Queen Victoria attended her jubilee service at St. Paul's Cathedral in a carriage. Owing to her infirmity and age, she did not enter the cathedral.

I've been wondering whether QEII might emulate that in certain circumstances, like the horse show. They can load her into a carriage at Windsor, in privacy, sat on two hundred down pillows, and drive her over to watch the proceedings.

The Queen releases photos of her jewels.

Wow. Major hardware.

Has anyone asked you know who if she's OK?

[quote] r426 she is the head of a church. She would be a hypocrite if she wasn’t a believer.

So, she runs a cult. Classy.

^ Ridiculous.

I bet you know who is drooling over the pictures of those jewels. She likes the green ones - the emeralds.

The only green for her is envy.

Oh, wait, I forgot the Nolan Miller triumph.

R416- I do not know WHY Americans have so much trouble grasping the necessity for political neutrality of the Crown. Is this really such a tough concept?

Charles IS NOT SUPPOSED TO PUT HIS HEART INTO THE SPEECH because it would like he is ENDORSING ITS CONTENTS. He isn't, He can't. He read with the calm, studied neutrality with which his MOTHER has read it for 68 out of 70 years.

Next year, he could be reading a speech written by a LABOUR government with bills in it that contradict the ones in the speech he just read the year before.

He's not Gary Oldman pretending to be Churchill orating in the House of Commons.

He is the Head of State who cannot even VOTE. That's how important the appearance of political neutrality is. If the government collapses, the Sovereign is charged with asking the head of another party to form a government.

He's not performing for the Oscars.

His HEART isn't what the country is interested in. It is what the government is planning and how far that speech dovetails with the electorate's concerns that the country is interested.

It is profoundly annoying how completely obtuse Americans seem to be about the constitutionally imposed neutrality the Crown operates under.

Yes, just what we bled and died for over centuries: a Sovereign showing with his heart how HEARTILY he believes what the government is up to.

And then, next year, he can give a similarly heartfelt performance reading a speech written by what today is the Loyal Opposition.

Look up footage of his exemplary Mum reading those speeches over the years.

Charles read the speech faultlessly and appropriately. Did you know he's never set foot in the House of Commons, nor has his mother?

Do you know that the Commons MPs when summoned to the House of Lords do so in a loose, chattering crowd, a tradition intended to display their independence from the hereditary arm of the state?

Please - why is this so difficult a concept to grasp?!

Queenie isn't abdicating (the British Royals abhor abdication) and a regency is unlikely unless she gets to a point where she's completely bedridden.

She's fading away pretty quickly. Her decline has been drastic in recent months.

Let the poor old lady go...I think she's ready.

I'm sure she'll appreciate your permission.

Because Americans know best, R438!

I hope she lives on to celebrate her 75th anniversary of her accession, both because we Brits will get another public holiday and because it will irritate all the annoying sad-last-days doomsday bitches posting here.

I hope so too r442, but the changes I have seen in photos suggest she’s ready to go. I truly hope I am mistaken.

I think the most recent photos out there were of her greeting some folks in Buckingham Palace a few months ago. Are there more recent photos? I also have to say, pretty much not one leak has come out about her. There has only been speculation.

R443, I’m just a little more optimistic because I keep remember how the Queen Mother was feared to be at death’s door for about 15 years. The Queen now looks like the Queen Mother did a few years before her death. Like the Queen Mother, the most dramatic change in her has been her weight loss, and the loss of mobility.

One thing I am certain of is that The Queen will not be being filmed if the end is actually feared to be very near.

Some Americans can’t discuss the British monarchy with insulting it. I’m a republican and wish it could be abolished, but I know when to hold my tongue.

Even though I am American, she has been a calm, constant presence all of my life. I respect and adore her. During Covid when Von F**k Face the Clown was advising us to drink bleach it was the UK and the Queen whose advice I followed. When we were isolated it was her words that comforted me:

“We should take comfort that, while we may have more still to endure, better days will return: we will be with our friends again; we will be with our families again; we will meet again.” Losing such a steady, calming influence especially at time like this will be just brutal.

R443 can't wait.

R447 Let us also not forget that on 9/11 she ordered the band at the Changing of the Guard to break with tradition and play The Star Spangled Banner. I remember watching that live on tv that day and it was one of the most comforting things to happen that day. She has always acknowledged that they would never have defeated Hitler without the US, and that was her saying, "Now we are here for you."

When she dies not only will her realms and the Commonwealth mourn, all of the Anglosphere and others will mourn her passing. Hell there might be even be a few drinks to her memory in Ireland, if for nothing else than her historic visit a few years ago, which signified how far both sides of that conflict have come.

[quote]R444 The most recent photos out there were of her greeting some folks in Buckingham Palace a few months ago. Are there more recent photos?

Why won’t she [italic]show her face?!?

Fuck off troll at r448.

Meghan's devoted fangurls had never heard of her till she married into the royal family. So their loathing for the other members of the royal family makes no sense.

Stop urging her death, freak at R451.

r445, You made me laugh as I just had a memory of the queen mother constantly choking on fish and the reporting of her soon to be death by choking. So I looked it up and I didn't make it up in my head. 19982- choking on fish bone, 1986-choking on trout,1993- choking on salmon. Somebody should have changed the bloody menus.

She should have stuck with the chocolates.

