With the accession ceremony of King Charles III coming up
tomorrow I was reminded of Lorenzo's conversation with
King Willem in Heinlein's novel _Double Star_.

Willem mentions that monarchs begin their reigns at
an age when most people are retiring. Makes sense
when you consider that a monarch has the best health
care available throughout their life, cost no object.
Queen Elizabeth II coming to the throne so young
was anomalous.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

On 10/09/2022 06:49, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
> With the accession ceremony of King Charles III coming up
> tomorrow I was reminded of Lorenzo's conversation with
> King Willem in Heinlein's novel _Double Star_.
>
> Willem mentions that monarchs begin their reigns at
> an age when most people are retiring. Makes sense
> when you consider that a monarch has the best health
> care available throughout their life, cost no object.
> Queen Elizabeth II coming to the throne so young
> was anomalous.
>
> Peter Wezeman
> anti-social Darwinist

In her case, she was not expected to be in line of succession because
the new king was her uncle Edward VIII, who abdicated over the Mrs
Simpson affair, thrusting his younger brother Albert into the vacant
post. Albert was styled George VI, and was Elizabeth's father. George
VI was a heavy smoker and died of lung cancer at a comparatively young age.

There are also cases through history where kings succeeded to the throne
in childhood, and regents had to be appointed until they reached the age
of majority.

--
Mike Dworetsky

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 6:49:42 AM UTC+1, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
> With the accession ceremony of King Charles III coming up
> tomorrow I was reminded of Lorenzo's conversation with
> King Willem in Heinlein's novel _Double Star_.
>
> Willem mentions that monarchs begin their reigns at
> an age when most people are retiring. Makes sense
> when you consider that a monarch has the best health
> care available throughout their life, cost no object.
> Queen Elizabeth II coming to the throne so young
> was anomalous.
>
> Peter Wezeman
> anti-social Darwinist
In the UK, I'm not sure that the monarch has much health care advantage. A generation of my relatives has just finished dying in their mid to late 90s (the Queen was 96) and they grew up in the not especially healthy environment of pre-war and wartime Glasgow, when it was a smoky industrial city. In many cases the NHS provides free healthcare good enough that VIP leading edge medicine isn't noticeably better. This includes, for example, what seems to be a pretty standard package of medicines for heart and circulation problems - all free, so the main worry is organising the variety of pills they need to take. Some people end up with half a dozen pills in the morning and half a dozen slightly different pills in the evening, although if you look closely at some of these they are actually diet supplements - ferrous sulphate, calcium plus cholecalciferol, and so on. Some of that generation did die 20 years or more ago, but a fair number of them made it well into their 90s.

(I'm not sure allowing King Charles to pick and choose his own healthcare would be in his best interests - as Prince one of the causes he liked to push was homeopathy).

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 22:49:40 -0700 (PDT), "peterwezeman@hotmail.com"
<peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote:

>With the accession ceremony of King Charles III coming up
>tomorrow I was reminded of Lorenzo's conversation with
>King Willem in Heinlein's novel _Double Star_.
>
>Willem mentions that monarchs begin their reigns at
>an age when most people are retiring. Makes sense
>when you consider that a monarch has the best health
>care available throughout their life, cost no object.
>Queen Elizabeth II coming to the throne so young
>was anomalous.

In relatively quiet and peaceful periods, yes.

But when things get more primal, then you can have, say, 10 Emperors
in 2 years. Or a young monarch with a regent who is ... reluctant ...
to let go. Or alleged heirs popping up and raising armies. All very
exciting, to be sure.

Being a constitutional monarch probably helps a lot in producing a
relatively quiet and peaceful period because such a monarch is not
involved in running the country in a way that the monarch becomes a
political symbol and so a cause of turmoil and dissension.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 4:19:03 AM UTC-5, Michael Dworetsky wrote:
> On 10/09/2022 06:49, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > With the accession ceremony of King Charles III coming up
> > tomorrow I was reminded of Lorenzo's conversation with
> > King Willem in Heinlein's novel _Double Star_.
> >
> > Willem mentions that monarchs begin their reigns at
> > an age when most people are retiring. Makes sense
> > when you consider that a monarch has the best health
> > care available throughout their life, cost no object.
> > Queen Elizabeth II coming to the throne so young
> > was anomalous.
> >
> > Peter Wezeman
> > anti-social Darwinist
> In her case, she was not expected to be in line of succession because
> the new king was her uncle Edward VIII, who abdicated over the Mrs
> Simpson affair, thrusting his younger brother Albert into the vacant
> post. Albert was styled George VI, and was Elizabeth's father. George
> VI was a heavy smoker and died of lung cancer at a comparatively young age.
>
> There are also cases through history where kings succeeded to the throne
> in childhood, and regents had to be appointed until they reached the age
> of majority.
>
Through history, of course, but in the industrial age I think that King Willem's
remarks would be the rule rather than the exception.

