The Queen is Dead. Long live the King.

[rareboy]

"Stole"? Really?

She was the only woman Charles had ever really wanted to marry in the first place.

She could have followed the lead of her great grandmother and been the King's lifelong mistress.

But instead, she led a brutal campaign against Diana with one thing only on her mind. To marry Charles and sit as Queen on the throne.

The dead Queen was the last of the Hanoverians to actually place duty above all...even when it meant making disastrous decisions for others in her clan. And her father was the man who saved the crown for the Battenburgs...a paragon of duty above all.

Since then, the others have again and again broken the unwritten contract with their subjects that permits them to be elevated above all others in their land in both subtle and shocking ways, as they behave like the self-entitled and spoiled caricatures they really are.

They are all really very small people...although at the end of her career, I have to say that Anne probably should have been the next monarch. As brittle and arch as she can be, she has also proven to be an absolutely stalwart workhorse for the Palace and has a presence and character that Charles never has had and of course, never will.

 

[pigface]

She could have followed the lead of her great grandmother and been the King's lifelong mistress.

But instead, she led a brutal campaign against Diana with one thing only on her mind. To marry Charles and sit as Queen on the throne.

The dead Queen was the last of the Hanoverians to actually place duty above all...even when it meant making disastrous decisions for others in her clan. And her father was the man who saved the crown for the Battenburgs...a paragon of duty above all.

Since then, the others have again and again broken the unwritten contract with their subjects that permits them to be elevated above all others in their land in both subtle and shocking ways, as they behave like the self-entitled and spoiled caricatures they really are.

They are all really very small people...although at the end of her career, I have to say that Anne probably should have been the next monarch. As brittle and arch as she can be, she has also proven to be an absolutely stalwart workhorse for the Palace and has a presence and character that Charles never has had and of course, never will.

Although it happened decades ago, it is enlightening to rewatch the interviews with P. Anne after her attempted kidnapping. She showed mettle.

 

[LoveMyPeppermill]

She could have followed the lead of her great grandmother and been the King's lifelong mistress.

Not in the age of paparazzi and tabloid mass media she couldn't. Goodness knows she -- they -- tried.

And I, at least, somehow missed any campaign led by Camilla.

Yes, Charles should never have married Diana, and she should never have married him, but by the time she realized that, as one of her sisters reportedly told her, "Bad luck, Dudge, your picture's already on all the commemorative china."

Now I don't mean this question to be hostile, so please don't take it as such, but with your pointed use of the names Battenberg and Hanover, do I detect some Stuart loyalism?

 

[pigface]

Elizabeth I was the Virgin Queen.
Could we not have a virgin king? They are obsessed with satiating their genitalia.

 

[LoveMyPeppermill]

Elizabeth I was the Virgin Queen.
Could we not have a virgin king? They are obsessed with satiating their genitalia.

Most of us are obsessed with satiating our genitalia at some point in our lives.

Sure, you could have a virgin king now, especially if the line of succession remained clear. Even 50 years ago it would have been considered extremely odd for a male monarch or heir to the throne to remain single, especially if he were heterosexual and having affairs.

Elizabeth I, of course, remained single because she knew that any man who married her would have insisted on his right to rule -- and would have made worse job of it than she would. (I suspect, among other things, that she was very aware of her father's shortcomings as a ruler, even if she wouldn't say so out loud.)

 

[NotHardUp1]

The damnable truth of it, is that Elizabeth would never have reigned if Edward had been allowed to marry a divorced woman.

Now, Elizabeth's heir, King Charles, is crowned, and ordained by the Archbishop of Canterbury, with a divorced wife, with certain knowledge that he was adulterous of his marriage while his lawful queen lived. Not only has the Crown sullied itself, after decades of Victorian priggish sanctimony, but it made Edward right in hindsight.

He should be praised as a visionary if Charles is now celebrated. Can't have King George and Queen Mary be beatified for "saving the monarchy" only to have their grandson do exactly what Edward was excoriated for attempting.

As for Elizabeth I, very few historians believe she was even virgin at the time of her accession, much less at the end of her many years. And what did it matter? If there were a human Seven Wonders of the World, she would likely be numbered among them.

 

[unloadonme]

And I, at least, somehow missed any campaign led by Camilla.

You missed nothing. There was no such campaign.

 

[unloadonme]

Now I don't mean this question to be hostile, so please don't take it as such, but with your pointed use of the names Battenberg and Hanover, do I detect some Stuart loyalism?

It's just a way of sniping from the republican sidelines. The last Hanoverian monarch was Queen Victoria. The Hanoverians were descended from the Stuarts who were descended from the Tudors and so on.

 

[rareboy]

Not in the age of paparazzi and tabloid mass media she couldn't. Goodness knows she -- they -- tried.

And I, at least, somehow missed any campaign led by Camilla.

Yes, Charles should never have married Diana, and she should never have married him, but by the time she realized that, as one of her sisters reportedly told her, "Bad luck, Dudge, your picture's already on all the commemorative china."

