The Queen

[Bird on a Fire]

The only thing known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy, according to the philosopher Ly Tin Wheedle. He reasoned like this: you can't have more than one king, and tradition demands that there is no gap between kings, so when a king dies the succession must therefore pass to the heir instantaneously. Presumably, he said, there must be some elementary particles -- kingons, or possibly queons -- that do this job, but of course succession sometimes fails if, in mid-flight, they strike an anti-particle, or
republicon. His ambitious plans to use his discovery to send messages, involving the careful torturing of a small king in order to modulate the signal, were never fully expanded because, at that point, the bar closed.

Pratchett.

[Bird on a Fire]

It's there a petition for Charles to choose a funny name like King Kong or King Kardashian or something?

[discovolante]

I mean it does sound like it could get quite complicated eh (ETA in response to your post before last BOAF)

This doesn't seem to be happening on here so much but last night I started to get truly fed up of the 'thou shalt not speak ill of the queen' sledgehammering. People can be upset like but not everyone has to be. It started to properly get to me a bit and I'm wondering whether in the light of a new day it'll still feel that way or whether it'll just seem a bit daft. But hey, less than 24 hours in and it already feels like ages.

But yeah, in her case I'm not sure if 'being good at your job' is necessarily a compliment.

[lpm]

The queen was an amazing part of the country, spanning 96 years of history.

She was a flawed individual, like the rest of us.

She was loved by my grandmother, to the point of obsession, so is linked to my personal memories and I get sad to think how sad she'd have been.

From this muddle of public and personal comes the range of responses. From the notorious "excruciating agony" tweet to the terrible poetry on facebook.

I'd say it is all good. Everything said is valid and should be welcomed as part of our reality. For Diana in 1997 the country felt like it succumbed to an alien hysteria and was outside reality; for the queen it won't be like that.

I'll be enjoying the various shows, the pageantry and the history of it. While refusing to acknowledge Charles Windsor as anything other than a rich old man. Engaging with the mix of stuff going on is fun.

[headshot]

I guess cognitive dissonance is alive and well.

[basementer]

For Diana in 1997 the country felt like it succumbed to an alien hysteria and was outside reality; for the queen it won't be like that.

Thanks, "alien hysteria" is the most parsimonious description of the mood of that maudlin episode that I've yet heard.

[jimbob]

For Diana in 1997 the country felt like it succumbed to an alien hysteria and was outside reality; for the queen it won't be like that.

Thanks, "alien hysteria" is the most parsimonious description of the mood of that maudlin episode that I've yet heard.

I wonder how many people it actually involved.

I guess it doesn't take a very high percentage to get the scenes seen then.

A lot of very visible people hysterically mourning and a far larger number just keeping quiet.

[bagpuss]

Oh FFS, please, no.

[Martin Y]

It's there a petition for Charles to choose a funny name like King Kong or King Kardashian or something?

Bit of a family in-joke but round our way his full title is King Charles III Tokyo Drift.

[purplehaze]

We were all Elizabethans. Not really sure what we are now.

Caroleans.

Was watching the 'great energy debate' and noticed Angela Raynor leaving and thought immediately, London Bridge.

I suspect she wasn't able to be roused in her sleep and that she went peacefully and unexpectedly. Still a shock though.

[WFJ]

We were all Elizabethans. Not really sure what we are now.

Caroleans.

Was watching the 'great energy debate' and noticed Angela Raynor leaving and thought immediately, London Bridge.

I suspect she wasn't able to be roused in her sleep and that she went peacefully and unexpectedly. Still a shock though.

Carlings could work for sponsorship reasons.

[TopBadger]

Are we not Charleston's? I figured we'd all have to move around in comical dance styles until William becomes King.

But seriously - woke up today still in shock. Regardless of what you think of her she was part of the fabric of the country and our identity. It's going to be odd to see currency feature a new head on the back, to hear the national anthem sang differently, post boxes will bear different initials. It's just so odd to me that she's no longer there.

To those that think a constitutional monarchy is wrong - I get your points on the lack of meritocracy - however, whilst the Monarch continues to do the job well and whilst the house of commons and lords are such sh.t shows (i.e. non PR house, far too many lords appointed as political favours) changing how we appoint our ceremonial head of state is pretty far down the things I give a sh.t about. Training someone for the role from birth doesn't seem a bad system.

[IvanV]

It's there a petition for Charles to choose a funny name like King Kong or King Kardashian or something?