Interestingly, in _Double Star_ Lorenzo mentions that cigarette smoking
still exists in his time. How a man holds "gasper" is one of the detail he
studies. In real life it has largely disappeared in the upper classes, and
I would be surprised to hear that any royals in the line of succession
smoked.
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

On 10/09/2022 11.54, Paul S Person wrote:

> Being a constitutional monarch probably helps a lot in producing a
> relatively quiet and peaceful period because such a monarch is not
> involved in running the country in a way that the monarch becomes a
> political symbol and so a cause of turmoil and dissension.

What does a constitutional monarch *do* besides ask the
newly-elected PM to form a government? When Elizabeth's death
was announced, I couldn't think of anything else. Of course,
if the newly-elected PM hadn't had to fly to Scotland on the
previous day, I probably wouldn't have even remembered
that bit.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Why doesn't anybody care about apathy?

In article <tfiit6$1ieq7$1@dont-email.me>,
Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/09/2022 11.54, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> Being a constitutional monarch probably helps a lot in producing a
>> relatively quiet and peaceful period because such a monarch is not
>> involved in running the country in a way that the monarch becomes a
>> political symbol and so a cause of turmoil and dissension.
>
>What does a constitutional monarch *do* besides ask the
>newly-elected PM to form a government? When Elizabeth's death
>was announced, I couldn't think of anything else. Of course,
>if the newly-elected PM hadn't had to fly to Scotland on the
>previous day, I probably wouldn't have even remembered
>that bit.
>

Well, in Liz's case: Decide to very publically go to church in Scotland
one Sunday just before the independence vote. She didn't have to say
anything.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

In article <tfiit6$1ieq7$1@dont-email.me>,
Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>What does a constitutional monarch *do* besides ask the
>newly-elected PM to form a government?

The same things as the head-of-state does in constitutional republics:
send and receive ambassadors, cut ribbons, sign things, dole out
honors, grant pardons, etc. All on the advice of the government of
the day, of course.

In theory, in a monarchy, there is also a sort of long-term continuity
across governments and generations, so the monarch might offer advice
(in private) about what another government did in a similar situation.
(Charles III, of course, won't have had that benefit, coming to the
throne at the same time as his first PM, although at 73 you'd think
he's seen a good deal.) It's not uncommon in republics for the head
of state to be a former politician, even a former prime minister.
(The current presidents of both Finland, directly elected, and
Germany, indirectly elected, are former deputy PMs.)

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

In article <GuSdnXiYFNHiy4H-nZ2dnZfqn_Vh4p2d@supernews.com>,
Michael Dworetsky <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>There are also cases through history where kings succeeded to the throne
>in childhood, and regents had to be appointed until they reached the age
>of majority.

(Hal Heydt)
Victoria barely escaped that situation.

"peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:6774ee26-e2b5-4488-b9c9-7d68a5a58fd6n@googlegroups.com:

> With the accession ceremony of King Charles III coming up
> tomorrow I was reminded of Lorenzo's conversation with
> King Willem in Heinlein's novel _Double Star_.
>
> Willem mentions that monarchs begin their reigns at
> an age when most people are retiring. Makes sense
> when you consider that a monarch has the best health
> care available throughout their life, cost no object.
> Queen Elizabeth II coming to the throne so young
> was anomalous.
>
Nowadays, that's what to expect. But even now, assassinations and
deaths in battle occasionally still happen. Must more common in the
past.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 1:49:42 AM UTC-4, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
> With the accession ceremony of King Charles III coming up
> tomorrow I was reminded of Lorenzo's conversation with
> King Willem in Heinlein's novel _Double Star_.
>
> Willem mentions that monarchs begin their reigns at
> an age when most people are retiring. Makes sense
> when you consider that a monarch has the best health
> care available throughout their life, cost no object.
> Queen Elizabeth II coming to the throne so young
> was anomalous.

