Who will deliver the TI today and on subsequent days?

In the event, will The Last Night of the Proms be cancelled (daughters
were asked a while back what their plans for concerts would be)?

And last but by no means least, who had HM the Q in the St Stephen's
sweepstake?

john

On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 15:10:26 +0100, John Ashby wrote:

> Who will deliver the TI today and on subsequent days?

I reckon Susan is probably the person who most wants you to know she's a
royalist. As the post mistress she sort of works for Royal Mail, so she's
almost family. (Is how Susan would see it.)

> In the event, will The Last Night of the Proms be cancelled (daughters
> were asked a while back what their plans for concerts would be)?

The BBC tends to go overboard on these occasions, so I wouldn't be
surprised. Might as well not bother switching on TV or radio for several
weeks.

--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0

On 8 Sep 2022 14:55:03 GMT, Jim Easterbrook
<news@jim-easterbrook.me.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 15:10:26 +0100, John Ashby wrote:
>
>> Who will deliver the TI today and on subsequent days?
>
>I reckon Susan is probably the person who most wants you to know she's a
>royalist. As the post mistress she sort of works for Royal Mail, so she's
>almost family. (Is how Susan would see it.)
>
>> In the event, will The Last Night of the Proms be cancelled (daughters
>> were asked a while back what their plans for concerts would be)?
>
>The BBC tends to go overboard on these occasions, so I wouldn't be
>surprised. Might as well not bother switching on TV or radio for several
>weeks.

Is Susan on strike today?

Jim Easterbrook wrote:

>On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 15:10:26 +0100, John Ashby wrote:
>
>> Who will deliver the TI today and on subsequent days?
>
>I reckon Susan is probably the person who most wants you to know she's a
>royalist. As the post mistress she sort of works for Royal Mail, so she's
>almost family. (Is how Susan would see it.)
>
>> In the event, will The Last Night of the Proms be cancelled (daughters
>> were asked a while back what their plans for concerts would be)?
>
>The BBC tends to go overboard on these occasions, so I wouldn't be
>surprised. Might as well not bother switching on TV or radio for several
>weeks.

There are times when a full PVR can be handy. We've lots to catch
up on. My podcast listening is also very much behind.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.

On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 15:10:26 +0100, John Ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com>
scrawled in the dust...

>Who will deliver the TI today and on subsequent days?
>
>In the event, will The Last Night of the Proms be cancelled (daughters
>were asked a while back what their plans for concerts would be)?
>
>And last but by no means least, who had HM the Q in the St Stephen's
>sweepstake?
>
>john

God save the King.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On 08/09/2022 18:34, Penny wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 15:10:26 +0100, John Ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com>
> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> Who will deliver the TI today and on subsequent days?
>>
>> In the event, will The Last Night of the Proms be cancelled (daughters
>> were asked a while back what their plans for concerts would be)?
>>
>> And last but by no means least, who had HM the Q in the St Stephen's
>> sweepstake?
>>
>> john
>
> God save the King.

It's going to be the choral equivalent of writing last year's date on
cheques until the middle of March.

john

On 08/09/2022 15:10, John Ashby wrote:
> Who will deliver the TI today and on subsequent days?
>
> In the event, will The Last Night of the Proms be cancelled (daughters
> were asked a while back what their plans for concerts would be)?
>
> And last but by no means least, who had HM the Q in the St Stephen's
> sweepstake?

Well, quite. And, most importantly, if it ever stops raining at The
Oval, will they cancel the Test Match?

Actually, flippancy aside, I find myself rather shaken at the
possibility of HMQ's imminent death. I have only ever known one
monarch, and although I'm by no means a natural royalist, she has just
always been there as a solid symbol of stability, somehow. I respect
the way she has conducted herself throughout her life and she commands
similar respect around the world. I think the country will be the
poorer without her.

That said, the prospect of days on end of wall-to-wall coverage of the
Queen being dead to the exclusion of all else is not a happy one. I
think my To Be Read mountain may actually diminish in size for once.