Bit of a family in-joke but round our way his full title is King Charles III Tokyo Drift.

As we noted earlier on this forum, 3 of the last 6 monarchs used one of their middle names. Edward VII and George VI were both well-known as Albert before their respective accessions, at age 59 in the former case. And there was (Alexandrina) Victoria. There has long been speculation by the press he might choose George, suggesting Charles was "unlucky". The other possibilities, Philip and Arthur, both seemed rather unlikely.

[wilsontown]

At least the next issue of Private Eye should be highly entertaining.

[WFJ]

All football's been cancelled this weekend, and probably next if the funeral's happening then.

[jimbob]

Are we not Charleston's? I figured we'd all have to move around in comical dance styles until William becomes King.

But seriously - woke up today still in shock. Regardless of what you think of her she was part of the fabric of the country and our identity. It's going to be odd to see currency feature a new head on the back, to hear the national anthem sang differently, post boxes will bear different initials. It's just so odd to me that she's no longer there.

To those that think a constitutional monarchy is wrong - I get your points on the lack of meritocracy - however, whilst the Monarch continues to do the job well and whilst the house of commons and lords are such sh.t shows (i.e. non PR house, far too many lords appointed as political favours) changing how we appoint our ceremonial head of state is pretty far down the things I give a sh.t about. Training someone for the role from birth doesn't seem a bad system.

We're not going to really notice post boxes. You still see some G VI R , or even VR postboxes

[Little waster]

To those that think a constitutional monarchy is wrong - I get your points on the lack of meritocracy - however, whilst the Monarch continues to do the job well and whilst the house of commons and lords are such sh.t shows (i.e. non PR house, far too many lords appointed as political favours) changing how we appoint our ceremonial head of state is pretty far down the things I give a sh.t about. Training someone for the role from birth doesn't seem a bad system.

On this point though I think we got into trouble recently.

That obsequious numpty Witchell was wittering on about her being a "constitutional backstop" and how the Queen (and now Charles) were there ready and waiting to step in and prevent any subversion of the constitution.

The problem is we've seen that that concept tested to destruction recently.

We had the illegal prorogation of Parliament in what was a transparent attempt to by the Executive to bypass the Legislature on a highly significant and controversial issue and then the 6-month shitshow of a PM found guilty of crimes, in clear contempt of Parliament and then clearly unable to command a majority in Parliament but still refusing to step down. It took the unprecedented resignation of almost his entire cabinet to finally get the f.cker out and even then he stayed in place still desperately looking for snookers to allow him to continue (the irony being his supporters at the time were even suggesting the sudden death of ER would have somehow allowed him to remain in place). We almost went full "January 6th" on that one and it wasn't at all clear if he had continued to refuse to go what we could have done about it. Johnson has also overseen a bonfire of supposedly unbreakable parliamentary conventions and in terms of gerrymandering, restrictions on freedoms to protest and the undermining of standards committees was leading a full-blown assault on our democratic system, which often still continues under Truss.

In each case the Queen chose to do nothing, in each case her interpretation of the Constitution was to do NOTHING, that to do ANYTHING risked unleashing worse. Which begs the question* under what circumstances WOULD the monarch intervene? If the answer is never (or as near to never as makes no difference) then our constitutional monarchy isn't fit for purpose, there is no "backstop" and the PM is truly an elected dictator.

In which case a formally-codified constitution with clearly outlined powers for an elected head of state has to implemented, otherwise the next sociopathic populist who slimes their way into No.10 could take us to a very dark place indeed and if Johnson's Cincinnatus analogy pans out the way he clearly hopes, it'll be a very familiar face on the billboards looking down on the correction camps.

[IvanV]

At least the next issue of Private Eye should be highly entertaining.

This week's is already out, with a Truss/Johnson joke on the cover. But I haven't received mine because the post is up the creek. Last one came a week late. Such that I sent in a crossword solution failing to realise I was already too late for it.

PE has now lost its regular(ish) Heir of Sorrows page, with its recurring joke of Charles jumping out of the bath, thinking he has just acceded. What will we get instead? William seems to be much more skilfully stage-managed than other members of the royal family, at least so far.

[purplehaze]

We were all Elizabethans. Not really sure what we are now.

Caroleans.

Was watching the 'great energy debate' and noticed Angela Raynor leaving and thought immediately, London Bridge.

I suspect she wasn't able to be roused in her sleep and that she went peacefully and unexpectedly. Still a shock though.