R454, that is one of the things I was alluding to. She was helicoptered to hospital one time, and ther was a minor scandal because some government minister was rumoured to have been pleased because the press kerfuffle about it took the heat off the Major government which was attracting awful headlines at the time.

The Queen Mother’s hips and fishbone incidents were a frequent subject of concern for two decades , but she recovered each time.

The Queen is obviously getting frail, but I think the sad-last-days stories are just caused by the shock that she has finally started looking her age. She’s obviously incredibly old, but it wouldn’t shock me if she lives on in happy semi-seclusion at Windsor for a few years, making video appearances and holding audiences when she feels up to it.

One thing that would be slightly ominous is if she fails to make the trip to Balmoral for the summer.

R456 there are two things, like you said if she doesn't go to Balmoral it would be ominous but I would also say if she fails to record a Christmas message.

Movement is her problem, she doesn't have to do the Chistmas polka to give her annual speech. If she can't speak to camera I think we would be told. As to Balmoral, she has all the Jubilee to get through and then it's not like she can go hill walking. I would not be surprised if she summered at Sandringham or Windsor instead.

You might not be, but she would.

Learn some basic reading skills, idiot troll @ r453. I never wished death on anyone.

Londoners - is it worth just being totally crazy and last minute booking at trip for the big week of celebrations? LA to UK + 7 nights = $6000. I've lived in London and for even small events like Pride, the tubes are packed, the streets are packed. Could this be a once in a life time event that I will live to regret for not attending or will it just be hot, crowded, and miserable. I imagine there should be some good parties in Soho. GAY, Heaven, etc - are they still around? I'm 41, look 18, and would travel alone, but know people and the city. I worry something will happen to the Queen or she won't come out. The concert seems like fun. Can I even get into Hyde Park?

r461, We have arranged a nice little bed and breakfast for you in West Ham, Just tell Junie that it's Harry and family and you get it for £50 per night. love and stuff, Granny

Gentlemen, I don't know about the rest of you, but I am going to be a fucking MESS when the Old Girl goes. I've got a huge supply of tissue at the ready. I hope it's enough.

r463, Why though? Really old people die and you just remember with fondness, there is no great sense of loss, so no reason to cry.

Me too, r463.

MARY!

[quote]Really old people die and you just remember with fondness, there is no great sense of loss, so no reason to cry.

That sounds logical on the one hand. and actually rather stupid on the other. At what age is someone's death no longer a reason to cry? Is there an official cut-off point? No matter what age she lives to, a much-loved (by many) figure who has been in the public eye longer than the vast majority of people have been alive will no longer be here. "Oh, well, she was very old, what do you expect?" Of course people will shed tears, and lots of them. No great sense of loss? There will be a very real sense of loss indeed.

R464 The Old Girl has always been the epitome and pinnacle of duty to her people, country and Commonwealth. She has represented every single one of them, with grace, with intelligence and most of all with the knowledge and pledge that she made to them all on her 21st birthday. In 70 years of service, she has never flagged or intentionally put a foot wrong. She is truly a shining example of the majesty of monarchy.

We will not see another like her for many, many generations.

r487, It's loss but it isn't the same. My grandfather died in his eighties and I mourned but my little sister was 36 with 3 children under 10 and it was terrible .A life lived versus a life lost. O course there isn't a "cut off" but you know the difference.

r467 I meant to the above answer

r460 Ignore the stupid troll at r453.

No one is wishing her dead but intelligent pragmatic people are also smart enough to recognize what is reality and what isn't. She's an old lady and she's winding down. Simple as that. If she's ready to go, she's going to go sooner than later.

God speed, the only Queen I've ever known.

Well, British Queen as in Monarch.

I hope she makes it to her Jubilee. She has earned it.

For your everyday grandmother/old person, I would say anytime after 85 - "they've lived a good life". For the Queen it will be sad because she is the last. Royalty, the sadness threshold is 100+, non-royal commoners 80-85+.

[QUOTE] For the Queen it will be sad because she is the last.

She’s not the last, the monarchy is going to continue without her. Queen Victoria reigned for like 60+ years and at the time people were saying the same thing, “she’s the only queen we’ve ever known” etc but the monarchy picks up exactly the same second as the prior one ends. “The Queen is dead, God save The King” means the torch has immediately been passed. People will get over it and accept the new reign, short as it may be.

It will almost certainly survive, but she is the last link to the ancien régime style of monarchy. She’s a link to the time when monarchies were grand and royalty were a class apart. No western monarch will ever enjoy the reverence she and her parents and grand parents enjoyed

There is mourning someone, and there is making someone's death all about you (I'm a total mess right now, you guys!).

It's ok, she's beaming at horses.

she may be the last of a certain breed, but I think a more personal touch is important. She’s never given an interview and she maintains a stoic aloofness in public which doesn’t really have a place today. She’s the last Victorian.

Good to see her looking a little fuller in the face again.

I'm not a troll a R451 and I pushed too hard because R443 is the kind of post that really pisses me off. Apparently I am a troll for pushing on it but it's just find for Dr. Datalounge to diagnose "The changes I have seen suggest she's ready to go."

Well, how fucking arrogant and baseless is that?

And to look at the pictures of her today at the Horse Show, is the gifted doctor prepared to revise her diagnosis because the lady doesn't look like she's ready to go to me.

