quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

when she met with Liz Truss, the new British Prime Minister.

She didn't "meet" Liz Truss. Liz Truss went to her for her permission to form a government.

And yes her hands look black, just like my grandparents before they died, almost like death is slowly setting in.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
She didn't "meet" Liz Truss. Liz Truss went to her for her permission to form a government...

Thank you, professor. I'm quite aware what it was about. Not the point of my post.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

when she met with Liz Truss, the new British Prime Minister.

She didn't "meet" Liz Truss. Liz Truss went to her for her permission to form a government.

And yes her hands look black, just like my grandparents before they died, almost like death is slowly setting in.

We'll all be there some day. Seems she passed peacefully with her loved ones near. Both my mom and dad passed similarly and I pray I have a similar way out.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
Her Royal Majesty, Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith was one of the most influential persons of the 20th Century.

She oversaw the vile destruction of Her Empire, forced on Britain by Roosevelt, and later Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson.

....

Ummm...WTF are you talking about, man?

Those former British Empire countries all decided to declare independence, that's the first I'm hearing that it's AMERICA'S fault.

The price the British paid for American loans throughout the war was decolonization, aka destruction of the British Empire.

It came to a head in 1944, when Britain was tottering on the brink of financial insolvency. Then in 1945, Truman abruptly ended aid to Britain to force the issue, and it did.

First, Britain fled India, partitioning it stupidly because of their haste to leave. Then African colonies began falling, Kenya and Egypt leading the pack, and ending with the demise of Rhodesia.

Imagine for a moment that the US had a partner of equal stature in the post-WWII years. The Cold War might have ended far sooner.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
So any credence to the rumor (rumour?) that Charles will take the Crown and immediately abdicate and make Prince William the new King? And he may take the regnal name of Edward IX?

Nope.

The palace says his regnal name will be Charles III.

There has been speculation that he might abdicate, but nothing credible - just talk. Why would he do that? He's been waiting his turn for decades. Kings don't abdicate much at all, and certainly not without a compelling reason.

A double rainbow appeared over Elizabeth Tower at Westminster on September 8, 2022.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:


Imagine for a moment that the US had a partner of equal stature in the post-WWII years. The Cold War might have ended far sooner.

Even with a propped-up and spent empire, GB would not have been of equal stature to the US at the end of the war. They were tired, broke, and everyone knew that without the US, they would have been part of the Third Reich. WWII finished off GB as a major world power. I do not mean to minimize their contributions to the war or to demean the county, but the end of the war was the end of their role as a big-time world power. That mantle passed to the US, USSR and after a few decades, China.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
So any credence to the rumor (rumour?) that Charles will take the Crown and immediately abdicate and make Prince William the new King? And he may take the regnal name of Edward IX?

Nope.

The palace says his regnal name will be Charles III.

There has been speculation that he might abdicate, but nothing credible - just talk. Why would he do that? He's been waiting his turn for decades. Kings don't abdicate much at all, and certainly not without a compelling reason.

Years ago, people were saying Charles should step aside and let William be king. Like, they think they can 'elect' their King? . . .

Matters little to me, but I think Charles will do fine and William is too young (I realize Elizabeth II was really young, too, but this isn't 1952).

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
So any credence to the rumor (rumour?) that Charles will take the Crown and immediately abdicate and make Prince William the new King? And he may take the regnal name of Edward IX?

Are kings/queens like Popes where they pick a name to go by after they take over? I always assumed it was just their first name and the number associated with however many there were beforehand.

My condolences to tac and other brits in our board.

0-0

quote:

Originally posted by ryan81986:

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
So any credence to the rumor (rumour?) that Charles will take the Crown and immediately abdicate and make Prince William the new King? And he may take the regnal name of Edward IX?

Are kings/queens like Popes where they pick a name to go by after they take over? I always assumed it was just their first name and the number associated with however many there were beforehand.

He's the King, he can call himself anything he wants. "It's good to be the king" - Mel Brooks

It is not at all unusual for the monarch to pick a name other than the one he was given at birth. George VI (Charles's grandfather was named "Albert" at birth). He chose George to honor his father George V. One of the reasons Charles III is not considered a best choice as a regnal name is the record of the other two Charles' another is that "Bonnie Prince Charlie" was called Charles III by many in Scotland. Some will think his adoption of Charles III is tone deaf at best if not a direct intentional insult to the Scots.

Godspeed to her.

I would guess the whole crew that remain were a horrible embarrassment to her privately.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
Her Royal Majesty, Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith was one of the most influential persons of the 20th Century.

She oversaw the vile destruction of Her Empire, forced on Britain by Roosevelt, and later Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson.

....

Ummm...WTF are you talking about, man?

Those former British Empire countries all decided to declare independence, that's the first I'm hearing that it's AMERICA'S fault.