Victoria came to the throne because her various uncles were more interested in their mistresses than in marriage. To be fair, the Duke of York was an exception, while the future George IV was only able, once,
to have sex with the wife found for him (with the aid of perfume and a great deal of alcohol).

When the child of that event herself died in childbirth, there was an unseemly rush to dump mistresses, find suitable wives and beget an heir. Victoria's father won that race.

His elder brother, William IV (father of at least twelve children, David Cameron being an unworthy descendant) married Adelaide, thus gifting Australia a town and Toronto a street (nice street, I like it).

They did not turn out to be politically compatible, William being more or less with the reform crowd and his wife a reactionary. She got along rather well with Lord Howe, a deeply conservative courtier, and when Adelaide was reported to be pregnant one wit said "Oh Lord, how wonderful are thy ways! " (which is of course the only reason I typed this paragraph).

William Hyde

On Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 18:33:58 UTC+1, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 4:19:03 AM UTC-5, Michael Dworetsky wrote:
> > On 10/09/2022 06:49, peterw...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > With the accession ceremony of King Charles III coming up
> > > tomorrow I was reminded of Lorenzo's conversation with
> > > King Willem in Heinlein's novel _Double Star_.
> > >
> > > Willem mentions that monarchs begin their reigns at
> > > an age when most people are retiring. Makes sense
> > > when you consider that a monarch has the best health
> > > care available throughout their life, cost no object.
> > > Queen Elizabeth II coming to the throne so young
> > > was anomalous.
> > >
> > > Peter Wezeman
> > > anti-social Darwinist
> > In her case, she was not expected to be in line of succession because
> > the new king was her uncle Edward VIII, who abdicated over the Mrs
> > Simpson affair, thrusting his younger brother Albert into the vacant
> > post. Albert was styled George VI, and was Elizabeth's father. George
> > VI was a heavy smoker and died of lung cancer at a comparatively young age.
> >
> > There are also cases through history where kings succeeded to the throne
> > in childhood, and regents had to be appointed until they reached the age
> > of majority.
> >
> Through history, of course, but in the industrial age I think that King Willem's
> remarks would be the rule rather than the exception.
>
> Interestingly, in _Double Star_ Lorenzo mentions that cigarette smoking
> still exists in his time. How a man holds "gasper" is one of the detail he
> studies. In real life it has largely disappeared in the upper classes, and
> I would be surprised to hear that any royals in the line of succession
> smoked.

It seems that King George VI died of smoking and
in possession of fewer than the normal number of
lungs with which to do it.

It's reported that Queen Elizabeth II and
King Charles III stood strongly against smoking;
some of their spouses gave it up upon marrying.
Princess Margaret eventually gave it up too.
Prince William and Prince Harry are said to have
been smokers, but not now.

On 2022-09-10 11:25, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <tfiit6$1ieq7$1@dont-email.me>,
> Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What does a constitutional monarch *do* besides ask the
>> newly-elected PM to form a government?
>
> The same things as the head-of-state does in constitutional republics:
> send and receive ambassadors, cut ribbons, sign things, dole out
> honors, grant pardons, etc. All on the advice of the government of
> the day, of course.
>
> In theory, in a monarchy, there is also a sort of long-term continuity
> across governments and generations, so the monarch might offer advice
> (in private) about what another government did in a similar situation.
> (Charles III, of course, won't have had that benefit, coming to the
> throne at the same time as his first PM, although at 73 you'd think
> he's seen a good deal.) It's not uncommon in republics for the head
> of state to be a former politician, even a former prime minister.
> (The current presidents of both Finland, directly elected, and
> Germany, indirectly elected, are former deputy PMs.)