As others - I am not alone in this - have observed on this board, DL's grief chorus has been predicting her imminent death about once a month since Prince Philip died, maybe earlier.

It is baseless, it is tasteless, it is ghoulish and I don't know what need it fills but I'm happy to be called a troll by minds that work like that.

Sorry R443 and R471 are hypocrites clucking away how they hope she lives but oh, dear, just look at her... morbid. Sorry, ladies, that she looks so well today.

[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.]

Despite my evident and full throated annoyance, isn't it great to see her looking so animated and content? While I've no doubt she'll alive for the Jubilee (sorry, black crows), the pictures from the Horse Shoe are good indicators she can make the key moments and there are ways to provide for her mobility and comfort despite the circumstances. Hard to imagine her will to live, I mean attend, isn't strong enough they'll be able to come up with something.

I adore that old war horse, Queen Elizabeth II.

As an American child in the 60s, as soon as I could read, I fell in love with newspapers and magazines. My best friend's mom used to buy the weekly tabloids and Photoplay Magazine and I'd read those, too.

Even if you're not a pop culture observer, you know, somewhere, she's alive, because she's among the handful of most famous persons of Earth.

I'll mourn because Q E II is the rare example that I know of where a famous person took a public vow to do something, and then actually made their actions consistent with their words.

For years!

When she's dead, that kind of integrity is dead, too. Now that I type that, I realize that's mostly while I'll feel a sense of loss when she dies.

[quote] It is baseless, it is tasteless, it is ghoulish and I don't know what need it fills but I'm happy to be called a troll by minds that work like that.

Please. Nobody gets out of here alive. I want her to be alive as long as she wants to be, but for crying out loud, the reality is that she's 96 years old. Hell, a strained movement of the head or a slight fall could take her out.

To acknowledge that is a statement of reality, not ghoulishness.

And on a gratuitous, superfluous note, I truly think she's among the best-dressed women on the planet.

Q E II has a unique, instantly recognizable wardrobe. The bold, bad-ass, neon colors she chooses make me happy.

Self-Mary!

But that isn't what is being acknowledged, Della. (R483.) She's 96 - of course she's going to go and sooner rather than later.

What I'm weary of are these thanatophiles who think they can look at her and predict her imminent death, cluck, cluck, cluck, oh I hope not, but mmmmmm.... she's dying. It is absurd and it [italic]is[/italic] ghoulish because there's no need of it. What we know is she struggles with movement and apparently pain, given the repeated reference to comfort. Other than her age, there's no indication she's circling the actively circling the drain. If you can't see that because you're a stout American, OK, comprehension and state schools seldom go hand in hand anywhere. But passively hoping against the death you've just diagnosed is about as value add as oh, look, there are clouds in the sky and we get a holiday each July 4th. Well, yeah, no fucking kidding. And no thinking person would argue predicting the death of another is any noun for constructive. Last argument from

My parents died within 2 years of each other, both in their 80s. One was felled by a massive heart attack that was over in mi utes, whilst sitting in the back garden on a mild spring day and never knew what hit her. Mentally all there, game for anything, funny as hell.

Me father however was passing through Alzheimers. She had been covering for him for some time we found out, and when she was gone the roof fell in on we two siblings as we steered my father through those last two dreadful years. watching the irascible old man vanish and a stranger with his body take his place.

We mourned both parents, and desperately wished our mother had been granted more years of health.

But we couldn't wish my father back because the father we knew had been gone long before his body gave up.

So there are often nuances to grief.

Like many Britons, and an eldergay as well, the brain and the heart work differently where the monarchy and this monarch particularly are concerned. England and Britain and the monarchy are intimately and intricately intertwined. We are in many respects who we are and the path to how we got to be who we are and where we are because of what monarchs did.

It wasn't an elected leader who welded England into a unified European power for the first time: it was Henry II.

So for us it looks different.

You can and I could come up with for and against arguments as easily as falling out of bed in the middle of the night.

But if you ask me what this country's biggest problems are . . . The monarchy doesn,'t even make it onto the list.

My heart won't break but I'll feel odd and somewhat sad. And wonder whether I'll live to see how it changes.

[quote] If you can't see that because you're a stout American, OK, comprehension and state schools seldom go hand in hand anywhere.

lol, r484.

If I understand you correctly, you're not denying the reality of her age and that she could go anytime, you're expressing distaste of what you perceive to be analogous to vultures prematurely and mistakenly circling over someone who is very much, from all seen evidence, alive.

And all because, as long as she's alive, the curtains can't part for us to finally see the majestic pageantry, spectacle, drama, gossip of a State Funeral.

That's what you find so distasteful. Do I understand you?

See? I'm no ignorant yokel. I've even been to Orlando, Florida once or twice.

She's definitely having a blast in those pics at the horse show. I think she just decided to ditch the drudgery of having to sit up and read that fucking incomprehensibly boring "report" at the Parliament opening ceremony. Let Chuckie do it, what's the diffo?

The Queen's pony won and she is amused. That is all.

Viewing the youtube videos of the Queen's visit to the Windsor Horse Show, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the Old Girl. Other than she's 96 years old and her spine and knees no longer can carry her. She's aware, very much engaged and in top form. She even shared a few minutes in the stalls with Penny Brabourne, Countess of Montbatten, her late hubby's playmate. Her walker today was her youngest son, Eddie Wessex.