--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

On Thursday, 8 September 2022 at 18:34:22 UTC+1, Penny wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 15:10:26 +0100, John Ashby <johna...@yahoo.com>
> scrawled in the dust...
> >Who will deliver the TI today and on subsequent days?
> >
> >In the event, will The Last Night of the Proms be cancelled (daughters
> >were asked a while back what their plans for concerts would be)?
> >
> >And last but by no means least, who had HM the Q in the St Stephen's
> >sweepstake?
> >
> >john
> God save the King.
> --

+1

On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 18:56:54 +0100, Sid Nuncius <nuncius@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 08/09/2022 15:10, John Ashby wrote:
>> Who will deliver the TI today and on subsequent days?
>>
>> In the event, will The Last Night of the Proms be cancelled (daughters
>> were asked a while back what their plans for concerts would be)?
>>
>> And last but by no means least, who had HM the Q in the St Stephen's
>> sweepstake?
>
>Well, quite. And, most importantly, if it ever stops raining at The
>Oval, will they cancel the Test Match?
>
>Actually, flippancy aside, I find myself rather shaken at the
>possibility of HMQ's imminent death. I have only ever known one
>monarch, and although I'm by no means a natural royalist, she has just
>always been there as a solid symbol of stability, somehow. I respect
>the way she has conducted herself throughout her life and she commands
>similar respect around the world. I think the country will be the
>poorer without her.
>
>That said, the prospect of days on end of wall-to-wall coverage of the
>Queen being dead to the exclusion of all else is not a happy one. I
>think my To Be Read mountain may actually diminish in size for once.

I remember the coronation. I was 7. My grandparents, who lived next
door, had a television and we all watched the procession. The estate
of flats we lived in organised a party for all the children. We were
each given a plate, cup and saucer with pictures on of the Queen and I
think a spoon too. We sat at long tables..trestle? and had
sandwiches, cake and Tizer. We all sang a song too, In a Golden Coach,
and had to rehearse it. I think it rained so we must have been under
cover. Everyone was a royalist then.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 21:30:50 +0100, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 18:56:54 +0100, Sid Nuncius <nuncius@hotmail.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On 08/09/2022 15:10, John Ashby wrote:
>>> Who will deliver the TI today and on subsequent days?
>>>
>>> In the event, will The Last Night of the Proms be cancelled (daughters
>>> were asked a while back what their plans for concerts would be)?
>>>
>>> And last but by no means least, who had HM the Q in the St Stephen's
>>> sweepstake?
>>
>>Well, quite. And, most importantly, if it ever stops raining at The
>>Oval, will they cancel the Test Match?
>>
>>Actually, flippancy aside, I find myself rather shaken at the
>>possibility of HMQ's imminent death. I have only ever known one
>>monarch, and although I'm by no means a natural royalist, she has just
>>always been there as a solid symbol of stability, somehow. I respect
>>the way she has conducted herself throughout her life and she commands
>>similar respect around the world. I think the country will be the
>>poorer without her.
>>
>>That said, the prospect of days on end of wall-to-wall coverage of the
>>Queen being dead to the exclusion of all else is not a happy one. I
>>think my To Be Read mountain may actually diminish in size for once.
>
>
>I remember the coronation. I was 7. My grandparents, who lived next
>door, had a television and we all watched the procession. The estate
>of flats we lived in organised a party for all the children. We were
>each given a plate, cup and saucer with pictures on of the Queen and I
>think a spoon too. We sat at long tables..trestle? and had
>sandwiches, cake and Tizer. We all sang a song too, In a Golden Coach,
>and had to rehearse it. I think it rained so we must have been under
>cover. Everyone was a royalist then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D55bsfQDd40

I was vaguely wondering what name Charles will take as King, I'd understood
he was very unlikely to be Charles III (Scotland already claimed one of
those, I think).

I'd noticed the BBC bods were all carefully calling him The King, then the
PM came on and called him King Charles III, sparking some speculation about
her having inside knowledge, from the assembled journalists.
I think she just jumped to conclusions - egg on face by breakfast.