You assume that Charles hasn't been in the loop for decades when it
comes to these matters, and I think that's not a very safe assumption to
make.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 17:57:23 +0000, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:

> In article <tfiit6$1ieq7$1@dont-email.me>,
> Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 10/09/2022 11.54, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>>> Being a constitutional monarch probably helps a lot in producing a
>>> relatively quiet and peaceful period because such a monarch is not
>>> involved in running the country in a way that the monarch becomes a
>>> political symbol and so a cause of turmoil and dissension.
>>
>>What does a constitutional monarch *do* besides ask the newly-elected PM
>>to form a government? When Elizabeth's death was announced, I couldn't
>>think of anything else. Of course, if the newly-elected PM hadn't had to
>>fly to Scotland on the previous day, I probably wouldn't have even
>>remembered that bit.
>>
>>
> Well, in Liz's case: Decide to very publically go to church in Scotland
> one Sunday just before the independence vote. She didn't have to say
> anything.

As long as there's a permanent stupid class that believes in the
symbolism, it will work...

On 10/09/2022 12.57, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <tfiit6$1ieq7$1@dont-email.me>,
> Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/09/2022 11.54, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>>> Being a constitutional monarch probably helps a lot in producing a
>>> relatively quiet and peaceful period because such a monarch is not
>>> involved in running the country in a way that the monarch becomes a
>>> political symbol and so a cause of turmoil and dissension.
>>
>> What does a constitutional monarch *do* besides ask the
>> newly-elected PM to form a government? When Elizabeth's death
>> was announced, I couldn't think of anything else. Of course,
>> if the newly-elected PM hadn't had to fly to Scotland on the
>> previous day, I probably wouldn't have even remembered
>> that bit.
>>
>
> Well, in Liz's case: Decide to very publically go to church in Scotland
> one Sunday just before the independence vote. She didn't have to say
> anything.

From context, I'm assuming that was a "you should vote against
Scottish independence" gesture. Were it not for that context, I
would have thought that it was a show of solidarity with Scotland.

But I don't do subtlety very well.

--
Michael F. Stemper
The name of the story is "A Sound of Thunder".
It was written by Ray Bradbury. You're welcome.

"Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> writes:
>On 10/09/2022 12.57, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <tfiit6$1ieq7$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/09/2022 11.54, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>
>>>> Being a constitutional monarch probably helps a lot in producing a
>>>> relatively quiet and peaceful period because such a monarch is not
>>>> involved in running the country in a way that the monarch becomes a
>>>> political symbol and so a cause of turmoil and dissension.
>>>
>>> What does a constitutional monarch *do* besides ask the
>>> newly-elected PM to form a government? When Elizabeth's death
>>> was announced, I couldn't think of anything else. Of course,
>>> if the newly-elected PM hadn't had to fly to Scotland on the
>>> previous day, I probably wouldn't have even remembered
>>> that bit.
>>>
>>
>> Well, in Liz's case: Decide to very publically go to church in Scotland
>> one Sunday just before the independence vote. She didn't have to say
>> anything.
>
> From context, I'm assuming that was a "you should vote against
>Scottish independence" gesture. Were it not for that context, I
>would have thought that it was a show of solidarity with Scotland.

It is, after all, called "The Church of England".

The Queen also made a backhanded reference during one of her Majesties
speeches around the time of the referendum.

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:13:23 PM UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On 10/09/2022 12.57, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >> In article <tfiit6$1ieq7$1...@dont-email.me>,
> >> Michael F. Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 10/09/2022 11.54, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Being a constitutional monarch probably helps a lot in producing a
> >>>> relatively quiet and peaceful period because such a monarch is not
> >>>> involved in running the country in a way that the monarch becomes a
> >>>> political symbol and so a cause of turmoil and dissension.
> >>>
> >>> What does a constitutional monarch *do* besides ask the
> >>> newly-elected PM to form a government? When Elizabeth's death
> >>> was announced, I couldn't think of anything else. Of course,
> >>> if the newly-elected PM hadn't had to fly to Scotland on the
> >>> previous day, I probably wouldn't have even remembered
> >>> that bit.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well, in Liz's case: Decide to very publically go to church in Scotland
> >> one Sunday just before the independence vote. She didn't have to say
> >> anything.
> >
> > From context, I'm assuming that was a "you should vote against
> >Scottish independence" gesture. Were it not for that context, I
> >would have thought that it was a show of solidarity with Scotland.
> It is, after all, called "The Church of England".
>
> The Queen also made a backhanded reference during one of her Majesties
> speeches around the time of the referendum.