The Old Girl was practically hanging out of the car trying to engage with people along the route to the Windsor Horse Show.

Horses and dogs are her favorite things.

Erratum R489 Lemme try that one more time . . . Penny KNATCHBULL, Countess MOUNTBATTEN OF BURMA

She actually looks great. She’s put on weight so her face no longer looks gaunt as in recent pics. Anyone else think they may have put her on steroids? It’s possible—of course we know from Dump that steroids can make you feel great. But she doesn’t have the moon face usually associated with steroids, so I don’t know. But she really does look more like her old self. I don’t think she’s close to being down for the count.

She looks wonderful. Clearly she feels a deep connection with Philip, and doing things they both loved. I think she cares less for all the serious ceremonial things and more for just doing things she enjoys. I think she still genuinely likes meeting with people, mostly in smaller groups. So she'll do that and the rest is all Charles. Standing on her feet for boring state occasions is not her thing anymore.

[quote]r489 She's aware, very much engaged and in top form.

[quote]R490 practically hanging out of the car trying to engage with people along the route to the Windsor Horse Show.

Probably hopped to the gills on morphine. Once you enter that stage of treatment, there’s no turning back.

Della (R486): yes, you understand me.

The amazing thing about you is you're about the only poster in this day room I can tangle with/disagree with without also wanting the satisfaction of wanting to throttle them for stupidity, too.

The vulture analogy captures my objection perfectly.

I'll never stop pointing out the preposterousness of the "the changes [italic]I[/italic] have seen suggest death" DL clinicians, vows

Yes, R495, that explains the smile. Morphine is such a stimulant.

[quote]It is baseless, it is tasteless, it is ghoulish

Are you new here?

Unless she’s attending a solemn event, she’s usually beaming. She’d beam throughout a Morris dance exhibition. She’s the generation of royal that wouldn’t be caught dead wearing an expression that invites the question: are you okay? I wouldn’t take her expression to mean she is enjoying herself—-although given the nature of this event, she probably is—-or that she is free of pain—-she probably isn’t.

I don’t think doctors would be giving her a level of steroids that would give her a moon face.

There are levels of congeniality and levels of smiling through it, and the Queen was BEAMING. She really enjoyed being at the Horse show. BTW, Edward was there because it was his daughter, Lady Louise who was driving Philip's little cart , leading a parade.

R499 you are flattering QE2. There are so many, many pictures of her displaying perfected Resting Bitch Face.

The Queen was driven in a car to see this morning's horse show. She remained in the car with the window down. She looked happy to be there.

R501. I actually assumed someone would post that counter example. It is a bit of a mystery what had annoyed so thoroughly that evening.

Morphine is a SEDATIVE, not a stimulant. If she was receiving morphine injections, she'd be on the nod, not active and enthusiastic.

R503, it's been reported that's the default when she's trying to contain emotion.

Big Liz left the car later on an walked carefully, with the help of a cane, to her seat to watch the rest of the show.

As others have suggested, I believe some of the events she has skipped are so the public gets used to seeing Charles. No more, no less.

What would Elizabeth have done with her life had she not become Queen?

Been rich, raised and raced horses, lived in the country on a big estate.

R495 has to be trolling. Or he’s never seen anyone on morphine. Hint: they’re usually lying in bed and totally zonked.

I'm sure based on what she's seen recently she concludes she feels the Queen is hepped up on morphine and likely to die on the way home. Not that she's hoping so but it is important to point out what she thinks feels suspects concludes.

She looked delighted at the horse show. So she has decided she's "too ill" to do the boring bits like opening Parliament but feeling much better when she gets to do what she likes. Good on her!

She really did look good. A few weeks ago photos showed her looking drawn and tired, thin and gaunt. Today she has plumped up a bit. Yes she is wearing layers of sweaters and jackets, but he face looks fuller. So I'm thinking she had some pain and it has now been managed with steroids She has probably been working with a physical therapist too. When you have the aches of arthritis or osteoarthritis, and you have bone scaping on bone, or the inflammation of bursitis, it drains you. The pain is ever present. And you can't get comfortable when you go to bed to sleep either. So loss of sleep. And anti inflammatory meds are the only thing that helps. IMO, She was probably put on a course of steroids for anti inflammatory and it takes a couple weeks for them to kick in. But the steroid treatments may account for the plumpness in her face. So it all works out.

I think they should have eight gorgeous men carrying her on her thrown for her entrance into Parliament. She could wear an Egyptian wig like Liz in 'Cleopatra'.

I am such a sappy old Queen, but seeing Queen Elizabeth out and about today made me tear up a little bit. I'm not a royalist by any stretch but I have a soft spot for the Queen. She is the same age my grandparents would be if they were still alive. There is something extraordinary about that generation: a real kind of just get on with you life kind of attitude that we've lost in our modern age. She is still sharp as a knife but can't get around as much any more. Honestly, despite looking frailer, the old girl probably has a few years left in her yet. Charles is going to be nearly 80 by the time he becomes King.

Here's the thing about the monarchy here in the UK. It's a ridiculous institution on the surface. The idea that our head of state is determined by a lottery of birth, and yet there is an emotional connection. With the exception of Andrew, Harry and Meghan, I have a soft spot for most of the royal family...yes, even Charles. This is why the institution is likely going to survive because we grow emotionally attached to the family in an odd way.