I've never thought of myself as a Royalist and was surprised to find there
was something in my eye when I heard the news.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On 08/09/2022 21:40, Penny wrote:
> I was vaguely wondering what name Charles will take as King, I'd understood
> he was very unlikely to be Charles III (Scotland already claimed one of
> those, I think).
>
> I'd noticed the BBC bods were all carefully calling him The King, then the
> PM came on and called him King Charles III, sparking some speculation about
> her having inside knowledge, from the assembled journalists.
> I think she just jumped to conclusions - egg on face by breakfast.
>
> I've never thought of myself as a Royalist and was surprised to find there
> was something in my eye when I heard the news.

I remember reading many years ago that he intended to be George whatever
number we are up to because Charles had not made good entries in the
history books and was not a good line to follow.

--
Ric

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 1:56:57 PM UTC-4, Sid Nuncius wrote:

> Actually, flippancy aside, I find myself rather shaken at the
> possibility of HMQ's imminent death. I have only ever known one
> monarch, and although I'm by no means a natural royalist, she has just
> always been there as a solid symbol of stability, somehow. I respect
> the way she has conducted herself throughout her life and she commands
> similar respect around the world. I think the country will be the
> poorer without her.

I'm a very, very vocal anti-monarchist. I'm in enormous agreement. On the whole, I think she was good - hard working, and devoted to what she thought was her duty. It's a shame her children are such a crew of no-hopers. It's interesting that we now have an adulterer as head of the Church of England (and Scotland).

For years I've been hoping that this moment would provoke a grown up conversation about whether a hereditary monarchy is really a thing for the 21st Century, but I'm now thinking that I'll be disappointed.

On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 22:07:54 +0100, Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com>
scrawled in the dust...

>On 08/09/2022 21:40, Penny wrote:
>> I was vaguely wondering what name Charles will take as King, I'd understood
>> he was very unlikely to be Charles III (Scotland already claimed one of
>> those, I think).
>>
>> I'd noticed the BBC bods were all carefully calling him The King, then the
>> PM came on and called him King Charles III, sparking some speculation about
>> her having inside knowledge, from the assembled journalists.
>> I think she just jumped to conclusions - egg on face by breakfast.
>>
>> I've never thought of myself as a Royalist and was surprised to find there
>> was something in my eye when I heard the news.
>
>I remember reading many years ago that he intended to be George whatever
>number we are up to because Charles had not made good entries in the
>history books and was not a good line to follow.

Apparently the PM was well informed and Charles III has been confirmed as
his chosen regnal name.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 14:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Ben Blaney <benblaney@gmail.com>
scrawled in the dust...

>On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 1:56:57 PM UTC-4, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>
>> Actually, flippancy aside, I find myself rather shaken at the
>> possibility of HMQ's imminent death. I have only ever known one
>> monarch, and although I'm by no means a natural royalist, she has just
>> always been there as a solid symbol of stability, somehow. I respect
>> the way she has conducted herself throughout her life and she commands
>> similar respect around the world. I think the country will be the
>> poorer without her.
>
>I'm a very, very vocal anti-monarchist. I'm in enormous agreement. On the
>whole, I think she was good - hard working, and devoted to what she thought
>was her duty. It's a shame her children are such a crew of no-hopers. It's
>interesting that we now have an adulterer as head of the Church of England
>(and Scotland).

He is not the first.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On 08/09/2022 23:25, Penny wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 14:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Ben Blaney <benblaney@gmail.com>
> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 1:56:57 PM UTC-4, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, flippancy aside, I find myself rather shaken at the
>>> possibility of HMQ's imminent death. I have only ever known one
>>> monarch, and although I'm by no means a natural royalist, she has just
>>> always been there as a solid symbol of stability, somehow. I respect
>>> the way she has conducted herself throughout her life and she commands
>>> similar respect around the world. I think the country will be the
>>> poorer without her.
>>
>> I'm a very, very vocal anti-monarchist. I'm in enormous agreement. On the
>> whole, I think she was good - hard working, and devoted to what she thought
>> was her duty. It's a shame her children are such a crew of no-hopers. It's
>> interesting that we now have an adulterer as head of the Church of England
>> (and Scotland).
>
> He is not the first.