The established church in England is indeed the Church of England, which is Anglican, has Bishops, and is at least in theory controlled top-down by the King. The established church in Scotland is the Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian, does not have Bishops, and is at least in theory ruled only by Jesus Christ, and constitutionally bottom-up from commitees of elders in individual parishes. AFAIK the Queen went to the Church of Scotland routinely when in Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crathie_Kirk. The Anglican Church in Scotland is the Episcopal Church, which is not the established church. King Charles has already ceremonially agreed to support the Church of Scotland but I do not think he has yet got to the point in the schedule when he will make the equivalent declaration for the Church of England.. All of this stuff is in the ceremonies because it was a big deal when we had William III Prince of Orange aka King Billy. Arguably Presbyterianism was at least a source of background familiarity with representative democracy when the American Colonies were revolting.

IMHO you can interpret the Queen's attendance at a Church of Scotland church in any number of ways, since the Church of Scotland could also be considered as an independent Scottish Institution which in its heyday wielded considerable political influence. The simplest explanation to me is that she was a deeply religious woman who routinely went to church every Sunday and the church in question was her usual church when staying in Balmoral.

On 12/09/2022 10.13, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 10/09/2022 12.57, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>> In article <tfiit6$1ieq7$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> What does a constitutional monarch *do* besides ask the
>>>> newly-elected PM to form a government? When Elizabeth's death
>>>> was announced, I couldn't think of anything else. Of course,
>>>> if the newly-elected PM hadn't had to fly to Scotland on the
>>>> previous day, I probably wouldn't have even remembered
>>>> that bit.
>>>
>>> Well, in Liz's case: Decide to very publically go to church in Scotland
>>> one Sunday just before the independence vote. She didn't have to say
>>> anything.
>>
>> From context, I'm assuming that was a "you should vote against
>> Scottish independence" gesture. Were it not for that context, I
>> would have thought that it was a show of solidarity with Scotland.
>
> It is, after all, called "The Church of England".

I had assumed that since it was in Scotland, it was the Church of
Scotland, as described by Andrew McDowell.

ObSWF: J.K. Rowling is a member of the Church of Scotland, which is
the only reason that I knew of its existence.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Galatians 3:28

In article <11d402c3-8f32-4457-b041-be657a976f8cn@googlegroups.com>,
Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:
>On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:13:23 PM UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >On 10/09/2022 12.57, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> >> In article <tfiit6$1ieq7$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> >> Michael F. Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On 10/09/2022 11.54, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Being a constitutional monarch probably helps a lot in producing a
>> >>>> relatively quiet and peaceful period because such a monarch is not
>> >>>> involved in running the country in a way that the monarch becomes a
>> >>>> political symbol and so a cause of turmoil and dissension.
>> >>>
>> >>> What does a constitutional monarch *do* besides ask the
>> >>> newly-elected PM to form a government? When Elizabeth's death
>> >>> was announced, I couldn't think of anything else. Of course,
>> >>> if the newly-elected PM hadn't had to fly to Scotland on the
>> >>> previous day, I probably wouldn't have even remembered
>> >>> that bit.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Well, in Liz's case: Decide to very publically go to church in Scotland
>> >> one Sunday just before the independence vote. She didn't have to say
>> >> anything.
>> >
>> > From context, I'm assuming that was a "you should vote against
>> >Scottish independence" gesture. Were it not for that context, I
>> >would have thought that it was a show of solidarity with Scotland.
>> It is, after all, called "The Church of England".
>>
>> The Queen also made a backhanded reference during one of her Majesties
>> speeches around the time of the referendum.
>
>The established church in England is indeed the Church of England, which
>is Anglican, has Bishops, and is at least in theory controlled top-down
>by the King. The established church in Scotland is the Church of
>Scotland, which is Presbyterian, does not have Bishops, and is at least
>in theory ruled only by Jesus Christ, and constitutionally bottom-up
>from commitees of elders in individual parishes. AFAIK the Queen went to
>the Church of Scotland routinely when in Scotland
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crathie_Kirk. The Anglican Church in
>Scotland is the Episcopal Church, which is not the established church.
>King Charles has already ceremonially agreed to support the Church of
>Scotland but I do not think he has yet got to the point in the schedule
>when he will make the equivalent declaration for the Church of England.
>All of this stuff is in the ceremonies because it was a big deal when we
>had William III Prince of Orange aka King Billy. Arguably
>Presbyterianism was at least a source of background familiarity with
>representative democracy when the American Colonies were revolting.
>
>IMHO you can interpret the Queen's attendance at a Church of Scotland
>church in any number of ways, since the Church of Scotland could also be
>considered as an independent Scottish Institution which in its heyday
>wielded considerable political influence. The simplest explanation to me
>is that she was a deeply religious woman who routinely went to church
>every Sunday and the church in question was her usual church when
>staying in Balmoral.