[quote]r513 She has probably been working with a physical therapist too… The pain is ever present. And you can't get comfortable when you go to bed to sleep either

They shoot horses, don’t they?

And she sure loves horses.

[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.]

R517 dearie, is there a reason for spamming your trans bullshit all over the threads?

[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.]

Anti trans or anti pedophile, R518?

IDGAF, R520 — I’m here to dwell and Mary! about QE2 and QE2 only.

R501, if I remember rightly, that expression appeared when the national anthem was being sung. Presumably it is poor form to beam too openly when one is listening to others urging God to save one.

R522 I've always felt that has to feel strange. To have one's nation's anthem basically be a prayer to God for your life, health, and safety.

Indeed, r523, I suspect even she finds it strange. She never beams when it is being sung. She always adopts a fairly neutral (almost uninterested) expression, which I think generally resembles resting bitch face.

Unseen footage of the Queen.

The Platinum Jubilee is looking quite grand.

R508 - What she said she always wanted to do with her life when asked as a little girl: to be a lady living in the country with lots of horses and dogs.

R480 I wish you were ready to go.

I love how these sad DL Mary's are playing gatekeeper to the Queen's honor, if your her courtiers standing around her bedside. Anyway, since we are talking monarchs on the decline, here is a fabulous movie that fits the mood of this thread. Lots of people fussing about at the monarch's every move for signs of death.

[quote] This is why the institution is likely going to survive because we grow emotionally attached to the family in an odd way.

Not to mention the amusing shit-show Liz has provided us through the antics of her trailer trash family.

I'm sorry you're so unhappy you'd say something like that about someone you don't know, R528. It's hard to be wrong and it's hard not to understand decency. I hope you figure it out. You'll be happier.

She was quite pissed off at having to do the speech in Ascot week in 2017 and turned up in a hat and coat,

Any usefulness she might have once had has been drained. She is a husk that needs be shucked.

Time for Britain to stand on its own two feet without this incontinent pensioner leading it by the nose.

[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.]

R533 The UK has stood on it's own two feet since before it was part of The Roman Empire 2,000 years ago. We've also murdered a couple of King's in the process, we have history.

HM The Queen is Head of State not the ruler.

Here’s the final cut for the balcony during the jubilee: The balcony lineup will boast the Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall; the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and their children; the Earl and Countess of Wessex and their children; the Princess Royal and Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence; the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester; the Duke of Kent, and Princess Alexandra. This according to today’s Daily Mail. It sounds totally believable

So the Yorkies will not be there, nor will Zara Phillips and Peter Phillips. So it's not like a banishment, it's all the ones who aren't working members. Andrew has been ghosted.

I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. I can only hope that Charles and Harry have been working towards making peace, as well as William and Catherine. I know Edward and Sophie and Anne are still probably offended and pissed off. I get it. I think Harry and Meghan will have to work hard to regain their trust. All of them. So if they have any shred of common sense, Meghan and Harry will be low key and when they get back, keep their mouths shut except to say how great it was.

The Queen is said to like the following and in this order:

Horses

Corgis

Her children

I am so glad to see she turned up and looking in great from. Here is a lesson to haters and fraus - never bet against a queen.

[quote]I think Harry and Meghan will have to work hard to regain their trust.

Why? After all they've said, why now?

^^ I believe she was also reportedly wild about her consort/boy toy Philip’s big cock?

R539 Because they need the RF to maintain their relevance? I think they're realizing that the grievance angle may have been sensational for a minute, but now as they have gown apart, it's Harry and Meghan who are losing out, if for no other reason than that they over estimated their popularity, and they put themselves in an adversarial position with the Palace. And the Palace definitely has access to more resources than they do. I would hate to be a consultant trying to help them build their images because these are two people who don't listen. They think they know every damned thing. How do I know this ? Because I've been watching this mess unravel.

[quote] I think Harry and Meghan will have to work hard to regain their trust.

[Quote]Why? After all they've said, why now?

More importantly, how? After all of their indiscretions and attacks, I can't imagine what they could say or do to bridge the divide. Not just with family, but there's the matter of the public on both sides of the ocean.

R535, the United Kingdom was only established 300 years ago. Everywhere that was part of the Roman Empire still exists today.

To add to r543, the United Kingdom lost a large chunk of territory a century ago.

If Harry and Meghan (or Megan, never learned the variant) have a lick of sense, they will know the only people they have to make peace with (and have it stick) are Charles and William; their wives will toe the line. I say this as someone that believes Meg(h)an was treated badly by the British press and the Palace courtiers.

Let’s be frank…no gives a shit about what Anne, Edward and his knock-off Diana think. I laughed when the Wessexes claimed not to know who Oprah was…a man with a failed production company and a PR wife that was selling access to the royals are oblivious to Oprah?! And, Anne doesn’t have room to talk unless we also bring up how HER son has continually grifted using his royal connections. She can keep her sour face and tired updo and clothes in that hoarder’s paradise she calls a sitting room.

What evidence is there Meghan was badly treated?

Yes, r545. Hard to believe, but billions of people outside the US and Canada have no idea who Oprah Winfrey is.

Oprah will soon be as relevant as Merv Griffin.

R547, yes…it IS hard to believe that the owner of a failed production company and his PR wife are oblivious to who Oprah is, especially considering the rampant rumors of his former sister-in-law wanting to give a tell-all to this unknown. The same Unknown that attended his nephew’s wedding.