Especially if you think back to how the whole thing (CofE) got started.

I assume CR III will not be given to decapitating his consorts, if they
fail to give satisfaction.

On 08/09/2022 22:07, Joe Kerr wrote:
> On 08/09/2022 21:40, Penny wrote:
>> I was vaguely wondering what name Charles will take as King, I'd
>> understood
>> he was very unlikely to be Charles III (Scotland already claimed one of
>> those, I think).
>>
>> I'd noticed the BBC bods were all carefully calling him The King, then
>> the
>> PM came on and called him King Charles III, sparking some speculation
>> about
>> her having inside knowledge, from the assembled journalists.
>> I think she just jumped to conclusions - egg on face by breakfast.
>>
>> I've never thought of myself as a Royalist and was surprised to find
>> there
>> was something in my eye when I heard the news.
>
> I remember reading many years ago that he intended to be George whatever
> number we are up to because Charles had not made good entries in the
> history books and was not a good line to follow.
>
He has had sufficient time to ponder the question - and change his mind
a time or twenty.
74 years old and suddenly someone yells "Right! You're on!"

Q: Which king (or queen)[1] was oldest at the time of their succession?

[1] English Scottish or British monarchs.

On 09/09/2022 00:46, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 08/09/2022 23:25, Penny wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 14:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Ben Blaney <benblaney@gmail.com>
>> scrawled in the dust...
>>
>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 1:56:57 PM UTC-4, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, flippancy aside, I find myself rather shaken at the
>>>> possibility of HMQ's imminent death. I have only ever known one
>>>> monarch, and although I'm by no means a natural royalist, she has just
>>>> always been there as a solid symbol of stability, somehow. I respect
>>>> the way she has conducted herself throughout her life and she commands
>>>> similar respect around the world. I think the country will be the
>>>> poorer without her.
>>>
>>> I'm a very, very vocal anti-monarchist.  I'm in enormous agreement.
>>> On the
>>> whole, I think she was good - hard working, and devoted to what she
>>> thought
>>> was her duty.  It's a shame her children are such a crew of
>>> no-hopers.  It's
>>> interesting that we now have an adulterer as head of the Church of
>>> England
>>> (and Scotland).
>>
>> He is not the first.
>
> Especially if you think back to how the whole thing (CofE) got started.
>
> I assume CR III will not be given to decapitating his consorts, if they
> fail to give satisfaction.

<mode=conspiracytheorist>

Of course not. That's done by "car accident" these days.

</ct>

--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

On 09/09/2022 00:52, Sam Plusnet wrote:

> Q: Which king (or queen)[1] was oldest at the time of their succession?
>
> [1] English Scottish or British monarchs.

I don't know, but I'd guess that our current King[1] must be a strong
contender.

[1]Slightly weirdly, it was someone mentioning that there would be a lot
of work going on changing coins, banknotes, stamps etc which really
brought me up short. It shouldn't; I collected stamps in my very young
days which carried portraits of every monarch back to Victoria, as did
pre-decimalisation coins (excluding Edward VIII in the case of coins),
but...

No doubt the strangeness will gradually diminish, as will (possibly) my
strong urge to slap Feargal Keene.

--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 14:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Ben Blaney wrote:

> For years I've been hoping that this moment would provoke a grown up
> conversation about whether a hereditary monarchy is really a thing for
> the 21st Century, but I'm now thinking that I'll be disappointed.

I don't think the UK can do grown up conversations any more. I share your
expected disappointment.

--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0

On 9 Sep 2022 06:37:32 GMT, Jim Easterbrook
<news@jim-easterbrook.me.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 14:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Ben Blaney wrote:
>
>> For years I've been hoping that this moment would provoke a grown up
>> conversation about whether a hereditary monarchy is really a thing for
>> the 21st Century, but I'm now thinking that I'll be disappointed.
>
>I don't think the UK can do grown up conversations any more. I share your
>expected disappointment.

