The Queen is dead.

[Steve H]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/08/queen-elizabeth-ii-britains-longest-reigning-monarch-dies-aged-96
If she'd manged anothe two-and-a-bit years, she'd have beaten Louis XIV to become the longest-reigning monarch in history.

[Steve H]

Did a slight double-take when I read "The King and Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral this evening..." Who? Oh, Charles and Camilla!

[Gordon]

Did a slight double-take when I read "The King and Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral this evening..." Who? Oh, Charles and Camilla!

More's the pity: pity that the institution of the monarchy didn't die with her.

[Steve H]

More's the pity: pity that the institution of the monarchy didn't die with her.

A touch uncharitable, Gord, old bean...

[Nearly Sane]

A touch uncharitable, Gord, old bean...

In what way? It's a statement about the institution.

[Steve H]

In what way? It's a statement about the institution.

And one I agree with, but this is perhaps not the moment. Mind you, I'll be disappointed if 'Private Eye' doesn't do a spectacularly tasteless cover in a fortnight's time...

[Nearly Sane]

And one I agree with, but this is perhaps not the moment. Mind you, I'll be disappointed if 'Private Eye' doesn't do a spectacularly tasteless cover in a fortnight's time...

Surely a change in monarch is precisely when you ask about continuing the institution?

[Gordon]

And one I agree with, but this is perhaps not the moment.

Then when is the moment?

[Udayana]

hmm...

If you want the institution, constitution changed or even the inheritance to skip a generation (as was often mooted) surely this needs to be discussed, agreed and signed off before the event that would put the changes into effect?

[Gordon]

hmm...

If you want the institution, constitution or even the inheritance to skip a generation (as was often mooted) surely this needs to be discussed, agreed and signed off before the event that would put the changes into effect?

I just want it to stop: but it seems the received wisdom is that approval of the monarchy is a given that requires no discussion.

[Anchorman]

Then when is the moment?

   



Exactly.
Tomorrow, the proclamation of 'Charles III' (and I take issue with THAT number) and the accession council in the privy will confirm his tenure.
When WOULD be the time to debate, if not now?
I respect Elizabeth not-the-second's life of service to duty, even if I see no need for that duty - but we need an end to this rigmarole now.

[Nearly Sane]

hmm...

If you want the institution, constitution changed or even the inheritance to skip a generation (as was often mooted) surely this needs to be discussed, agreed and signed off before the event that would put the changes into effect?

That's a different issue to Steve's idea that it was uncharitable to raise now. And there would be many who would have said it would have been uncharitable to mention before the Queen's death.

[Steve H]

   



Exactly.
Tomorrow, the proclamation of 'Charles III' (and I take issue with THAT number) and the accession council in the privy will confirm his tenure.
When WOULD be the time to debate, if not now?
I respect Elizabeth not-the-second's life of service to duty, even if I see no need for that duty - but we need an end to this rigmarole now.

It has long been the convention that when a monarch has different regnal numbers in England and Scotland, the higher number is used. It cuts both ways: If we ever get another James,he will be James the VIII in both countries.

[Anchorman]

It has long been the convention that when a monarch has different regnal numbers in England and Scotland, the higher number is used. It cuts both ways: If we ever get another James,he will be James the VIII in both countries.

   

Technically, he'd be James IX.
James VIII was proclaimed in Edinburgh in 1709, and again in 1715.
His son was Charles III.
The Hanovarians/saxe-Coburgs were usurpers.

[Nearly Sane]

   

Technically, he'd be James IX.
James VIII was proclaimed in Edinburgh in 1709, and again in 1715.
His son was Charles III.
The Hanovarians/saxe-Coburgs were usurpers.

I'm baffled when a republican is bothered by regnal numbers. It's like an atheist getting narked by someone being put into the 'wrong' circle of hell.

[Aruntraveller]

I find myself with very mixed feelings about the death of the Queen. I am much more upset at the news than I expected to be, and I know 96 years old, in failing health, loss of husband recently - what did I expect?

I don't believe that a modern democracy should have the anachronism that is the Royal family as any part of it.