He and his wife were trying to be coy…I blame Meg(h)an solely for the upgrade of these two non-entities. Had she waited (and not encouraged her hotheaded husband in the first place), the Wessexes would have faded into obscurity. Now, we get stupid stories about Lady Louise not knowing her Gran was The Queen. I mean, really.

Relevance doesn’t diminish name recognition, R548.

Edward’s company didn’t produce frau central programmes, r549.

A four or five year old not knowing their grandmother is the only queen of the UK is not unbelievable.

R549, very true. Neither did his company produce content that appealed to any niche viewership. How anyone could fail so miserably is a surprise but it seems to be a theme in this family.

Sophie was clear about saying her daughter didn’t realize the queen on the money was also her grandmother. We’re not talking about a kid not realizing their grandparent runs a MNC…this is the queen. And, she didn’t say Louise was 4-5, which was even sadder.

Louise has been attending royal events practically since birth. What child (that doesn’t have a serious delay) wouldn’t ask about the pomp and crowds? Either she’s saying her daughter is dull, extremely sheltered, she is lying or a combination of the three. And, Sophie has been known to trend towards dishonesty on more than one occasion, so there’s that.

If the pomp is something you have seen since a very young child, it’s not extraordinary.

What Sophie said was Louise didn’t realize her grandmother was THE queen, as if there were more than one.

[quote]I blame Meg(h)an solely for the upgrade of these two non-entities. Had she waited (and not encouraged her hotheaded husband in the first place), the Wessexes would have faded into obscurity.

Lol r549, Edward especially and Sophie have been performing public duties long before Harry and then Meghan came into the picture. Edward is the monarch's son. Why on earth would the monarch's grandson, who is not even in direct line of succession to the throne, be of greater significance than the monarch's son?

If Edward and Sophie are an indicator of anything, it's that it can indeed be tough to be in the public eye as a member of a royal family and in your younger years you may mess up but if you just keep your head down and get on with things then the situation will get better - a lesson Harry would have been wise to have learned. Sophie is also a good model for how to get over the absolute mauling that a woman who marries into the royal family can get from the tabloids - and she had it much worse than Meghan.

What Sophie was saying is that for Louise the Queen is just her grandma.

Louise was also aged about 6 when she realised that her grandmother is "The Queen".

Prince Edward’s documentary on Edward VIII is actually pretty good, and he narrates it much better than Meghan narrated the Disney film. I heard his company also produced a fairly good documentary on disabled people, but I haven’t seen it. Perhaps Archetypes and the Invictus documentary will outclass them. We wait with baited breath

People seem to forget/ignore that brides entering the BRF in modern times don’t have a choice but to stick it out. Should they leave, they AND their families face social ostracization unless they all just don’t care (and it won’t work to just ignore the social snubs) or they pack up and move to an entirely new country.

Camilla, Kate, Sophie…they have families that benefit from their royal connections and they’re not going to sacrifice their families new standing (this is aside from loving their spouses…”whatever that means”). All of these women were viciously attacked in print (and, Camilla physically with bread rolls) but as long as they kept their heads down, they’d reap the benefits.

Meg(h)an doesn’t have those roots in the UK, grew up where everyone is equal (she has to be stupid to even think that’s true) and because of her non-British roots, she honestly didn’t understand how that way of life works. Meg(h)an also comes from a fucking toxic family…there’s a reason she saw her in-laws as something she could take or leave. If anything, Meg(h)Ann’s paternal side should have given the BRF concerns over her being an American divorcée with acting credits from a game show.

Every other modern BRF bride at least knew how the royals/aristocracy worked from personal experience of living it or being adjacent to it. They knew the benefits of grinning and bearing it…not that they were all first picks as the previous girls normally noped out of what they knew to be a constrictive life. Sadly, all the women took knocks but there was a special tinge of malice to Meg(h)an’s stories because she was different in so many ways and, worse yet, not British.

Unfortunately, she married someone with a Mommie-complex that she thought she could control but, surprise! The man that excelled in the military turned out to be tougher than she thought and she got herself into a mess. And, dug in. I think she’s realized that being the primary adult in a relationship is fun until you come to understand how petulant your spouse is.

You’re being obtuse, R554. Monarch’s son or not, Harry and his wife outranked Edward and Sophie in terms of seniority within the family. Plain and simple. The same way William and Kate outrank the Sussexes.

Sophie was “mauled” because she was attempting (if not outright) profiting from her connection to the BRF. She’s a loss poor example to use.

And, no, R555…that’s not what Sophie said or meant. People are really being thick about how poorly a former PR exec is about getting an image across. Most kids are inquisitive. Hers was not. That family is dull and Charles is lucky to have daughter-in-laws that are academically smarter than their husbands. This branch of the Windors is frightfully stupid.

You’re the first person I’ve come across ANYWHERE to fangurl over a Eddie Wessex production, R557. I don’t know if it’s funny, sad or pathetic. He has direct access to royal historical documents, residences and other memorabilia and still failed. His other passion, I believe was real tennis. Joker. He’s never followed through on anything and, luckily for him, his niece-in-law (The Duchess Formerly Known as HRH) launched him back up front.

[quote] Should they leave, they AND their families face social ostracization unless they all just don’t care (and it won’t work to just ignore the social snubs) or they pack up and move to an entirely new country.

