Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Queen Elizabeth had a wonderful, productive life.

Sure she will definitely be missed but she put in a great seventy yrs of service.

And she lived a very long life and died peacefully at a place that she loved, surrounded by those she loved.

All of us should be so lucky.
I think King Charles will reign for a little while then King William will take the reigns and will make the monarchy cool again.

Don't they normally take a different name when they take over? King William? Really?

Considering he would be King William V, clearly that’s a thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

I dunno about that - the British royals are a billion dollar industry and being in mind boggling amounts of tourist dollars … and for the first time ai ce Queen Victoria, brought a lot of cultural stability …

Queen Elizabeth had a knack for hitting the right balance between public ritual/ majestic rituals/ common touch with people/ public service . She just showed up every day in countless ways to bring a sense of British stiff upper lip normalcy in a rapidly changing world.

Charles is more arrogant and out of touch. I hope he can connect with people in the ways that commonwealth citizens expect of a king, but let’s see . His reign may hasten Republican movements around the commonwealth - or he may prove himself to be honest s mother’s son and find ways to reinvent the monarchy according to changing times …

I doubt Charles will be able to fulfill his mothers role
It just isn’t the same anymore
I doubt that they are the billion dollar industry you say
Funeral will cost millions, coronation too
Charles will likely reign for just a decade at the most

Then what?
William is plain and boring

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

I dunno about that - the British royals are a billion dollar industry and being in mind boggling amounts of tourist dollars … and for the first time ai ce Queen Victoria, brought a lot of cultural stability …

Queen Elizabeth had a knack for hitting the right balance between public ritual/ majestic rituals/ common touch with people/ public service . She just showed up every day in countless ways to bring a sense of British stiff upper lip normalcy in a rapidly changing world.

Charles is more arrogant and out of touch. I hope he can connect with people in the ways that commonwealth citizens expect of a king, but let’s see . His reign may hasten Republican movements around the commonwealth - or he may prove himself to be honest s mother’s son and find ways to reinvent the monarchy according to changing times …

Anonymous wrote:Queen Elizabeth had a wonderful, productive life.

Sure she will definitely be missed but she put in a great seventy yrs of service.

And she lived a very long life and died peacefully at a place that she loved, surrounded by those she loved.

All of us should be so lucky.
I think King Charles will reign for a little while then King William will take the reigns and will make the monarchy cool again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He and his “wife” made Diane’s life miserable and Andrew Parker Bowles as well as all their children. They are two selfish people. They don’t deserve any respect.

“Diane” wasn’t any better. She was just younger and comparatively attractive.
Like it or not, Charles and Camilla are married. You don’t get to pretend they aren’t because you don’t like them.

Like it or not, Charles and Camilla are cheaters, adulterers and homewreckers. You don’t get to pretend they aren’t because you like them.

Everyone knows and most people don't care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also are her and William even together? It’s incredibly bizarre that she’s not with the rest of the family and also wasn’t at the Diana statute unveiling. It’s like every event that is important to William she’s MIA.

She was also not at the Diana statue unveiling. Maybe pass that because it’s public but why wouldn’t you be with your husband with his grandmother dying? Sophie and Camilla were there.

Because the Queen was already dead and they had just dropped the children off for the first day of school. She needed to be there to pick them up and be with them for all of the stuff that is about to follow. With the exception of William and Harry - who were/were now about to be the children of a King — no other grandchildren or great-grandchildren were there. It’s not nefarious - this is part of a very-long planned out national event which it sounds like moved very quickly and didn’t have as much notice as people had presumed would happen.

Sophie and Edward also have minor children. If they were already dropped off that makes even less sense as seems super easy to have Nanny Maria pick them up. It’s not like his grandmother dies every day seems kind of unhealthy to decline to be supportive for even one day for a school run. Either she didn’t care to go or he didn’t want her there.

Or there were already plans and protocols in place that involved the Queen's children and the children of the incoming Monarch.

+1. I doubt that Kate had any personal choice in the events of the day.