Sadly, IMO the only adult has just left the room. I wonder what her
last words were? "I've had to endure that buffoon for the past three
years: I'm buggered if I'm going to stick around any longer just to
watch the girl make a complete arse of everything."

Nick

On 09/09/2022 08:00, Nick Odell wrote:
> On 9 Sep 2022 06:37:32 GMT, Jim Easterbrook
> <news@jim-easterbrook.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 14:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Ben Blaney wrote:
>>
>>> For years I've been hoping that this moment would provoke a grown up
>>> conversation about whether a hereditary monarchy is really a thing for
>>> the 21st Century, but I'm now thinking that I'll be disappointed.
>>
>> I don't think the UK can do grown up conversations any more. I share your
>> expected disappointment.
>
> Sadly, IMO the only adult has just left the room. I wonder what her
> last words were? "I've had to endure that buffoon for the past three
> years: I'm buggered if I'm going to stick around any longer just to
> watch the girl make a complete arse of everything."

:o)

Boris Johnson will be *livid* that it didn't happen a few days earlier
so that he could be the centre of attention and try to pretend to be
Churchill again. I imagine he's going round muttering "Two days. Two
sodding days..." or equivalent through gritted teeth.

It's a cheering thought.

--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 14:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Ben Blaney <benblaney@gmail.com>
> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 1:56:57 PM UTC-4, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, flippancy aside, I find myself rather shaken at the
>>> possibility of HMQ's imminent death. I have only ever known one
>>> monarch, and although I'm by no means a natural royalist, she has just
>>> always been there as a solid symbol of stability, somehow. I respect
>>> the way she has conducted herself throughout her life and she commands
>>> similar respect around the world. I think the country will be the
>>> poorer without her.
>>
>> I'm a very, very vocal anti-monarchist. I'm in enormous agreement. On the
>> whole, I think she was good - hard working, and devoted to what she thought
>> was her duty. It's a shame her children are such a crew of no-hopers. It's
>> interesting that we now have an adulterer as head of the Church of England
>> (and Scotland).
>
> He is not the first.

Henry, don’t do that!

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

Sid Nuncius <nuncius@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 09/09/2022 00:46, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 08/09/2022 23:25, Penny wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 14:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Ben Blaney <benblaney@gmail.com>
>>> scrawled in the dust...
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 1:56:57 PM UTC-4, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, flippancy aside, I find myself rather shaken at the
>>>>> possibility of HMQ's imminent death. I have only ever known one
>>>>> monarch, and although I'm by no means a natural royalist, she has just
>>>>> always been there as a solid symbol of stability, somehow. I respect
>>>>> the way she has conducted herself throughout her life and she commands
>>>>> similar respect around the world. I think the country will be the
>>>>> poorer without her.
>>>>
>>>> I'm a very, very vocal anti-monarchist.  I'm in enormous agreement.
>>>> On the
>>>> whole, I think she was good - hard working, and devoted to what she
>>>> thought
>>>> was her duty.  It's a shame her children are such a crew of
>>>> no-hopers.  It's
>>>> interesting that we now have an adulterer as head of the Church of
>>>> England
>>>> (and Scotland).
>>>
>>> He is not the first.
>>
>> Especially if you think back to how the whole thing (CofE) got started.
>>
>> I assume CR III will not be given to decapitating his consorts, if they
>> fail to give satisfaction.
>
> <mode=conspiracytheorist>
>
> Of course not. That's done by "car accident" these days.
>
> </ct>
>

Well, at least it gives them a concrete excuse if they have a crush on
A.N.Other. (No names, no cordless drill.)

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

Jim Easterbrook <news@jim-easterbrook.me.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 14:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Ben Blaney wrote:
>
>> For years I've been hoping that this moment would provoke a grown up
>> conversation about whether a hereditary monarchy is really a thing for
>> the 21st Century, but I'm now thinking that I'll be disappointed.
>
> I don't think the UK can do grown up conversations any more. I share your
> expected disappointment.
>

Yeap, frayed your right.:-(

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan