The Queen is Dead. Long live the King.

[m1thousand]

He deserved his reign in 1990

 

[Rickrock]

My condolences to the family and to the British people.

 

[piano1]

Ny heart aches for the British people and for the family especially.

 

[NotHardUp1]

He deserved his reign in 1990

Do you mean you thought the Queen had an obligation to retire from the throne 32 years ago?

If so, why? Her faculties were strong up to the end this year, and she fulfilled her royal duties throughout.

Why would Charles be entitled to his reign early, in contradiction of English tradition and custom? Many crown princes have NEVER acceded the throne, simply a product of fate, disease, and death. Being born a prince is no guarantee of ever being king.

 

[eddielee]

King Charles just gave a very moving speech as he addressed his subjects today.

 

[rareboy]

I think that it is particularly lovely that she appointed the new Prime Minister a few days ago and that she died at Balmoral...a place she loved so much.

 

[belamyi]

 

[MusicMan321]

She lived a long life may she rest in peace now

 

[m1thousand]

Do you mean you thought the Queen had an obligation to retire from the throne 32 years ago?

If so, why? Her faculties were strong up to the end this year, and she fulfilled her royal duties throughout.

Why would Charles be entitled to his reign early, in contradiction of English tradition and custom? Many crown princes have NEVER acceded the throne, simply a product of fate, disease, and death. Being born a prince is no guarantee of ever being king.

I think 50 years would be enough and she could step down and let Charles reign

 

[gsdx]

I think 50 years would be enough and she could step down and let Charles reign

She stuck with it for the same reason that King Charles didn't pass the torch on to William.

 

[mcbrion]

For a bit of perspective, the Queen has reigned for nearly 30% of the time the US has been in existence.

From that perspective, it IS pretty astonishing, isn't it?

 

[mcbrion]

When she wore a friendship brooch given to her by Obama to meet the Trumps.

She was nothing if not a master of getting a point across without uttering a word.

 

[LeicsDom]

And on a lighter note
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62849166

Six times the Queen made us laugh

 

[NotHardUp1]

I think 50 years would be enough and she could step down and let Charles reign

But the crown is not a job, it's a title.

The title is inherently vested in the person by birth, and order, and rank. Once you begin taking that away, you undermine the very concept of royalty. If it is a job and role that can be merely set aside, it loses its mythology and aura.

Remember Arthur and the sword. Without that legacy, it becomes reduced to feudal dominance. That's why "the firm" is managed so carefully. Once you begin unraveling the mystique, the whole thing won't hold. That is why the Abdication Crisis was a crisis. At the time it occurred, reformers were working to end the monarchy in the name of modernity.

Consider the damage done to the papacy by Pope Benedict's "retirement" and the subsequent erosion of papal authority within the Roman Church. A significant number of Catholics now hold that Pope Francis is illegitimate and that his authority is invalid, and not just because they are conservatives, but because the institution has been brought into question by the nature of "retirng" from a "divine" appointment.

 

[belamyi]

^ Oh, please... The Head in Chief is a job with its own aura, and calling it King/Queen or Commander-in-chief is secondary, because it is about what THAT person REPRESENTS of the IDEA of the COUNTRY to its PEOPLE. The silly pomps and ceremonies are there ultimately for the same purpose, more often than not mimicking each other, and the job remains the same.
It is funny that the country which precisely rather "invented" the modern 'job' of a king as the higher public servant (did you count how many times was that expression used during the past couple of days concerning Elizabeth and Charles himself) in a nation, now would come to be seen as some last-of-a-kind, carrying some sort of true pedigree, when what we have there with the UK is something that was created in the XIXth century counterfeiting Ancient Régime, Medieval appearances... heck, just notice how even the Crown Jewels and "treasures" exposed in the Tower of London are, disappointingly, in a relatively vast majority "new-rich" creations of the 'Second empire' era.

 

[belamyi]

Joining Elvis and Monroe

Magazines are such dinosaurs. Anna Wintour's tenure at Vogue is like about five hundred years in business of trends' years.

 

[belamyi]

 

[NotHardUp1]

She was nothing if not a master of getting a point across without uttering a word.

She didn't do too shabby a job when she did utter words. This video is from 1991, when she addressed Congress. Her opening comment was a joke and a lighthearted protest against the gaffe earlier in the protocol at the airport where President George H. W. Bush greeted her. The president was tall, so the lecturn was set high, and a stool was there, but not moved into place, so the Queen was obscured by the microphone array.

The president afterward was chagrinned, as he explains here:

Bush was a great fan of the monarch, a great student of history, and very well educated, on top of his service in the State Department.

 

[belamyi]

- - - Updated - - -

 

[NotHardUp1]

^ Oh, please... The Head in Chief is a job with its own aura, and calling it King/Queen or Commander-in-chief is secondary, because it is about what THAT person REPRESENTS of the IDEA of the COUNTRY to its PEOPLE. The silly pomps and ceremonies are there ultimately for the same purpose, more often than not mimicking each other, and the job remains the same.
It is funny that the country which precisely rather "invented" the modern 'job' of a king as the higher public servant (did you count how many times was that expression used during the past couple of days concerning Elizabeth and Charles himself) in a nation, now would come to be seen as some last-of-a-kind, carrying some sort of true pedigree, when what we have there with the UK is something that was created in the XIXth century counterfeiting Ancient Régime, Medieval appearances... heck, just notice how even the Crown Jewels and "treasures" exposed in the Tower of London are, disappointingly, in a relatively vast majority "new-rich" creations of the 'Second empire' era.

You made my point all over again. The Firm exerts great care to keep the bubble around the monarchy, to reinforce the "other," so that the throngs are fearful of criticising it in any meaningful way, as it is immediately trashed as unpatriotic, very much the same way that anti-militarists or anti-capitalists in the U.S. are pilloried as "un-American."

Elizabeth, and more likely her mother, saw the troubles surrounding the Abdication Crisis correctly as a real threat to the survival of the monarchy, and have taken it to heart ever since, amplifying the so-called "public servant" definition of the crown, deflecting the just criticism of the incredible wealth they sit atop -- inherited wealth, the very thing stripped away from so many families via the inheritance taxes.

Compare Elizabeth's grandfather's reign and its attitudes to her own, and it's a black and white contrast. Reading a Christmas greeting over the wireless was a far cry from Elizabeth's schedule and dutiful chores.

If anything, the remake appears to be the product of the hand of Albert, with Victoria having agreed. There's nothing like the ambition of a minor royal (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) to see the potential of better lighting.