Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

She would never have a candid conversation with you and probably not anyone. You don't know your royals.

+1 I heard on the radio today a guy who had been a White House correspondent and a London correspondent. He said that there was no minute of any day that everyone didn’t know exactly what Trump was thinking, but there was never a moment when you knew what the Queen was thinking. Her private diary/papers/letters will be very interesting when they eventually are released. I’ll be dead by then though - I’m 49.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“King Charles” sounds weird.

Unless you mean the dog breed "King Charles Spaniel"

To that poster’s credit, last time there were some King Charles, England devolved into a civil war that went so badly they had to beg for the Bonny Prince to come back and resume the throne….

Charles II was not Bonny Prince Charlie. BPC was the grandson of his brother James II who was kicked off the throne for marrying a Catholic and converting to Catholicism.

Oh yes, that’s right. That was even more disastrous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“King Charles” sounds weird.

Unless you mean the dog breed "King Charles Spaniel"

To that poster’s credit, last time there were some King Charles, England devolved into a civil war that went so badly they had to beg for the Bonny Prince to come back and resume the throne….

Charles II was not Bonny Prince Charlie. BPC was the grandson of his brother James II who was kicked off the throne for marrying a Catholic and converting to Catholicism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“King Charles” sounds weird.

Unless you mean the dog breed "King Charles Spaniel"

To that poster’s credit, last time there were some King Charles, England devolved into a civil war that went so badly they had to beg for the Bonny Prince to come back and resume the throne….

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“King Charles” sounds weird.

Unless you mean the dog breed "King Charles Spaniel"

Anonymous wrote:“King Charles” sounds weird.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

It does come in 3’s.

Anonymous wrote: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 wrote:

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.