And yet, I can't help but mourn the loss of a woman who has been there my whole life, whose commitment to duty and service cannot be faulted.

I think (tried to find it but couldn't when I looked) I said on here some time ago that we struck lucky with Elizabeth II. And we really did. She was, whether you approve of the monarchy or not, an excellent representative of our countries and a positive influence in many ways.

Did she have faults? Of course. Was she obscenely privileged? Again, of course. Still, I would argue she used that privilege to altogether greater and better effect than many of our privileged politicians.

So I find myself mourning the Queen, still thinking we would be better off without a monarchy, and feeling both confused and very sad.

[Nearly Sane]

Astonishing, indeed!

[jeremyp]

Surely a change in monarch is precisely when you ask about continuing the institution?

No. You need to ask about it before the change so that you are ready when it happens.

Now is definitely the wrong time because the people on one side of the argument are likely in mourning and won't engage properly. You can say "we need a republic" but a lot of those in opposition will just try to shut you down because a much loved queen has just died and "how dare you".

I don't agree with that tactic even though I am most definitely not a republican, but it will happen.

[jeremyp]

Astonishing, indeed!

How long did the Daily Mail have to search the archives for a photo of the Queen that matched that cloud?

[SweetPea]

I find myself with very mixed feelings about the death of the Queen. I am much more upset at the news than I expected to be, and I know 96 years old, in failing health, loss of husband recently - what did I expect?

I don't believe that a modern democracy should have the anachronism that is the Royal family as any part of it.

And yet, I can't help but mourn the loss of a woman who has been there my whole life, whose commitment to duty and service cannot be faulted.

I think (tried to find it but couldn't when I looked) I said on here some time ago that we struck lucky with Elizabeth II. And we really did. She was, whether you approve of the monarchy or not, an excellent representative of our countries and a positive influence in many ways.

Did she have faults? Of course. Was she obscenely privileged? Again, of course. Still, I would argue she used that privilege to altogether greater and better effect than many of our privileged politicians.

So I find myself mourning the Queen, still thinking we would be better off without a monarchy, and feeling both confused and very sad.

Lovely tribute, Trent.

I'm not for the monarchy and all that goes with it but I was very fond of the queen. Loved her grace, humility, sincerity and commitment to a life of which she was given no choice. She also gave a great sense of stability. No matter what was happening here or in the rest of the world she always displayed a sense of calm and strength.

It's rather like losing a good friend and I found myself quite tearful listening to all the tributes. She certainly radiated love and care towards all she met with a smile that would melt the hardest of hearts.

May she rest in peace a good and faithful servant.   

[ekim]

I'm baffled when a republican is bothered by regnal numbers. It's like an atheist getting narked by someone being put into the 'wrong' circle of hell.

It's all part of what keeps the show going and adds to the plot.  The slogans are 'There's no business like show business' and 'The show must go on'.  It's a pity the production costs are so high.  I've lived through three reigns now and the publicity and revelations have expanded enormously over that time since television came on to the scene.  I wonder if it will subside as the Internet takes over.

[Enki]

I find myself with very mixed feelings about the death of the Queen. I am much more upset at the news than I expected to be, and I know 96 years old, in failing health, loss of husband recently - what did I expect?

I don't believe that a modern democracy should have the anachronism that is the Royal family as any part of it.

And yet, I can't help but mourn the loss of a woman who has been there my whole life, whose commitment to duty and service cannot be faulted.

I think (tried to find it but couldn't when I looked) I said on here some time ago that we struck lucky with Elizabeth II. And we really did. She was, whether you approve of the monarchy or not, an excellent representative of our countries and a positive influence in many ways.

Did she have faults? Of course. Was she obscenely privileged? Again, of course. Still, I would argue she used that privilege to altogether greater and better effect than many of our privileged politicians.

So I find myself mourning the Queen, still thinking we would be better off without a monarchy, and feeling both confused and very sad.

My feelings too, Trent. Like you I am no lover of the institution of the monarchy but I too feel a sense of upset. In my case it is a feeling of sadness as if an ever reliable old but distant friend has died. I can still remember my parents clustered round the wireless listening to news of the death of King George VI in 1952, and, although I was only 11 years old and didn't really understand, I also felt the sense of sombreness around me.

