Queen Elizabeth II

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Complications from COVID are bad. She probably would've lived another 5 to 10 years if she hadn't caught it multiple times.

Multiple times? I didn't know, thought just this summer...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wonder who wrote this. Certainly not TFG:
Melania and I are deeply saddened to learn of the loss of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Together with our family and fellow Americans, we send our sincere condolences to the Royal Family and the people of the United Kingdom during this time of great sorrow and grief. Queen Elizabeth's historic and remarkable reign left a tremendous legacy of peace and prosperity for Great Britain. Her leadership and enduring diplomacy secured and advanced alliances with the United States and countries around the world. However, she will always be remembered for her faithfulness to her country and her unwavering devotion to her fellow countrymen and women. Melania and I will always cherish our time together with the Queen, and never forget Her Majesty's generous friendship, great wisdom, and wonderful sense of humor. What a grand and beautiful lady she was—there was nobody like her! Our thoughts and prayers will remain with the great people of the United Kingdom as you honor her most meaningful life and exceptional service to the people. May God bless the Queen, may she reign forever in our hearts, and may God hold her and Prince Philip in abiding care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Charles' children have to call him something different now? Treat him differently? (I mean in private)

They called the Queen Granny so I don't see why it would be different with their father. They will have to bow/curtsey they first time they see him each day. So will his siblings.

Gan-Gan not Granny

So just to clear this one up, the Queen's grandchildren, William, Harry, Beatrice, etc called her "Granny"
and her great grandchildren, George, Charlotte, Louis etc called her "Gan Gan"

Sophie called her mama. I’m guessing it varies per adult and child. We’ve heard William and Harry but others may differ.

Because she is married to her son, Edward. She wouldn't call her mother in law Granny or Gan Gan. You know who Sophie is, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t be gross. I’m sure Charles is devastated and he’ll probably be a perfectly fine king.
The only royal I can hate on is Andrew and I’m sure even he is in pain right now.

Devastated is such a strong word. She was 96.

Have you lost both parents in a year? Heartless.

New poster. Many many books have described a less than fuzzy relationship between Charles and his mother. I believe his early life in particular- I believe she was described as cold and distant.
I think he also had frustration that she did not pass the crown to him earlier.
Finally, to have both my parents into their 90s....I can only pray for that blessing.

[Anonymous]

In 1957, QEII attended a Terps football game and then stopped at the Giant grocery store in Hyattsville for a bite to eat.

https://boundarystones.weta.org/2013/05/20/queen-aisle-4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 1957, QEII attended a Terps football game and then stopped at the Giant grocery store in Hyattsville for a bite to eat.

https://boundarystones.weta.org/2013/05/20/queen-aisle-4

Wow. That's wild.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t be gross. I’m sure Charles is devastated and he’ll probably be a perfectly fine king.
The only royal I can hate on is Andrew and I’m sure even he is in pain right now.

Devastated is such a strong word. She was 96.

If my parents die at 96, I’ll be devastated. Yes, it’s a very long life. I’ll still be devastated.

+1. I felt this way when my grandmother died when she was 80. It can be not tragic, but still devastating.

[Anonymous]

Her passing is a tragedy to all decent people everywhere. She is a last link to a world of civility, of stoicism, of selfless service to others.

God Save the King.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Please remember (or maybe learn for the first time) that DCUM follows a "48 hour rule" which prohibits negative posts for 48 hours following a death. I will be removing negative posts about the Queen after this post.

Pleas use this thread for grieving, discussing the ramifications of the Queen's death, and positive thoughts. Any bickering about Meghan and Harry will be especially frowned upon.

Everyone clearly needs to go back to page 13 and see the rules for the first 48 hours following her death.

[jsteele]

Reposting for those who may have missed it:

Please remember (or maybe learn for the first time) that DCUM follows a "48 hour rule" which prohibits negative posts for 48 hours following a death. I will be removing negative posts about the Queen.

Pleas use this thread for grieving, discussing the ramifications of the Queen's death, and positive thoughts. Any bickering about Meghan and Harry will be especially frowned upon.

[jsteele]

Also, please do not reply to the negative posts. Just report them. If the negative post is quoted, only report the first instance. I'll find the posts in which it is quoted.

[Anonymous]

A remarkable loss. A remarkable woman.

It would have been wonderful to "have a cuppa" and candid conversation with her.

And on a lighter note, in keeping with her supposed sense of humor, ask her about all those ...handbags!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Her hand with the bruise - blood thinners.

I think her getting COVID was the beginning of the end.

Dude, she was 96.

She was fairly healthy until then. Has has been failing since then

She was as healthy as the palace wanted you to believe.

Her mother lived until 102

Her father died at 56.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I appreciate about the English monarchy is that they withstood the revolutions that swept Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. For all their faults, I feel that they served as a force for stability that helped the UK avoid disasters like the French and Bolshevik Revolutions, and helped the UK avoid insanities like fascism.

The Queen was kind of boring and ambivalent about change, which is pretty reflective of the British national character. It's served them pretty well.

Someone brave enough to take the contrarian position that overthrowing a monarchy is a disaster.

PP. I guess it depends on the monarchy being overthrown and the people doing the overthrowing. The Russian monarchy was bad enough that Bolshevism looked better, to some people. Given the disastrous state of Russia in 1917, I can't blame people for wanting a change. Of course, we can see with hindsight how badly that turned out.

The Brits have always kind of muddled on, taking a middling path. No one has been able to make a strong enough case (since Cromwell at least) that getting rid of the monarchy would lead to improvement. And, by the time the era of revolutions rolled around, the English monarchy had lost a lot of power compared to their Continental cousins.

Let’s not forget that they were all German.

It's so weird that people on DCUM go on and on about Harvard and top 20 schools being the only acceptable path and finding good schools to educate their children and believing myths like this so easily and without doing any research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Queen dies, Bernard Shaw dies, who will be the 3rd?

It does come in 3’s.