When the Queen Dies...

[Jamie123]

When Her Majesty dies, I'm not going to like it very much because we'll have a king instead, and we've always had a queen ever since before I was born. Also I'm rather in the habit of singing...

"God save the Queen/She's really mean/God save the mean mean mean mean Queen..."

...to the tune of Wagner's Bridal Chorus (from Lohengrin) every time she's mentioned on TV to annoy my family. I usually add something about protecting her from being eaten by crocodiles, alligators and falling out of aeroplanes too - I'm quite the royalist!

But what about when we have a king? What about...

"God save the King/Who don't look nowt like Bing..." (Crosby)

...?

It doesn't scan very well. So here's hoping Her Maj. has many happy healthy years to come!

[NeuroTypical]

Not to mention, it'll date that Beatles song.

"Takes him down to look at the Queen.  Only place that he's ever been.  Always shouts out something obscene.  Such a dirty old man."

[JohnsonJones]

Well she seems in good health and going strong.  If she were to pass away though, would Charles just pass it along to William, or who do you think would actually get the throne?

[Sunday21]

21 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well she seems in good health and going strong.  If she were to pass away though, would Charles just pass it along to William, or who do you think would actually get the throne?

Oh no! Charles in charge. He has said that he will rule. My mom reads 'Majesty' a magazine for followers of the royals. 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Sunday21

[Guest MormonGator]

The magnificent play "Charles III" tells a great story about the Queen dying and Charles taking over. 

[lonetree]

Wonder what the cult of Diana would think of the Charles succession.

[SpiritDragon]

On 9/21/2017 at 8:52 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Not to mention, it'll date that Beatles song.

"Takes him down to look at the Queen.  Only place that he's ever been.  Always shouts out something obscene.  Such a dirty old man."

His sister Pam works in the shop
She doesn't stop; she's a go-getter

I hope it doesn't date our @pam as well  I could see her taking him down to look at the Queen 

[pam]

On 9/21/2017 at 4:12 PM, JohnsonJones said:

Well she seems in good health and going strong.  If she were to pass away though, would Charles just pass it along to William, or who do you think would actually get the throne?

I think Camilla is just itching to be Queen.

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, pam said:

I think Camilla is just itching to be Queen.

Pretty sure she won't be the queen.

[anatess2]

On 9/25/2017 at 11:48 PM, Vort said:

Pretty sure she won't be the queen.

So, I've always thought it was bad parliamentary decision to not elevate a Queen Regnant's husband to King Consort.  If there's anything to say about the powerless-ness of the Patriarchy, this would be it.  She won't be queen, he won't be... well, there's not even a word for it - you know, a male dowager.

[Traveler]

On ‎9‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 4:24 AM, Jamie123 said:

When Her Majesty dies, I'm not going to like it very much because we'll have a king instead, and we've always had a queen ever since before I was born. Also I'm rather in the habit of singing...

"God save the Queen/She's really mean/God save the mean mean mean mean Queen..."

...to the tune of Wagner's Bridal Chorus (from Lohengrin) every time she's mentioned on TV to annoy my family. I usually add something about protecting her from being eaten by crocodiles, alligators and falling out of aeroplanes too - I'm quite the royalist!

But what about when we have a king? What about...

"God save the King/Who don't look nowt like Bing..." (Crosby)

...?

It doesn't scan very well. So here's hoping Her Maj. has many happy healthy years to come!

 

I must admit you Brits confuse me.  I do not understand why the royalist insist on keeping the wealthiest lady in all of England on the government dole.   But then we Yankees fill all our politician’s pockets with filthy lucre and wonder why government debt is out of control.

 I guess I am surprised when anyone in today’s world thinks their political leaders are worth what they are costing us.

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I must admit you Brits confuse me.  I do not understand why the royalist insist on keeping the wealthiest lady in all of England on the government dole.   But then we Yankees fill all our politician’s pockets with filthy lucre and wonder why government debt is out of control.

 I guess I am surprised when anyone in today’s world thinks their political leaders are worth what they are costing us.

 

The Traveler

The big difference is, of course, that the Queen's ancestors owned England.  And it is only by her ancestor's good  hearts that the peasants ended up owning it.  So, which would you rather have - peasants who own nothing and given a portion according to the whims of the Queen or the Queen transferring property rights to the peasants who then give royalties to the Queen?

But then, of course, they can always wage a revolutionary war and throw the Queen off the London Bridge.

Edited September 27, 2017 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

The big difference is, of course, that the Queen's ancestors owned England.  And it is only by her ancestor's good  hearts that the peasants ended up owning it.

Well, that, and a nobles’ rebellion in the thirteenth century; and the downfalls of (inter alia) the Bourbons and Romanovs giving the Hanovers and Windsors a pretty good idea of which way the winds were blowing.

[Guest MormonGator]

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, that, and a nobles’ rebellion in the thirteenth century; and the downfalls of (inter alia) the Bourbons and Romanovs giving the Hanovers and Windsors a pretty good idea of which way the winds were blowing.

The Windsors are more German than English anyway. 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, that, and a nobles’ rebellion in the thirteenth century; and the downfalls of (inter alia) the Bourbons and Romanovs giving the Hanovers and Windsors a pretty good idea of which way the winds were blowing.