Carlings could work for sponsorship reasons.

Liz Truss has announced it's the Carolean age in Parliament, so I reckon she did so with the blessing of King Charles III.

[Gfamily]

As we noted earlier on this forum, 3 of the last 6 monarchs used one of their middle names.

I assume that if he had chosen to use a different regnal name, it would have been decided in advance and been used as of yesterday.
I could be wrong, but I would be very surprised if so

[WFJ]

Caroleans.

Was watching the 'great energy debate' and noticed Angela Raynor leaving and thought immediately, London Bridge.

I suspect she wasn't able to be roused in her sleep and that she went peacefully and unexpectedly. Still a shock though.

Carlings could work for sponsorship reasons.

Liz Truss has announced it's the Carolean age in Parliament, so I reckon she did so with the blessing of King Charles III.

I would have thought the Biscuit King would have better commercial awareness.

[Woodchopper]

To those that think a constitutional monarchy is wrong - I get your points on the lack of meritocracy - however, whilst the Monarch continues to do the job well and whilst the house of commons and lords are such sh.t shows (i.e. non PR house, far too many lords appointed as political favours) changing how we appoint our ceremonial head of state is pretty far down the things I give a sh.t about. Training someone for the role from birth doesn't seem a bad system.

On this point though I think we got into trouble recently.

That obsequious numpty Witchell was wittering on about her being a "constitutional backstop" and how the Queen (and now Charles) were there ready and waiting to step in and prevent any subversion of the constitution.

The problem is we've seen that that concept tested to destruction recently.

We had the illegal prorogation of Parliament in what was a transparent attempt to by the Executive to bypass the Legislature on a highly significant and controversial issue and then the 6-month shitshow of a PM found guilty of crimes, in clear contempt of Parliament and then clearly unable to command a majority in Parliament but still refusing to step down. It took the unprecedented resignation of almost his entire cabinet to finally get the f.cker out and even then he stayed in place still desperately looking for snookers to allow him to continue (the irony being his supporters at the time were even suggesting the sudden death of ER would have somehow allowed him to remain in place). We almost went full "January 6th" on that one and it wasn't at all clear if he had continued to refuse to go what we could have done about it. Johnson has also overseen a bonfire of supposedly unbreakable parliamentary conventions and in terms of gerrymandering, restrictions on freedoms to protest and the undermining of standards committees was leading a full-blown assault on our democratic system, which often still continues under Truss.

In each case the Queen chose to do nothing, in each case her interpretation of the Constitution was to do NOTHING, that to do ANYTHING risked unleashing worse. Which begs the question* under what circumstances WOULD the monarch intervene? If the answer is never (or as near to never as makes no difference) then our constitutional monarchy isn't fit for purpose, there is no "backstop" and the PM is truly an elected dictator.

In which case a formally-codified constitution with clearly outlined powers for an elected head of state has to implemented, otherwise the next sociopathic populist who slimes their way into No.10 could take us to a very dark place indeed and if Johnson's Cincinnatus analogy pans out the way he clearly hopes, it'll be a very familiar face on the billboards looking down on the correction camps.

The monarch is supposed to only intervene as a last resort. Doing so would literally the suspension of democracy by a hereditary leader. The Queen shouldn't have intervened in those examples because they were resolved without her - by the Supreme Court and by the Tory MPs forcing Johnson to resign. The very last thing anyone needs is the monarch intervening in democratic politics unless it is the only option left.

[Grumble]

Carlings could work for sponsorship reasons.

Liz Truss has announced it's the Carolean age in Parliament, so I reckon she did so with the blessing of King Charles III.

I would have thought the Biscuit King would have better commercial awareness.

He’s only half biscuit

[Woodchopper]

I've been struck by the extent to which people from outside Britain and the Commonwealth have been upset at the passing of the Queen. That shouldn't be a surprise as the royal family have always been very popular around the world.

But as well as her celebrity I think that there is also a sense in which she was seen as something stable in a world that has changed rapidly and over the last few years has seemed to have become much more unstable and chaotic. Her death in 2022 seems to symbolize for many people the final passing of an era which may have been much more benign than what we have to look forward to.

[jimbob]

As we noted earlier on this forum, 3 of the last 6 monarchs used one of their middle names.

I assume that if he had chosen to use a different regnal name, it would have been decided in advance and been used as of yesterday.
I could be wrong, but I would be very surprised if so

One of his middle names is Arthur.

That would be a far better title