At the time the news reports definitely read it as political, as in
"I'm the Queen of Scotland", why wouldn't I go to church there this
particular Sunday?"
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 6:57:06 PM UTC+1, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <11d402c3-8f32-4457...@googlegroups.com>,
> Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:13:23 PM UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >On 10/09/2022 12.57, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >> >> In article <tfiit6$1ieq7$1...@dont-email.me>,
> >> >> Michael F. Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>> On 10/09/2022 11.54, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Being a constitutional monarch probably helps a lot in producing a
> >> >>>> relatively quiet and peaceful period because such a monarch is not
> >> >>>> involved in running the country in a way that the monarch becomes a
> >> >>>> political symbol and so a cause of turmoil and dissension.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> What does a constitutional monarch *do* besides ask the
> >> >>> newly-elected PM to form a government? When Elizabeth's death
> >> >>> was announced, I couldn't think of anything else. Of course,
> >> >>> if the newly-elected PM hadn't had to fly to Scotland on the
> >> >>> previous day, I probably wouldn't have even remembered
> >> >>> that bit.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, in Liz's case: Decide to very publically go to church in Scotland
> >> >> one Sunday just before the independence vote. She didn't have to say
> >> >> anything.
> >> >
> >> > From context, I'm assuming that was a "you should vote against
> >> >Scottish independence" gesture. Were it not for that context, I
> >> >would have thought that it was a show of solidarity with Scotland.
> >> It is, after all, called "The Church of England".
> >>
> >> The Queen also made a backhanded reference during one of her Majesties
> >> speeches around the time of the referendum.
> >
> >The established church in England is indeed the Church of England, which
> >is Anglican, has Bishops, and is at least in theory controlled top-down
> >by the King. The established church in Scotland is the Church of
> >Scotland, which is Presbyterian, does not have Bishops, and is at least
> >in theory ruled only by Jesus Christ, and constitutionally bottom-up
> >from commitees of elders in individual parishes. AFAIK the Queen went to
> >the Church of Scotland routinely when in Scotland
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crathie_Kirk. The Anglican Church in
> >Scotland is the Episcopal Church, which is not the established church.
> >King Charles has already ceremonially agreed to support the Church of
> >Scotland but I do not think he has yet got to the point in the schedule
> >when he will make the equivalent declaration for the Church of England.
> >All of this stuff is in the ceremonies because it was a big deal when we
> >had William III Prince of Orange aka King Billy. Arguably
> >Presbyterianism was at least a source of background familiarity with
> >representative democracy when the American Colonies were revolting.
> >
> >IMHO you can interpret the Queen's attendance at a Church of Scotland
> >church in any number of ways, since the Church of Scotland could also be
> >considered as an independent Scottish Institution which in its heyday
> >wielded considerable political influence. The simplest explanation to me
> >is that she was a deeply religious woman who routinely went to church
> >every Sunday and the church in question was her usual church when
> >staying in Balmoral.
> At the time the news reports definitely read it as political, as in
> "I'm the Queen of Scotland", why wouldn't I go to church there this
> particular Sunday?"
> --
> columbiaclosings.com
> What's not in Columbia anymore..
A UK web search finds a number of recent articles, including one in the Scots "Daily Record" https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/david-cameron-asked-queen-directly-20094441

Supposedly David Cameron (PM at the time) asked the Queen to intervene. The purported intervention was not church attendance, but a statement outside the church to somebody else in earshot of many that she hoped “people would think very carefully about the future”. This was at the time interpreted by a number of people as the Queen coming out against independence, partly presumably because recent polling had suggested that the vote would be for independence.