Exactly. And thing of the optics if she were allowed to go and someone else was told to stay away.

It was initially announced that Megan was going and then it was announced that she wasn’t going and the announcement referenced the fact that Kate wasn’t going, either. Whether Kate stayed because she wanted to drop her kids at their first full day of school or because she was told not to come, it gave Meghan an excuse not to go herself.

This is not how it worked.

Harry and Meghan's spokespeople said they were both going. The clearly hadn't cleared that with the palace though because then they said in fact just Harry will go. THere was no official announcement about Meghan not going bc of Kate- that came from some reporter on twiitter who is a Meghan stan and obsessed with Kate vis a vis Meghan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Queen Elizabeth had a wonderful, productive life.

Sure she will definitely be missed but she put in a great seventy yrs of service.

And she lived a very long life and died peacefully at a place that she loved, surrounded by those she loved.

All of us should be so lucky.
I think King Charles will reign for a little while then King William will take the reigns and will make the monarchy cool again.

Don't they normally take a different name when they take over? King William? Really?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden says he is going to the funeral. I wonder if other former POTUSs will go.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-will-attend-queen-elizabeth-ii-funeral/

somehow I bet Donald will not get an invite

I suspect all but him will be invited. Especially the Obamas. It’s a state event.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

I dunno about that - the British royals are a billion dollar industry and being in mind boggling amounts of tourist dollars … and for the first time ai ce Queen Victoria, brought a lot of cultural stability …

Queen Elizabeth had a knack for hitting the right balance between public ritual/ majestic rituals/ common touch with people/ public service . She just showed up every day in countless ways to bring a sense of British stiff upper lip normalcy in a rapidly changing world.

Charles is more arrogant and out of touch. I hope he can connect with people in the ways that commonwealth citizens expect of a king, but let’s see . His reign may hasten Republican movements around the commonwealth - or he may prove himself to be honest s mother’s son and find ways to reinvent the monarchy according to changing times …

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

Anonymous wrote:
He's an absolute moron. His idiocy knows no bottom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden says he is going to the funeral. I wonder if other former POTUSs will go.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-will-attend-queen-elizabeth-ii-funeral/

somehow I bet Donald will not get an invite

I suspect all but him will be invited. Especially the Obamas. It’s a state event.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also are her and William even together? It’s incredibly bizarre that she’s not with the rest of the family and also wasn’t at the Diana statute unveiling. It’s like every event that is important to William she’s MIA.

She was also not at the Diana statue unveiling. Maybe pass that because it’s public but why wouldn’t you be with your husband with his grandmother dying? Sophie and Camilla were there.

Because the Queen was already dead and they had just dropped the children off for the first day of school. She needed to be there to pick them up and be with them for all of the stuff that is about to follow. With the exception of William and Harry - who were/were now about to be the children of a King — no other grandchildren or great-grandchildren were there. It’s not nefarious - this is part of a very-long planned out national event which it sounds like moved very quickly and didn’t have as much notice as people had presumed would happen.

Sophie and Edward also have minor children. If they were already dropped off that makes even less sense as seems super easy to have Nanny Maria pick them up. It’s not like his grandmother dies every day seems kind of unhealthy to decline to be supportive for even one day for a school run. Either she didn’t care to go or he didn’t want her there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Queen Elizabeth had a wonderful, productive life.

Sure she will definitely be missed but she put in a great seventy yrs of service.

And she lived a very long life and died peacefully at a place that she loved, surrounded by those she loved.

All of us should be so lucky.
I think King Charles will reign for a little while then King William will take the reigns and will make the monarchy cool again.

Don't they normally take a different name when they take over? King William? Really?

Anonymous wrote:Queen Elizabeth had a wonderful, productive life.

Sure she will definitely be missed but she put in a great seventy yrs of service.

And she lived a very long life and died peacefully at a place that she loved, surrounded by those she loved.

All of us should be so lucky.
I think King Charles will reign for a little while then King William will take the reigns and will make the monarchy cool again.