Tina Brown described a close variation on this scenario a couple of weeks after Diana was killed.

Brown was still then the editor of the New Yorker Magazine and she wrote her essay on knowing Diana and the circumstances of her having to be in Paris in August the first place, when wealthy people clear out because they're at their summer homes - essentially, Diana was slumming it, because she HAD to, with Dodi Al Fayed.

It was also her turn having her sons for summer visitation and the Fayeds had a yacht she could bring the boys to so they could have some recreation.

And this even though Diana could well-afford, money-wise, on her own to plan recreation for her sons, but then, she would be unescorted by a male.

And another poster upthread alluded to it, too.

It's hard for me to wrap my mind around that. It was the late 1990s, not the 1890s and even then, a woman of fame and means felt she didn't have the independence and confidence to create her own vacations for her sons without worrying about whether she's coupled with a man?

Yes, I know she also was sad to be wanting Hasnat Kahn to see her too, with Fayed, in some misguided attempt to make him jealous.

But the point is that even blonde, white, tall, beautiful Diana was adrift after she was excised, and excised herself from the BRF.

Notice that outcast status didn't happen to Princess Margaret's ex, or the other male ex-husbands.

I still predict the Sussexes will divorce. And Meghan will be damn lucky she has some base in California. and i

Ooops, meant to delete "and i".

and this should be- Yes, I know she also was SAID to be wanting Hasnat Kahn to see her too, with Fayed, in some misguided attempt to make him jealous.

[quote] But the point is that even blonde, white, tall, beautiful Diana was adrift after she was excised, and excised herself from the BRF.

Yes, Della dear. I quite agree with your thoughts. It seems when Diana got her divorce nobody knew quite what to do with her. She turned into the odd piece out. She was suppose to be queen, now she's not. I wonder if she moved away from Britain, perhaps to America, would she have survived?

I think it was Lady C who said Diana was trying to organize a move to Hollywood - and some have suggested Harry was completing her dream? And Diana wanted to break into film acting?? Oh something like that.

I'd never thought about her being in an embarrassing "loose ends" sort of state because I know nothing about high society and certainly not royal/nobility level high society.

So sad. I would have thought there would be no shame in going to South Africa with the boys to visit her brother - or one of her sisters, or some such simple thing like that.

Hi Tallulah at r562.

Diana's brother told her "No" about her having a room at his estate, her former childhood home.

Damn, Diana couldn't even be a boarder.

So much for his eulogy.

Someone upthread stated they felt sorry for Diana, thinking about her last couple of months.

Me, too.

Meghan Markle was more than capable of understanding what she was getting into. It's not like it was a secret. That's disingenuous reasoning at the very best.

[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.]

R559. What is the source of your weirdness?

Edward made a couple of effective documentaries. Nothing more and nothing less. Of course, he had people helping him, but so do Meghan and Harry. His pretensions as a media content creator—-although quite modest compared to the galactic ambitions of Meghan and Harry—-did largely make him look like a jackass. Nonetheless, he did produce some reasonable content and narration. I really doubt Meghan and Harry will equal that modest achievement.

[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 only “weirdness” here is your blinding obsession mixed with burning hatred for the Sussexes, R567. I cannot believe someone is caping for Edward, of all people. What has he accomplished that wasn’t started by someone else, only for him to pick up the scraps and wear as a mantle?

Harry and his wife are terrible business people: what they wanted was entirely doable but their scope seemed to be very narrow and improperly thought out. Imagine expressing your wishes via courtiers without realizing that those very messengers would be out of a job should you receive approval to be part-time royals.

There were so many other ways to handle things and they, miraculously, chose the wrong option every. Single. Time. It would make good TV until you realize they have small children that are affected by their choices.

The Queen clearly loves her grandson and his children but he’s put her in the most unenviable spot. He has to swallow his pride, Meg(h)an has to tuck the wisps behind her ear, blink multiple times and apologize. Sincerely. If just for the sake of peace.

I really like Harry and Meg(h)an as public figures and believe they could (and can still, under the right circumstances) do wonderful things for the BRF but how they’ve handled things is shameful. The PR overhaul would be of epic proportions but if Camilla can go from being pelted in public to future Queen Camilla, with the current Queen’s blessing, anything is possible. Not holding my breath but I’d take anything over the York girls (and the Human Freckle loitering in the background) being pulled into service.

For those of you who think DL is a barely-known social media cesspool full of bitter queens and useless information, au contraire. I'm currently reading the book Traitor King (see thread) about the Duke of Windsor and his missus, and came across the following:

[quote] On the gay forum, [bold]Datalounge[/bold], a couple of elderly posters shared anecdotes:

[quote] We had a good family friend here, who owned a flower shop in our city. In his young adulthood (1940s) he was part owner of a shop in NYC. His business catered to the society crowd. He told us many great stories over the years. One story he told was how he took care of the fresh flowers for the Duke and Duchess when they were in NYC. Our friend told us that sometimes he would literally be chased by the Duke while taking care of the flowers in their apartment.

[quote] One regular poster to Datalounge, ‘Charlie’, wrote that (Walter) Chrysler Jr had told him:

[quote] a story about him and the Duke of Windsor (the former king of England) throwing a party on a Navy ship docked at Jacksonville, Florida, during World War II, I think. He said there were more than 1,000 sailors, and Walter and ‘David’ hired 200 hookers, but Walter and David sucked so much cock our lips were chapped for a week.