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:13:23 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On 10/09/2022 12.57, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >> In article <tfiit6$1ieq7$1...@dont-email.me>,
> >> Michael F. Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 10/09/2022 11.54, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Being a constitutional monarch probably helps a lot in producing a
> >>>> relatively quiet and peaceful period because such a monarch is not
> >>>> involved in running the country in a way that the monarch becomes a
> >>>> political symbol and so a cause of turmoil and dissension.
> >>>
> >>> What does a constitutional monarch *do* besides ask the
> >>> newly-elected PM to form a government? When Elizabeth's death
> >>> was announced, I couldn't think of anything else. Of course,
> >>> if the newly-elected PM hadn't had to fly to Scotland on the
> >>> previous day, I probably wouldn't have even remembered
> >>> that bit.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well, in Liz's case: Decide to very publically go to church in Scotland
> >> one Sunday just before the independence vote. She didn't have to say
> >> anything.
> >
> > From context, I'm assuming that was a "you should vote against
> >Scottish independence" gesture. Were it not for that context, I
> >would have thought that it was a show of solidarity with Scotland.
> It is, after all, called "The Church of England".

The branch of the Anglican communion in Scotland is the Scottish Episcopal Church which is not the established church of Scotland (whatever that means nowadays, in the past it was a big deal). In older times, supporters of the Stuarts after 1688, and opponents of the Union,were often Episcopals who felt that theirs should be the official church.

Long ago Punch had a mock "act of disunion" which was signed:

"Elizabeth II (or I)".

William Hyde

On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:23:44 -0700, Andrew McDowell wrote:

>
> The established church in England is indeed the Church of England, which
> is Anglican, has Bishops, and is at least in theory controlled top-down
> by the King. The established church in Scotland is the Church of
> Scotland, which is Presbyterian, does not have Bishops, and is at least
> in theory ruled only by Jesus Christ, and constitutionally bottom-up
> from commitees of elders in individual parishes. AFAIK the Queen went to
> the Church of Scotland routinely when in Scotland
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crathie_Kirk. The Anglican Church in
> Scotland is the Episcopal Church, which is not the established church.
> King Charles has already ceremonially agreed to support the Church of
> Scotland but I do not think he has yet got to the point in the schedule
> when he will make the equivalent declaration for the Church of England.
> All of this stuff is in the ceremonies because it was a big deal when we
> had William III Prince of Orange aka King Billy. Arguably
> Presbyterianism was at least a source of background familiarity with
> representative democracy when the American Colonies were revolting.
>

And it still might be a big deal, no? When the Pope cancelled his
visit to Africa recently for health reasons it also meant that
there would be no meeting there between him and the Archibishop
of Canterbury and the leader of the Church of Scotland. I had to
delve into multiple news sources to learn that this was to be a
joint visit. The American media had nothing about it.