Now I don't mean this question to be hostile, so please don't take it as such, but with your pointed use of the names Battenberg and Hanover, do I detect some Stuart loyalism?

It isn't hostile at all...I have no great affection for the religious fussiness of the descendants of James...but it seems rather stupid that England basically sacrificed the 'Englishness' of their royalty because of a fear of Catholicism, giving it away to the 52nd in line to the throne as the nearest protestant instead of simply constraining the Jacobite claimants. Certainly, by the late 17th century, the nobles and parliament certainly would have had the ability to do so. I think that the English feared the Scots as much as Catholicism itself and preferred continental civility over Highlander zeal.

I suppose the one thing the Georges brought was a dull stability despite their family life (sound familiar?) and expansion of the Empire ( although losing the American colonies), that set up the Victorian era and the spread of the descendants of the dynasty across all the royal houses of Europe.

The use of Battenburg is really again only a nod to the actual name of the branch of the Vicky's family that chose to gloss over their German roots with the shiny Mountbatten, label while the Saxe Cobourg Gothas looked around the castle and decided Windsor would be a good name to avoid the kind of anti-german sentiment in WWI. Sometimes I like to dredge up this name salad too... to remind my English family and friends that there really isn't much English in the modern day royal family....Elizabeth Bowes Lyon excepted.

Funnily enough, when Elizabeth married the man who would become George VI, a lot of people actually felt she was marrying beneath her...her family was much older and entwined with English nobility than her husband.

As far as Camilla and Diana go, she was the one most responsible for helping to isolate her and feeding inside info to the tabloids. She did the same thing with William and Harry... they were offered up whenever deflection was needed. All in the name of love for Charles and her intention to be his wife and queen.

 

[unloadonme]

The damnable truth of it, is that Elizabeth would never have reigned if Edward had been allowed to marry a divorced woman.

Not so. Edward VIII had no children. His heir would have been Princess Elizabeth of York who would have become Queen Elizabeth II upon his death in 1972.

 

[LoveMyPeppermill]

The damnable truth of it, is that Elizabeth would never have reigned if Edward had been allowed to marry a divorced woman.

Now, Elizabeth's heir, King Charles, is crowned, and ordained by the Archbishop of Canterbury, with a divorced wife, with certain knowledge that he was adulterous of his marriage while his lawful queen lived. Not only has the Crown sullied itself, after decades of Victorian priggish sanctimony, but it made Edward right in hindsight.

He should be praised as a visionary if Charles is now celebrated. Can't have King George and Queen Mary be beatified for "saving the monarchy" only to have their grandson do exactly what Edward was excoriated for attempting.

As for Elizabeth I, very few historians believe she was even virgin at the time of her accession, much less at the end of her many years. And what did it matter? If there were a human Seven Wonders of the World, she would likely be numbered among them.

I had thought it was commonly accepted by this point that Edward was right -- insofar as that it was silly to prevent a divorced man from becoming King and ex officio head of the Established Church -- especially that Established Church.

It's just that everyone was lucky that the powers-that-be were wrong and didn't let Edward VIII remain king, because he and his wife were a pair of Nazified ninnies.

I agree that Elizabeth I was a human Wonder of the World. (As for her being virgin, she was unmarried, and propriety required that we all pretend that she was virgin.)

Funny, in a way, that perhaps England's worst monarch was father to its best. But then, the man commonly considered to be the United States' greatest President was preceded and succeeded by its two worst (until Trump).

 

[NotHardUp1]

That presumes Wallis Simpson would never have delivered an heir. Simpson was 40 at the time of the abdication, so, yes, it is unlikely she would have had a child at that age, even if able.

All that said, the parallel remains glaring. Edward was drummed out of office for what Britain now celebrates and crowns beside Charles III.

 

[unloadonme]

Can't have King George and Queen Mary be beatified for "saving the monarchy" only to have their grandson do exactly what Edward was excoriated for attempting.

Great-grandson.

I think the point is that in 1936 divorce was considered socially unacceptable. In 2023 it isn't. Attitudes in society have evolved and the monarchy has evolved to reflect that. I don't see the issue.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I had thought it was commonly accepted by this point that Edward was right -- insofar as that it was silly to prevent a divorced man from becoming King and ex officio head of the Established Church -- especially that Established Church.

It's just that everyone was lucky that the powers-that-be were wrong and didn't let Edward VIII remain king, because he and his wife were a pair of Nazified ninnies.

I agree that Elizabeth I was a human Wonder of the World. (As for her being virgin, she was unmarried, and propriety required that we all pretend that she was virgin.)

Funny, in a way, that perhaps England's worst monarch was father to its best. But then, the man commonly considered to be the United States' greatest President was preceded and succeeded by its two worst (until Trump).

I'm not sure historians are in agreement on any worst president, or greatest.

It is not a commonly accepted point of Edward. Propaganda as recent as The King's Speech, not to mention countless documentaries about the Abdication Crisis, still portray him as a selfish and irresponsible sovereign, and his wife as a scheming, unworthy woman. It is unlikely we will live to see society praise "the other woman," regardless of who gains the rights to marry in this world.

