Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are they waiting for Harry specifically? Are the Queen’s other grandchildren (besides William) present? Not snark, just curious.

He has to pledge loyalty to his father - the new King - and kiss his hand.

No joke. This is serious business.

Thank you. That makes sense.

Anonymous wrote:Why are they waiting for Harry specifically? Are the Queen’s other grandchildren (besides William) present? Not snark, just curious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are they waiting for Harry specifically? Are the Queen’s other grandchildren (besides William) present? Not snark, just curious.

He has to pledge loyalty to his father - the new King - and kiss his hand.

No joke. This is serious business.

Anonymous wrote:All the direct relatives need to be present to kiss the hand of the new King Charles and pledge loyalty upon the passing of the Queen.

It's literally one of the first things that happen after her death. So yeah, that's why they are assembling hastily. It would also explain why Kate and Meghan are not present - they are not needed as part of the formal transition of power to Charles.

Anonymous wrote:Why are they waiting for Harry specifically? Are the Queen’s other grandchildren (besides William) present? Not snark, just curious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well it is past 6PM now (I think) and no announcement so does that mean it won't be until tomorrow?

That's my assumption. I had been waiting for the 6pm announcement.

I was thinking 7pm. Let people get home from work.

The supposed order of events after her death

The royal family will announce plans for the queen’s funeral, which is expected to be held 10 days following her death.

The prime minister will be the first member of the government to make a statement. All other members of the government will be instructed not to comment until after the PM has spoken.

The Ministry of Defence will arrange for gun salutes to take place at all saluting stations. A national minute’s silence will be announced.

The prime minister will then hold an audience with the new king, and at 6 p.m., King Charles will deliver a broadcast to the nation.


so no 6pm announcements mean more than likely it will be tomorrow, but obviously not guaranteed by any means.

Anonymous wrote:To add, there was no timed announcement for Unicorn

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well it is past 6PM now (I think) and no announcement so does that mean it won't be until tomorrow?

I think they will announce late this evening. Apparently Harry has not arrived.

Also, I haven't heard one word about Princess Anne. Presumably she would be there.

Anne was already in Scotland so she was already there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well it is past 6PM now (I think) and no announcement so does that mean it won't be until tomorrow?

That's my assumption. I had been waiting for the 6pm announcement.

I was thinking 7pm. Let people get home from work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who ... doesn't care? I have zero connection to England or the Queen, for my entire life she's been an old lady, and this just doesn't move me.

It'll be like when an actor or singer die whose name I've heard but have never watched or listened to their work. I just think "well, that's too bad for their family" and move on.

You care enough to post.

Yes, PP just wants attention. “Look at me! I’m so cool that I don’t even care!!”

No, it's not about attention or being cool. I just wondered if I'm alone. I don't understand why people with zero connection DO care. I understand caring if you've been to England, have family from there, have some connection to the royal family, but if not ... why?

England is our ally and is the ancestor, if you will, of this country's culture and laws. There are many cultures that have come into this country but the founding culture, and the basis of our system of laws, was England.

+1. My ancestors came from England, my church is in communion with (and descended from) the church of which Queen Elizabeth is the Supreme Governor, I speak her language, and I've got many British friends.

Is that the church that was created because one King wanted a divorce and a new wife?

In glib pop history, yes. In reality? No. Henry VIII had a very good (religious) case for an annulment and it was denied for largely political reasons. That also all irrelevant, because the foundation of Anglicanism is the Elizabethan Settlement, not Henry VIII.

Could you detail this very good religious case? Inquiring minds and all that.

Leviticus 20:21: "If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless." Similarly in Leviticus 18:16 ("Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother")

Henry VIII was, as near as we can tell from the remove of centuries, a genuinely quite religious man (albeit one with extreme flaws and vices). He had initially gotten a papal dispensation to marry Catherine of Aragon, who had previously been married to his older brother. After the death or stillbirths of many Catherine's pregnancies, he began to see that as being due to having violated the command from Leviticus.