[Harrowby Hall]

I find myself with very mixed feelings about the death of the Queen. I am much more upset at the news than I expected to be, and I know 96 years old, in failing health, loss of husband recently - what did I expect?

I don't believe that a modern democracy should have the anachronism that is the Royal family as any part of it.

And yet, I can't help but mourn the loss of a woman who has been there my whole life, whose commitment to duty and service cannot be faulted.

I think (tried to find it but couldn't when I looked) I said on here some time ago that we struck lucky with Elizabeth II. And we really did. She was, whether you approve of the monarchy or not, an excellent representative of our countries and a positive influence in many ways.

Did she have faults? Of course. Was she obscenely privileged? Again, of course. Still, I would argue she used that privilege to altogether greater and better effect than many of our privileged politicians.

So I find myself mourning the Queen, still thinking we would be better off without a monarchy, and feeling both confused and very sad.

My feelings are similar to yours, Trent, and I would add something else too.

Effectively she has been living for most of her life in a condition of house arrest. Apparently free, but every action she performed under some kind of scrutiny - unable to say about many subjects what she really thought and constrained from reacting as she wanted in difficult situations.

Was she obscenely privileged? If she was then she had little control over that privilege. And Charles has also effectively been in a prison without visible walls for all his adult life. A consequence of those invisible walls has been that every time he has shown some misdirection of thought, purpose or action it has become manifest to the world and the subject of feasting by the popular press.

[Anchorman]

My feelings are similar to yours, Trent, and I would add something else too.

Effectively she has been living for most of her life in a condition of house arrest. Apparently free, but every action she performed under some kind of scrutiny - unable to say about many subjects what she really thought and constrained from reacting as she wanted in difficult situations.

Was she obscenely privileged? If she was then she had little control over that privilege. And Charles has also effectively been in a prison without visible walls for all his adult life. A consequence of those invisible walls has been that every time he has shown some misdirection of thought, purpose or action it has become manifest to the world and the subject of feasting by the popular press.

   


Chairlie has enjoyed a degree of freedom in exercising his creativity at Dumfries House estate, where he spends much of the time when in Scotland.
The press were in error yesterday; he wasn't at Birkhall when the medics summoned him - an RAF helicopter left Dumfries house heading north around eight o'clock yesterday morning - the flight path is directly over my house.

[ProfessorDavey]

I find myself with very mixed feelings about the death of the Queen. I am much more upset at the news than I expected to be, and I know 96 years old, in failing health, loss of husband recently - what did I expect?

I don't believe that a modern democracy should have the anachronism that is the Royal family as any part of it.

And yet, I can't help but mourn the loss of a woman who has been there my whole life, whose commitment to duty and service cannot be faulted.

I think (tried to find it but couldn't when I looked) I said on here some time ago that we struck lucky with Elizabeth II. And we really did. She was, whether you approve of the monarchy or not, an excellent representative of our countries and a positive influence in many ways.

Did she have faults? Of course. Was she obscenely privileged? Again, of course. Still, I would argue she used that privilege to altogether greater and better effect than many of our privileged politicians.

So I find myself mourning the Queen, still thinking we would be better off without a monarchy, and feeling both confused and very sad.

Brilliant words Trent - I think you summed up my feelings pretty well too.

Like you I am also not in favour of a monarchy, but that doesn't mean that I don't have the greatest admiration for the Queen. And like so many she has been pretty well the only constant throughout my life so her death really does mean something.

The instant mention of King Charles III seems so clunky and really emphasises many of the issues I have with hereditary monarchy. Very few of us had had this experience before - our monarch is the Queen and she built and earned her respect. I don't think you can somehow demand it or expect it simply because you are now King Charles III but yesterday you were Prince Charles.

The coming months and few years will be critical for the monarchy - how many monarchists were in reality Queen Elizabeth II-ists - in favour of a particular person as the monarch, but really not wholly comfortable with the notion of a hereditary monarchy in principle. We will see.