The price the British paid for American loans throughout the war was decolonization, aka destruction of the British Empire.

It came to a head in 1944, when Britain was tottering on the brink of financial insolvency. Then in 1945, Truman abruptly ended aid to Britain to force the issue, and it did.

First, Britain fled India, partitioning it stupidly because of their haste to leave. Then African colonies began falling, Kenya and Egypt leading the pack, and ending with the demise of Rhodesia.

Imagine for a moment that the US had a partner of equal stature in the post-WWII years. The Cold War might have ended far sooner.

2340 doesn't have it exactly right, but it was political.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history...he%20United%20States'%20rising%20global,had%20destroyed%20Britain's%20imperial%20prestige.

After the Second World War, the disintegration of Britain's empire transformed global politics.

Before the war, Britain maintained colonies all over the world, which provided valuable raw materials, manpower and strategic bases. By 1945, however, colonies were an expensive liability for Clement Attlee's newly elected Labour government. The United States' rising global influence and its opposition to imperialism made colonialism less politically viable, while Japan's wartime victories had destroyed Britain's imperial prestige.

quote:

Originally posted by 0-0: My condolences to tac and other brits in our board.

0-0

Thank you Sir. Us Commonwealth members share the sadness of losing a well-loved monarch and a 'light among the nations' that she was - all of her duty-led life.

Fair Winds and Following Seas, your Majesty,
God Speed.

quote:

Originally posted by architect:

quote:

Originally posted by ryan81986:

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
So any credence to the rumor (rumour?) that Charles will take the Crown and immediately abdicate and make Prince William the new King? And he may take the regnal name of Edward IX?

Are kings/queens like Popes where they pick a name to go by after they take over? I always assumed it was just their first name and the number associated with however many there were beforehand.

He's the King, he can call himself anything he wants. "It's good to be the king" - Mel Brooks

It is not at all unusual for the monarch to pick a name other than the one he was given at birth. George VI (Charles's grandfather was named "Albert" at birth). He chose George to honor his father George V. One of the reasons Charles III is not considered a best choice as a regnal name is the record of the other two Charles' another is that "Bonnie Prince Charlie" was called Charles III by many in Scotland. Some will think his adoption of Charles III is tone deaf at best if not a direct intentional insult to the Scots.

It's hard not to notice that Charles 1 of the House of Stuart was executed 'by the People' he had treasonably attempted to 'put in their rightful place' by asking the Roman Catholic French to come to his aid in the Civil war.

...and Chuck #2 was a rampant womaniser. I don't think that many folks South of the Scottish border considered Charles Edward Stuart, who did not even speak English, to be a viable option as a king.

Sad to hear this. She held a long reign. And she, like her family and her nation, had many high points, and some low points. But always weathered the storm and came out better for it.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
So any credence to the rumor (rumour?) that Charles will take the Crown and immediately abdicate and make Prince William the new King? And he may take the regnal name of Edward IX?

Nope.

The palace says his regnal name will be Charles III.

There has been speculation that he might abdicate, but nothing credible - just talk. Why would he do that? He's been waiting his turn for decades. Kings don't abdicate much at all, and certainly not without a compelling reason.

Years ago, people were saying Charles should step aside and let William be king. Like, they think they can 'elect' their King? . . .

Matters little to me, but I think Charles will do fine and William is too young (I realize Elizabeth II was really young, too, but this isn't 1952).

Abdication is how Queen Elizabeth's father came to be king. Her Uncle scandalously wanted to marry a divorced woman with living ex-husbands so he stepped down after less than a year on the throne.

I heard on the news that Charles does have multiple names and could have chosen from them, but it looks like he stuck with Charles. I'm sure in recent weeks there has been greater than a modicum of preparation already.

IMHO, as far as him being king, he could't hold a candle to the late Queen. I don't necessarily think he is stupid, but I always sensed he had poor judgment in matters of public interest. Maybe it goes back to his Diana days, all throughout he acquitted himself poorly, given his station.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
Her Royal Majesty, Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith was one of the most influential persons of the 20th Century.

She oversaw the vile destruction of Her Empire, forced on Britain by Roosevelt, and later Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson.

....

Ummm...WTF are you talking about, man?

Those former British Empire countries all decided to declare independence, that's the first I'm hearing that it's AMERICA'S fault.

The price the British paid for American loans throughout the war was decolonization, aka destruction of the British Empire.

It came to a head in 1944, when Britain was tottering on the brink of financial insolvency. Then in 1945, Truman abruptly ended aid to Britain to force the issue, and it did.

First, Britain fled India, partitioning it stupidly because of their haste to leave. Then African colonies began falling, Kenya and Egypt leading the pack, and ending with the demise of Rhodesia.

Imagine for a moment that the US had a partner of equal stature in the post-WWII years. The Cold War might have ended far sooner.

That is the biggest load of bullshit I’ve heard in a very long time.