The Anglican Church has never been able to reconcile its strict views on divorce with the Defender of the Faith who facilitated its founding. Silk, embroidery, gold, brass, and stained glass have never been enough to distract others from seeing the glaring contradiction.

We take it for granted today that the Church has been seriously wrong about divorce, so much so, that any church, temple, or mosque condemning divorce is quicklky branded mysogynistic. But, it was a very powerful taboo in almost all churches and religions in the 30's. That is one of the strongest arguments there is for gay rights today, the fickle standard on divorce caving from the tide of numbers than could not be rejected.

None of that makes Camilla an acceptable queen, especially on the heels of a virtuous one for over six decades. I agree with those who see Charles' reign as a caretaker one, and that William will face the greater challenge to the monarchy itself. Time and world circumstances will tell.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Great-grandson.

I think the point is that in 1936 divorce was considered socially unacceptable. In 2023 it isn't. Attitudes in society have evolved and the monarchy has evolved to reflect that. I don't see the issue.

I erred. I meant King George and Queen Elizabeth. I read so much on Mary of Teck, it is hard to get her name out of my mind. Apologies.

To the evolution of mores, the monarchy has been pretty proud of being little changed. And, being bound to the Anglican Church, which now is all too clearly NOT going to accept gay marriage, the "progress" on divorce seems a bit convenient for the heterosexual masses.

 

[unloadonme]

But then, the man commonly considered to be the United States' greatest President was preceded and succeeded by its two worst (until Trump).

Carter and Bush Senior weren't that bad!

 

[NotHardUp1]

Carter will not be scorned in the long count of history. Today, we are fed hero worship about JFK because he was martyred, yet he brought us to the very brink of nuclear war with his Cuba policy, and saw us get deeper involved in Vietnam. His philandering was in direct contradiction to his well-oiled PR machine that fostered the fake Camelot and elitist air of the White House. His family's money yet cloaks his reputation, but in years hence, it will have less influence.

I don't think it is possible to have a worst or best president, as it is all a measure of how well they served their nation at the time, and that view changes constantly.

Mr. Trump is a low in terms of leadership and failure to lead the nation in time of crisis, but we are yet close to his term to even claim it to be the worst.

And George H. W. Bush had a long and distinguished public servant career, which his time in the White House could not tarnish. He will be graded well as historians look at what men did for their country.

 

[rareboy]

I do like the perq of having your own equerry...chosen for his hotness...Rob Dixon the dick handler for the next king.

 

[rareboy]

Nice that Rose Hanbury was also able to attend the event, wearing the same heels as the future Queen Kate...both of them copying the Dutchess of Sussex who wore them first.

I suspect though, that Rose is condemned to live at Houghton with William only able to pop by occasionally.

 

[rareboy]

How utterly sad.

The Coronation Concert line-up....

1. PETE TONG IBIZA CLASSICS FEATURING VULA + JERUB
2. OLLY MURS - ‘DANCE WITH ME TONIGHT’
3. THE CORONATION CHOIR WITH GARETH MALONE - 'BRIGHTER DAYS' (EMELI SANDE)
4. LANG LANG + NICOLE SCHERZINGER 'REFLECTION' (FROM ‘MULAN’)
5. THE ROYAL COLLABORATION WITH NCUTI GATWA AND MEI MAC - 'SOMEWHERE'
6. LUCY, THE AMBER TRUST - 'BACH PRELUDE IN C MAJOR’
7. SPOKEN WORD FOR COMMONWEALTH CHOIR: SONAM KAPOOR
8. STEVE WINWOOD & THE COMMONWEALTH CHOIR -'HIGHER LOVE'
9. TIWA SAVAGE - 'KEYS TO THE KINGDOM'
10. HUGH BONNEVILLE AND KERMIT AND MISS PIGGY (SKETCH)
11. MAESTRO ANDREA BOCELLI + SIR BRYN TERFEL - 'YOU'LL NEVER WALK ALONE'
12. LIONEL RICHIE 'EASY' & 'ALL NIGHT LONG'
13. HRH PRINCE OF WALES SPEECH - FOLLOWED BY THE NATIONAL ANTHEM
14. JAMES NESBITT SPOKEN WORD INTRO FOR LIGHT UP THE NATION
15. PALOMA FAITH – LIGHTING UP THE NATION - 'LULLABY’
16. STELLA McCARTNEY CONSERVATION SPOKEN WORD
17. ALEXIS FFRENCH - 'GUIDING LIGHT' segue into ALEXIS FFRENCH + ZAK ABEL - 'DON'T YOU FORGET ABOUT ME'
18. KATY PERRY 'ROAR' & 'FIREWORK'
19. TAKE THAT Ft. ROBIN SCHULZ + CALUM SCOTT - 'GREATEST DAY', 'SHINE', 'NEVER FORGET' featuring The Choristers of St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle