Nick Odell <nick@themusicworkshop.plus.com> 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."
>
> Nick
>

:-))))))))

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

Sid Nuncius <nuncius@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
>

And I must admit, I thought Trump was bad…

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 21:40:35 +0100, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
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).

No, it's one thing he's got right. Union of the crowns took place in
1603. Chas I appeared in 1625. He'd have been right with George VII,
too, as the "wee wee German Lairdie" didn't put in an appearance until
1714.

The late Liz, otoh, got her regnal number wrong. She was only QEII of
England. Many people in Scotland were not impressed. For more info,
see here, and (on-topic aside) note that these events preceded the
recent event in Ambridge by about 70 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_Box_War

As the photo shows, mail vans in Scotland do not show EIIR. I suppose
in time they'll be changed.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 06:18:50 +0100, Sid Nuncius <nuncius@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>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.

I'm almost sure that's correct.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 06:18:05 +0100, 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>
BTN but I bet someone has already

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 06:18:50 +0100, Sid Nuncius <nuncius@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>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.

Swimming this morning we noticed there were at one point only 2 people
in the pool in our lane who remembered the coronation. I wonder how
many do on UMRA.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 07:48:40 -0000 (UTC), Mike McMillan
<toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> wrote:

>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.)

Can he have a BTN too please for crush? And drill

On 09/09/2022 08:00, Nick Odell wrote:
>
> 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."
>
I think the girl has made quite a decent start actually. One of my many
regrets about QEII departing is that she won't be around to advise the
PM in the difficult weeks and months ahead.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 09:15:53 +0100, John Armstrong
<jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 06:18:50 +0100, Sid Nuncius <nuncius@hotmail.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>I'm almost sure that's correct.

Timing? She saw 2 PMs one day and died the next? Was it disgust
finally after seeing the latest or was it her stand-in double saw the
2? All she had to do was shake hands and say 'What do you do then?'

On 09/09/2022 09:35, Vicky wrote:
> Swimming this morning we noticed there were at one point only 2 people
> in the pool in our lane who remembered the coronation. I wonder how
> many do on UMRA.

I do. Grandpa bought a new TV for the occasion and gave us his old one
- 9" screen! We children got a bit bored after watching for quite a
while so were given some money and allowed to go to Pop Peever's for
sweets. We missed the actual crowning:-(

--
Jenny M Benson

On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 09:11:26 +0100, John Armstrong <jja@blueyonder.co.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 21:40:35 +0100, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
>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).
>
>No, it's one thing he's got right. Union of the crowns took place in
>1603. Chas I appeared in 1625. He'd have been right with George VII,
>too, as the "wee wee German Lairdie" didn't put in an appearance until
>1714.

It was 'Bonnie Prince Charlie' who styled himself CIII, I think.

>The late Liz, otoh, got her regnal number wrong.

Not necessarily her own error, she confirmed her regnal name, did she put
the number on it too?

--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 06:18:05 +0100, Sid Nuncius <nuncius@hotmail.co.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>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>

BTN
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On 09/09/2022 09:38, Vicky wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 07:48:40 -0000 (UTC), Mike McMillan
> <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.)
>
> Can he have a BTN too please for crush? And drill

Yes.

john

On 09/09/2022 09:15, John Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 06:18:50 +0100, Sid Nuncius <nuncius@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I'm almost sure that's correct.

It has been reported that he is the oldest. William IV held that record
until yesterday. He was 64 when he became king.

Charles is also the longest to be "next in line". As he was born before
his mother became queen, he has been that since she succeeded, so 70
years. I'm guessing that Edward VII would be the next longest. As he was
born after Victoria came queen he was next in line for his entire life
until he became king, at 59.

I'm assuming that my sources checked Scottish monarchs as well as
English and British.

--
CaroleT

On 09/09/2022 09:33, Vicky wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 06:18:05 +0100, 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>
> BTN but I bet someone has already

Yes and no, you beat Penny by 13 minutes.

john

On 09/09/2022 09:40, Vicky wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 09:15:53 +0100, John Armstrong
> <jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 06:18:50 +0100, Sid Nuncius <nuncius@hotmail.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I'm almost sure that's correct.
>
>
> Timing? She saw 2 PMs one day and died the next? Was it disgust
> finally after seeing the latest

Or relief at having outlasted her predecessor?

or was it her stand-in double saw the
> 2? All she had to do was shake hands and say 'What do you do then?'

Do you think either of them could answer that one?

john

On 09/09/2022 09:46, Jenny M Benson wrote:
> On 09/09/2022 09:35, Vicky wrote:
>> Swimming this morning we noticed there were at one point only 2 people
>> in the pool in our lane who remembered the coronation.  I wonder how
>> many do on UMRA.
>
> I do.  Grandpa bought a new TV for the occasion and gave us his old one
> - 9" screen!  We children got a bit bored after watching for quite a
> while so were given some money and allowed to go to Pop Peever's for
> sweets.

You don't want to know how I misread that.

john

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 08:15:26 +0100, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>
> 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.

He put out his prepared statement nonetheless.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1567941080796078085

> It's a cheering thought.

:-)

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

Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 06:18:50 +0100, Sid Nuncius <nuncius@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Swimming this morning we noticed there were at one point only 2 people
> in the pool in our lane who remembered the coronation. I wonder how
> many do on UMRA.
>

Being a mere ankle biter of 5 at the time, it had little significance to
me, though we did have a ‘push out pre-cut’ cardboard printed pieces kit
that when assembled created a scene of the horses, carriage etc. proceeding
along the Mall; we also had mugs and the like.

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 09:11:26 +0100, John Armstrong <jja@blueyonder.co.uk>
> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 21:40:35 +0100, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
>> 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).
>>
>> No, it's one thing he's got right. Union of the crowns took place in
>> 1603. Chas I appeared in 1625. He'd have been right with George VII,
>> too, as the "wee wee German Lairdie" didn't put in an appearance until
>> 1714.
>
> It was 'Bonnie Prince Charlie' who styled himself CIII, I think.
>
>> The late Liz, otoh, got her regnal number wrong.
>
> Not necessarily her own error, she confirmed her regnal name, did she put
> the number on it too?
>

Still floating in Dubai though.

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On 09/09/2022 08:15, Sid Nuncius wrote:
> 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.
>
Enthusiastic wave.

FWIW I like Charles and I like Camilla, I think they'll be good at doing
the Job, and certainly better than anyone currently likely to be elected
as President.

--
Kate B

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

>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.

Interesting, what's you idea for an alternative to the system we have
today? I'm reasonably happy with the present system and can't think of
one I'd prefer. As I see it they have no real power, they fill a
largely ceremonial role and are a big boost to the tourist industry.

Hopefully not a Presidential system as in the USA. We might follow
them and end up with a President Johnson <g>
--
Pete

On 9 Sep 2022 09:02:56 GMT, Jim Easterbrook <news@jim-easterbrook.me.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 08:15:26 +0100, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>He put out his prepared statement nonetheless.
>https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1567941080796078085

"This Tweet is unavailable"
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On 09/09/2022 11:21, Peter Withey wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 14:57:39 -0700 (PDT), Ben Blaney
> <benblaney@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Interesting, what's you idea for an alternative to the system we have
> today? I'm reasonably happy with the present system and can't think of
> one I'd prefer. As I see it they have no real power, they fill a
> largely ceremonial role and are a big boost to the tourist industry.
>
> Hopefully not a Presidential system as in the USA. We might follow
> them and end up with a President Johnson <g>

Why not a German style presidency, which one might term a Constitutional
Presidency?

john

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 10:52:58 +0100, Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 09/09/2022 08:15, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>Enthusiastic wave.
>
>FWIW I like Charles and I like Camilla, I think they'll be good at doing
>the Job, and certainly better than anyone currently likely to be elected
>as President.

As with some inhabitants of Ambridge, they began being evil and
matured and improved to become rehabilitated and almost good. I
thought the treatment of the new bride, Diana, was unpleasant. I
suppose Camilla has done everything she can to fit correctly into the
new role. Charles does seem to assume his rights and privileges. Will
he refrain from interfering and will he be a wise counsel to PMs? And
heads of other states? I hope so.