The above quote was referenced back to DL thread 8581470-walter-chrysler-jr.

[quote]r552 Either she’s saying her daughter is dull, extremely sheltered, she is lying or a combination of the three.

Who in that inbred family has ever displayed even average intelligence, though?

R570, in fairness the evident depth of your disdain for Edward is kinda weird, as is your veering on sycophantic view of the Sussexes. Just sayin'.

R571, that actually makes me think less of the reliability of the book. An anecdotal source from an internet message board is about the same as "I hear" or "my grandma says." Fine to use DL as a basis but I'd want to satisfy myself of the veracity. And if I wanted to be taken seriously.

That's why writing non-fiction is tough. It takes time and effort.

To me, it seems likely that a wheelchair isn't the issue here but that "mobility issues" might be a benign little lie to hide other issues.

R570. Your inability to read or appreciate any nuance is truly weird, as is your “fangurl” diction.

Again with the conspiracy theorists.

R576, you thought r570 was fangurlish? Did you skip over the part where they said how Harry and Meghan handled things was shameful? I thought it was pretty spot on without being either fangurlish or hateful. The truth is usually in the middle, and that’s where r570 was.

The word fangurl was used in the original post.

R559, Sophie was talking about Louise before she went to school. It was only when she went to school - which in the UK is at around age 4 or 5 - that she realised that her granny was different. Twit.

R579, I was referring to r576 saying that r570’s post used fangurl diction. Damn that’s a bit confusing.

R580. Agreed. He’s an all-purpose twit.

[quote] they will know the only people they have to make peace with (and have it stick) are Charles and William; their wives will toe the line.

Neither Camilla nor Kate seem likely to just toe the line.

Not publicly, anyway. You read more about Camilla now disliking Harry as much as he dislikes her.

They will, or they’re OUT ON THEIR ASS!

#ReparationTime

R585 Diana, his subjects, nor even his family could stop Charles wanting Camilla above all else, I don't think Harry could do it either. And, Kate has given William something he wanted more than anything, a normal family. Just like how Queen Mary and The Queen Mum, were very powerful about who was welcomed and who were not, Kate and Camilla have a lot of sway over their husbands.

Start hiding the jewels and see how fast they fall in step.

r560 it's not about having a man escort you, it's about having someone else pay for everything. The British government would cover security while the boys were around but everything else was on Diana's shoulders. Best to do what all aristocrats on a budget do, leech off of wealthier friends.

The Vladimir Tiara is very versatile. It can be worn with pearls, emeralds or on its own.

Anyone attempting to get close to the BRF would do well to get Kate onside. I can totally see her sweetly, gently, and relentlessly turning her husband against anyone who didn't show her the proper respect. That Camilla has Charles' ear is well known.

Meghan's huge mistake was not sucking up to Kate and Camilla early on. Besides all the good advice they could have given her, they also could have been instrumental in making sure their husbands accepted the new royal Duchess. This would have eased her entrance into royal life considerably.

Meghan instead seemed to go out of her way to antagonize them, especially Kate. All this did is ensure she would never fit in.

Speaking of tiaras...Bulgari has made a Platinum Jubilee tiara.

So, is that tiara a present for the Queen or is it for sale to anybody?

The official coronation pudding: Sounds yummy!

I don't understand why the creator thinks this is an easy recipe, though. It looks pretty complicated to me.

R593 - I think it's for sale. It says in this post that Bulgari hopes to see it worn on someone's head.

I don't think anyone should be giving the Queen any more tiaras at her age. She won't be wearing them very much if at all in the future.

Kate is indeed sweet and even tempered, but she’s not relentless. She doesn’t have nerves of steel, she isn’t someone who is steely eyed and forceful underneath with a gentle exterior. She’s a gentle, patient person. William fell in love with that, and the fact that she and her family offered stability with no stress involved.

r596 please stop. Sweet girls don't jump schools to chase after princess, only cold calculating women. I'm sure if you're in her friends group she's nice but social climbers are rarely the gentle flower you painted. She's calculating and shrewd. She knew how to wait like a spider through Williams bullshit to get the ring/power/money. She had the rank and motivation of a common royal mistress/whore but unlike ladies of the past, she wont he ring despite being common.

We really don't know why William fell in love with her, but one reason is because she's traditionally attractive and thin. He found a good partner so the vetting was top notch. Girls and guys are her social stature are almost always assholes.

The anti-royalists in the UK are all up in arms over Her Majesty's visit to the horse show. They're whining that if she didn't have the energy to attend the opening of Parliament a few days ago she should have not attended the horse show. Clearly these nitwits have no idea what it's like to be 96 years old when your health can change from day to day and literally hour to hour. At that age you can be up and moving around one minute and drop dead the next.

Link to new thread.

Wrong r597. She has enourmous patience. Yes she was attracted to the power and money etc. but she’s not at all how you described. She has no drama and she’s very evenly tempered. She’s not shrewd, she got William because she’s physically alluring, and was his type, and also put up with his enourmous bullshit. He dated her while he was dating many other women. She just waited him out That’s why William fell in love with her. Sadly she is sort of the anti-Diana.

My point is that there is not a lot of thinking or strategy going on with Kate. (Although there was a bit with her mother.) She is a nice, private person who was very much in love with William.