On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 19:14:02 UTC+1, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 6:57:06 PM UTC+1, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > In article <11d402c3-8f32-4457...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
> > >On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:13:23 PM UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > >> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael...@gmail.com> writes:
> > >> >On 10/09/2022 12.57, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > >> >> In article <tfiit6$1ieq7$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > >> >> Michael F. Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>> On 10/09/2022 11.54, Paul S Person wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> Being a constitutional monarch probably helps a lot in producing a
> > >> >>>> relatively quiet and peaceful period because such a monarch is not
> > >> >>>> involved in running the country in a way that the monarch becomes a
> > >> >>>> political symbol and so a cause of turmoil and dissension.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> What does a constitutional monarch *do* besides ask the
> > >> >>> newly-elected PM to form a government? When Elizabeth's death
> > >> >>> was announced, I couldn't think of anything else. Of course,
> > >> >>> if the newly-elected PM hadn't had to fly to Scotland on the
> > >> >>> previous day, I probably wouldn't have even remembered
> > >> >>> that bit.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Well, in Liz's case: Decide to very publically go to church in Scotland
> > >> >> one Sunday just before the independence vote. She didn't have to say
> > >> >> anything.
> > >> >
> > >> > From context, I'm assuming that was a "you should vote against
> > >> >Scottish independence" gesture. Were it not for that context, I
> > >> >would have thought that it was a show of solidarity with Scotland.
> > >> It is, after all, called "The Church of England".
> > >>
> > >> The Queen also made a backhanded reference during one of her Majesties
> > >> speeches around the time of the referendum.
> > >
> > >The established church in England is indeed the Church of England, which
> > >is Anglican, has Bishops, and is at least in theory controlled top-down
> > >by the King. The established church in Scotland is the Church of
> > >Scotland, which is Presbyterian, does not have Bishops, and is at least
> > >in theory ruled only by Jesus Christ, and constitutionally bottom-up
> > >from commitees of elders in individual parishes. AFAIK the Queen went to
> > >the Church of Scotland routinely when in Scotland
> > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crathie_Kirk. The Anglican Church in
> > >Scotland is the Episcopal Church, which is not the established church.
> > >King Charles has already ceremonially agreed to support the Church of
> > >Scotland but I do not think he has yet got to the point in the schedule
> > >when he will make the equivalent declaration for the Church of England..
> > >All of this stuff is in the ceremonies because it was a big deal when we
> > >had William III Prince of Orange aka King Billy. Arguably
> > >Presbyterianism was at least a source of background familiarity with
> > >representative democracy when the American Colonies were revolting.
> > >
> > >IMHO you can interpret the Queen's attendance at a Church of Scotland
> > >church in any number of ways, since the Church of Scotland could also be
> > >considered as an independent Scottish Institution which in its heyday
> > >wielded considerable political influence. The simplest explanation to me
> > >is that she was a deeply religious woman who routinely went to church
> > >every Sunday and the church in question was her usual church when
> > >staying in Balmoral.
> > At the time the news reports definitely read it as political, as in
> > "I'm the Queen of Scotland", why wouldn't I go to church there this
> > particular Sunday?"
> > --
> > columbiaclosings.com
> > What's not in Columbia anymore..
> A UK web search finds a number of recent articles, including one in the Scots "Daily Record" https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/david-cameron-asked-queen-directly-20094441
>
> Supposedly David Cameron (PM at the time) asked the Queen to intervene. The purported intervention was not church attendance, but a statement outside the church to somebody else in earshot of many that she hoped “people would think very carefully about the future”. This was at the time interpreted by a number of people as the Queen coming out against independence, partly presumably because recent polling had suggested that the vote would be for independence.

It seems to me to be the very least that she could
say on the subject. People voting /should/ think
carefully. And to refuse to speak also would seem
to be an answer.

But other times, she said more.

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:57:06 AM UTC-6, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:

> At the time the news reports definitely read it as political, as in
> "I'm the Queen of Scotland", why wouldn't I go to church there this
> particular Sunday?"

Well, as an Anglican, from what I read in this thread, one would expect her
to attend services at an Episcopal Church if she takes the doctrines of the
Anglican Church, which no doubt differ from those of the Presbyterian]
Church, seriously.
On the other hand, in Canada, the Presbyterian Church is one of four
denominations (not, however, including the Anglican Church) which
combined to form the United Church. Like the Anglican Church, it is
modern, progressive, and ecumenical; and so one perhaps shouldn't
expect them to work like, say, a Fundamentalist versus an Evangelical
versus a Pentacostal church in the United States, each of which would
view the others as nearly as alien as, say, a Roman Catholic church, a
Mormon temple, or a Jehovah's Witnesses worship facility.

John Savard

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 6:29:15 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> It seems to me to be the very least that she could
> say on the subject. People voting /should/ think
> carefully. And to refuse to speak also would seem
> to be an answer.

Unfortunately, the people of the United Kingdom failed to think very
carefully on the occasion of a later referendum, the one for leaving
the European Union, known as "Brexit".
They *were* promised, during the campaign, that Britain would retain
its customs union with Europe, and nothing would change drastically,
if they voted for Brexit. However, when negotiations with Europe failed
to produce such a result, they did not go back to the British people to see
if they still wanted to leave the EU under these changed circumstances.
This has complicated matters for Northern Ireland.
In Scotland, the majority sentiment was not in favor of Brexit, and, thus,
the likelihood of Scotland voting to break away from the UK in a
subsequent referendum has increased materially... that the Charles vs
Diana thing might have reduced their sentimental ties to the Crown, such
as they may be (does the word "Sassenach" ring a bell?) will probably be
a minor factor compared to that.

John Savard