RIP HM Queen Elizabeth ll

[Bon Accord]

29 minutes ago, wombatofludham said:

Technically of course she was the first Queen Elizabeth of Scotland, the first only ruling over England with Mary being Queen of Scots.  It's also why the crown on Scottish Royal Mail cyphers was different.  Does anyone know if post boxes north of the border had the full EiiR cypher or not?

 

Scottish postboxes do not have the EIIR cypher for the reasons you state, they simply have the Scottish crown on them usually with the words Royal Mail underneath.

Even back in the wholly different world that was 1952 Elizabeth being proclaimed "the second" caused disquiet in Scotland such that it required intervention from Churchill (PM at the time) to compromise a solution. One of the olive branches given was the establishment of a protocol with regard to future monarchs; that being that if a future monarch was of a different number on both sides of the border then the Scottish number would always be used if it was higher, e.g. a future King James would be proclaimed King James VIII as the previous version was James II of England/James VII of Scotland.

Royal Mail did cock up a few years ago and installed an English postbox (with EIIR cypher) in I think Dumbarton, however it was swiftly removed when the error was pointed out.

Those 'boxes from previous monarchs do however still have the appropriate royal cypher, e.g. the postbox down the road from me bears "GR V".

[Stefen1988]

I'm surprised how much I am affected by her passing... I'm not a fan of the monarchy, or even british, I'm german...

 

When her husband Prince Phillip passed away last year, I hoped it doesn't hurt her too much and she could complete the 100...

 

But now she could complete the other 70... It's a bit sureal, it feels like she was always there.. Who of us is old enough to be already alive when she was coronated, those are not many.

 

Edited September 10, 2022 by Stefen1988

[britishcolumbian]

56 minutes ago, Stefen1988 said:

Who of us is old enough to be already alive when she was coronated, those are not many.

Someone calculated based on census data from around the world that 94% of the world's population was born after she was crowned.

[Oldddudders]

2 hours ago, britishcolumbian said:

I unfortunately have seen a fair bit of awfulness on social media, but then shrillest is the minority who is in the wrong. And of course our proximity here to the uncouthness of the US rubs off as well, and have seen plenty of disparaging commentary from Canadian republicans too. But they are a shrill minority, too.

We should not be surprised that some Commonwealth residents resent the link to the Crown. After all, it adds no financial value, but demands some sort of allegiance. If it helps, be assured that a fair % of GB & NI residents resent London just as much!

 

I have no great interest in the Royals, have some difficulty in knowing who and where - but am certain that their mere existence is the bringer of much tourism to GB, and the Exchequer and employment are the better for that by a fair margin. Given that the Constitution effectively rules them out of the decision-making process for government, it is easy to see the benefit the Royals bring, and hard to see any real downside.

[Ian Hargrave]

1 hour ago, Stefen1988 said:

I'm surprised how much I am affected by her passing... I'm not a fan of the monarchy, or even british, I'm german...

 

When her husband Prince Phillip passed away last year, I hoped it doesn't hurt her too much and she could complete the 100...

 

But now she chould complete the other 70... It's a bit sureal, it feels like she was always there.. Who of us is old enough to be already alive when she was coronated, those are not many.

 

Er….well….actually there’s me of the “not many” who well remembers the day in February 1952 when his classroom stood to the presence of the head teacher who duly announced the death of our king George V1. I think we thought the world had stopped . I was ten years old. So then …nothing is new under the sun .And hello,I’m still here…just.

[Michael Hodgson]

 

8 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Given that the Constitution effectively rules them out of the decision-making process for government, it is easy to see the benefit the Royals bring, and hard to see any real downside.

 

It is my understanding they are entitled to vote but by convention refrain from doing so.  It would probably make for a frosty meeting if a new PM was greeted with "I voted for the other lot".

 

I believe that under Royal Prerogative the sovereign can theoretically appoint anybody they like to be PM, although in practice it is now the person most likely to be able to command a majority in the Commons.  Apparently until the 1960s the late Queen had to choose betwen MPs whenever the job fell vacant whilst the Tories were in office (appointing "Supermac" and "Noddy") and then the Tory party was told by the Palace to pick its own leader in future, although Labour had been electing their own since the 1920s.  Until the Fixed Term Act, the Preogrative also allowed the monarch to dissolve Parliament triggering a general election. 

 

These royal powers have fallen into obscurity but could potentially be resurrected to give us a constitutional way of dealing with an extreme situation such as a PM getting caught with his fingers in the till or rigging an election.  On the other hand the king would be a fool to use such powers inappropriately as that would be bound to lead to our becoming a republic.

 

To those who say Charles should not be King, I can only say that if His Majesty is the oldest person ever to succeed to the throne, I say who could be better qualified ?  Surely he should be in the Guinness Book of Records for having served the world's longest apprenticeship in any trade !  And heaven forfend that we adopt a system of elected Presidents - just look at the American president who bugged his own office(!) or the more recent one who inspired a riot in the Capitol.