Well yes... but that still doesn't change the fact that the Windsors technically gave it to the peasants instead of the peasants winning it from the Windsors giving the Windsors continued royalties today.  So, for the British to discontinue such practice, they'll have to finally win it from the Windsors which is something the British doesn't have much desire to do (for now).

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

The Windsors are more German than English anyway. 

(Shhhhhhhh!)

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

(Shhhhhhhh!)

Don't worry @Just_A_Guy, I can keep my mouth shut. After all, I didn't tell anyone that @zil has been indicted for securities fraud. 

 

[zil]

Just imagine that trophy looks sarcastic.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, zil said:

Just imagine that trophy looks sarcastic.

Sorry @zil, but the truth was going to come out eventually. After all, you are going to be the star of this weeks "American Greed" on CNBC. 

[mordorbund]

 

21 hours ago, zil said:

21 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Don't worry @Just_A_Guy, I can keep my mouth shut. After all, I didn't tell anyone that @zil has been indicted for securities fraud. 

 

Just imagine that trophy looks sarcastic.

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

 

@zil failed to remember that joking, sarcasm, having a dry sense of humor (or any sense of humor) are not allowed in the church . I've contacted her bishop and he's going to start the excommunication process. 

[askandanswer]

On 9/28/2017 at 8:37 AM, MormonGator said:

Don't worry @Just_A_Guy, I can keep my mouth shut. After all, I didn't tell anyone that @zil has been indicted for securities fraud. 

 

At last! Its a real indictment of Utah police practices that this took soooo long! Did she get off on the charge of distributing counterfeit, stolen fountain pens around the country?

[Jamie123]

On 9/27/2017 at 6:38 PM, anatess2 said:

But then, of course, they can always wage a revolutionary war and throw the Queen off the London Bridge.

It really happened too. Poor old Charles I...

It's a matter of slight embarrassment to me that since the break with Rome, the Church of England has only canonized one person: St. Charles the Martyr (otherwise known as Charles I, or Stewart "that Man of Blood"). There are several shrine to him across England, including one at Carisbrooke Castle which I've been to many times.

So why was he sainted? Well, he refused to do away with bishops. Had he agreed (so the Society of King Charles the Martyr argue) he would have kept his life and his kingdom. But the Church of England would have become like the Church of Scotland - Presbyterian instead of Episcopalian. No more bishops means no more priests or deacons, which means the sacraments would no longer be valid since the chain of ordination linking the clergy with Christ's apostles would be broken. And wouldn't that be sad?

(Don't ask me why there's a leopard in the picture because I don't know. I expect there's a good reason for it.)

[JohnsonJones]

When was the picture drawn and by who...if the French, it is understandable why it is a leopard.

Quote

Generally speaking (and there are many exceptions in different traditions), a lion rampant (standing erect with forepaws raised) was a lion, while a lion walking with head turned full-face (passant guardant), as in the English royal arms, was a leopard. ‘Leopard’ was a technical heraldic distinction, and there were no spotted felines on any coat-of-arms in the Middle Ages.

Like all heraldic animals, the leopard carried some symbolic meaning; it was thought to be the result of an adulterous union between a lion and a mythical beast called a ‘pard’ (hence leo-pard). Believed to be incapable of reproducing, leopards were sometimes (but not always) used for someone born of adultery, or unable to have children – a senior clergyman for example. The English royal arms included the three lions from the time of Richard I (reigned 1189–99) onwards (with a few early gaps).

The English usually referred to them as leopards until the late 1300s when they started calling them lions. French heralds continued to call them leopards, and, during the Hundred Years’ War, the French sometimes referred to the English as ‘the leopards’.

See, instead of just answering straight, I even found a source (however dubious) on the INTERNET!!!

In reality it probably depends on whether you are English and take the English side of history or French (well...some Europeans).

Wikipedia has a different answer...

Wikipedia regarding leopard heraldry

Quote

The leopard in heraldry is traditionally depicted the same as a lion, but in a walking position with its head turned to full face, thus it is also known as a lion passant guardant in some texts, though leopards more naturally depicted make some appearances in modern heraldry.....

....

Arthur Charles Fox-Davies wrote in 1909 that the distinction between lions (which were constantly rampant) and leopards (which were necessarily walking) originated in French heraldry and was brought into English heraldry along with so much else of English language and custom deriving from French traditions. But "the use of the term leopard in heraldry to signify a certain position for the lion never received any extensive sanction, and has long since become obsolete in British armory," though the distinction is still observed in French blazon.[4]

Fox-Davies further notes that the lions depicted in the royal arms of England, though passant guardant, have never represented anything other than lions,[5] also pointing out that another ancient (if controversial) rule distinguishing leopards from lions dictated that while several leopards could appear on one shield, there could not be more than one lion on the shield (with the apparent exception of two lions combatant); multiple rampant lions on one shield were called lioncels.[6]

 

Edited September 29, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Jamie123]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

When was the picture drawn and by who...

By whom. And where's the question mark?

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

See, instead of just answering straight, I even found a source (however dubious) on the INTERNET!!!

10/10 and a gold star for good referencing.

0/10 and "see me" for grammar and punctuation! 

 

Edited September 29, 2017 by Jamie123