 

[britishcolumbian]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

And heaven forfend that we adopt a system of elected Presidents - just look at the American president who bugged his own office(!) or the more recent one who inspired a riot in the Capitol.

Sir Winston was absolutely right when he said our system of governance is the worst ever devised, with the exception of all the others.

[wombatofludham]

There's an interesting theoretical benefit to having the Royal head of state - the highly unlikely but possible situation where Parliament, which is sovereign, and more important than the Prime Minister who, as has been said, will be the member of the Commons who can command the greatest support in the House, (which is why in a hung parliament the incumbent PM gets first dibs at forming a Government), decide to act illegally or even to restrict democracy.  The monarch could in those extreme circumstances dissolve Parliament, and because the Armed Forces, Police and Judiciary are all sworn in on personal oath of allegiance to the Crown, not State, in theory there would be a "nuclear" backstop to prevent any fallout from such moves.  Whilst Parliament could then remove the Sovereign Grant, I expect the monarch could then just say "Well, I'm taking back the Crown Estate".  Highly unlikely to happen, but the benefit of the independent judiciary was well demonstrated when the PM was found to have unlawfully requested Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament.  So the arcane historical division of sovereignty can work.

I'm not so sure an elected ceremonial president would have such support.  As for an elected executive president, no thanks.

We'll never know how much Her Majesty has quietly reigned in her Prime Minister from making ill-judged decisions with well delivered advice.  I'm sure the new King will have been well coached and will be able to give equally timely advice and guidance based on the Queen's experience and I suspect we are about to have one of the best prepared monarchs in history, especially considering how his mother and grandfather were unexpectedly having to hit the ground running with little preparation.  

I can't help but think the wilder extremes of political life have been moderated by the late Queen and will continue to do so under the new King.

[Bucoops]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

 

It is my understanding they are entitled to vote but by convention refrain from doing so.  It would probably make for a frosty meeting if a new PM was greeted with "I voted for the other lot".

 

I believe that under Royal Prerogative the sovereign can theoretically appoint anybody they like to be PM, although in practice it is now the person most likely to be able to command a majority in the Commons.  Apparently until the 1960s the late Queen had to choose betwen MPs whenever the job fell vacant whilst the Tories were in office (appointing "Supermac" and "Noddy") and then the Tory party was told by the Palace to pick its own leader in future, although Labour had been electing their own since the 1920s.  Until the Fixed Term Act, the Preogrative also allowed the monarch to dissolve Parliament triggering a general election. 

 

These royal powers have fallen into obscurity but could potentially be resurrected to give us a constitutional way of dealing with an extreme situation such as a PM getting caught with his fingers in the till or rigging an election.  On the other hand the king would be a fool to use such powers inappropriately as that would be bound to lead to our becoming a republic.

 

To those who say Charles should not be King, I can only say that if His Majesty is the oldest person ever to succeed to the throne, I say who could be better qualified ?  Surely he should be in the Guinness Book of Records for having served the world's longest apprenticeship in any trade !  And heaven forfend that we adopt a system of elected Presidents - just look at the American president who bugged his own office(!) or the more recent one who inspired a riot in the Capitol.

 

 

I appreciate it's not really the place for it, but I cannot resist mentioning a mockup newspaper headline I just saw - 73 year old finally gets first job. It made me smile.

 

I was planning to take my daughter to London to hopefully hear the proclamation today but unfortunately she got a bit panicky at the thought of the crowds so we stayed at home. I expect we will do something locally for the funeral on the 19th.

[Stefen1988]

In german Media, Charles was sometimes called "son by profession".

[AY Mod]

13 minutes ago, Stefen1988 said:

In german Media, Charles was sometimes called "son by profession".

 

Meanwhile German friends have been in touch with us today to express their supportive thoughts.

 

 

The EU have been respectful too.

 

 

We have been shown more good grace by many nations, maybe more than we should.

 

 

[Stefen1988]

I heared they planned initially a steam-hauled furneral Train for her Majesty but this was discarded because of safety concerns after some problems with Train enthusiasts some time ago and now she will be carried by plane to London.

 

Edited September 10, 2022 by Stefen1988

[Phil Bullock]

8 hours ago, Stefen1988 said:

I heared they planned initially a steam-hauled furneral Train for her Majesty but this was discarded because of safety concerns after some problems with Train enthusiasts some time ago and now she will be carried by plane to London.

 

Yes a plane seems like the plan. A real shame…

[jjb1970]

I posted this in the early risers thread, but the reaction in Singapore has been very respectful and it is clear that many Singaporeans held a genuine affection and respect for Queen Elizabeth. Many older Singaporean people were born into a British possession and the relationship between Britain and Singapore still carries baggage from that past. In my experience people here have quite a nuanced view of Britain, they neither look at the past through rose tinted glasses nor condemn us as evil, I suspect the fact that their post independence trajectory has been so successful allows them space to take a more dispassionate view of the past than some other former colonies, be what it may people seem to have separated their feelings for the individual (Queen Elizabeth) from what they thought about the institution. I think that is very common in many places, including Britain, whatever people think about the institution there was a genuine respect and affection for the person of the Queen.

I have seen some appalling stuff on social media, it seems to be people existing within small echo chambers, and in some cases probably just attention seekers who can't make the distinction between being provocative or non-conformist and with just being objectionable. However, it does seem to be very much a minority and even most republicans and people who have no love for the institution have distanced themselves from it.

[Michael Hodgson]

15 hours ago, Bucoops said:

I appreciate it's not really the place for it, but I cannot resist mentioning a mockup newspaper headline I just saw - 73 year old finally gets first job. It made me smile.

 

Yeah, he must have been the longest standing customer down at the Job Centre -  no doubt their statistics look better now he is off their books at last!

 

It must be stressful starting a new job when he has his mother's funeral arrangements to deal with.  Whilst much of that is no doubt pre-planned or established by tradition, the new King had (and probably still has) a lot of immediate formalities to face that we commoners did not have to cope with when we lost our parents.  I thought he did well at the Accession Council meeting we saw televised for the first time.

 

What struck me was the extent to which so many foreign governments and peoples, not just the Commonwealth, have shown sympathy and support - even Vladimir Putin has sent his condolences to the King and Royal family.  The security services will have their work cut out at the State Funeral, as no doubt numerous Heads of State will attend.  These infrequent major events can be more constructive than summits in international diplomacy, since the only positive expectation at a funeral is warm words, yet they do provide an opportunity for world leaders at loggerheads to meet discreetly and investigate whether there is any prospect of future reconciliation.

[Stefen1988]

I heared many brits are enranged by Truss behaver because she now accompanies the king  on his travel trough the UK without to ask and is "greedy" for cameras instead of worrying about government affairs she has now to care for...

Edited September 11, 2022 by Stefen1988

[jjb1970]

I'm not a fan of the new PM, but I think in this case she's in a catch 22 as it doesn't matter which way she goes she'd be criticised. In today's world she doesn't really have to be in Downing Street to stay informed and make decisions, and the real brains delivering policy (or otherwise) are in the civil service.

[AY Mod]

1 hour ago, Stefen1988 said:

she now accompanies the king  on his travel trough the UK

 

I wouldn't listen to those reports, she has had one meeting with the King and and attended the Accession Council meeting with a couple of hundred others. You're confusing people's opinions with facts again.

[Welchester]

Just off to do my bit at the local Proclamation.

[Mike Storey]

28 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

I wouldn't listen to those reports, she has had one meeting with the King and and attended the Accession Council meeting with a couple of hundred others. You're confusing people's opinions with facts again.

 

Not so. See this, and many other reports. The question is why?

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1667554/King-Charles-III-Liz-Truss-Prime-Minister-United-Kingdom-tour-update

[Michael Hodgson]

6 minutes ago, Welchester said:

Just off to do my bit at the local Proclamation.

 

I hope you get to dress up in one of those fancy uniforms with a plumed hat!

[Stefen1988]

39 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

You're confusing people's opinions with facts again.

 

How do you come up with this? As said "I heared"; I never said that I tape what other people say as facts. When my not so good english leaded to a missunderstanding, then I'm sorry.

 

Also Mike's post.

 

Edited September 11, 2022 by Stefen1988

[AY Mod]

38 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Not so. See this, and many other reports. The question is why?

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1667554/King-Charles-III-Liz-Truss-Prime-Minister-United-Kingdom-tour-update

 

Oh that waste of pulped timber, they will be attending the same functions or ceremonies not 'touring the country together'. I wouldn't trust the Express with a weather forecast or the football results. Next they will be saying Truss will be going to the funeral with Charles.

[chris p bacon]

Whilst many have been reminiscing about meetings with the Queen over the last few days I often wondered what it must have been like for the Monarch to meet so many of her subjects and just what an impression they made upon her.

Our own family link is that my Father met her in March 1965 when she launched what was then the biggest oil tanker in the world 'British Admiral' at Barrow in Furness.  As children we wondered just what dad had said to her and whether she was given 'extra homework' like we were.  But we figured it couldn't have been too bad as he wasn't sent to the Tower.

When people asked mum what the Queen had spoken to Dad about, my mother replied that "if it wasn't about ships engines he was unlikely to remember"and that she admired the Queen for continuing to smile while talking to him.. 

[Stefen1988]

There is a saying "The Queen doesn't tell you what you have to do but she knows what she has to do to take the lead in a conversation."

Edited September 11, 2022 by Stefen1988