[Andy McDandy]

There's a tendency on the left to view the queen as a basically decent person, accident of birth, great at opening things, etc. That privately she's as disgusted by the excesses of the Tories as much as the rest of us, witness her among the crowds at Grenfell, Johnson and Rees-Mogg lied to her, is that a pro-EU message her hat is sending, look at her repulsed by Trump and so on.

Projection? Another incarnation of the "little father" delusion held by Russian peasants? Perhaps. But every now and then something happens which suggests the whole lot of them are arseholes from top to bottom and think of the rest of us as less than vermin.

[davidjay]

My mother in law always said the Queen Mum, Gawd bless 'er, never smiled with her eyes and that to me sums up a lot of the family's attitudes. Friendly and compassionate on the outside, believing they're touched by the hand of God in reality. It can easily be overlooked that Brenda was born just a few years after Queen Victoria died, and she believed that her subjects should adore her just because.

[AOB]

'He's full of…': What the Queen and PM said about 'poor man' Matt Hancock

The Queen and Boris Johnson have held their first face-to-face weekly audience since the pandemic began and one of the hot topics was the health secretary.

During their meeting at Buckingham Palace, part of which was filmed, the monarch told the prime minister: "I've just been talking to your secretary of state for health - poor man. He came for Privy Council. He's full of..."

Without letting Her Majesty finish her sentence, Mr Johnson jumped in with the reply: "Full of beans."

[The Weeping Angel]

My mother in law always said the Queen Mum, Gawd bless 'er, never smiled with her eyes and that to me sums up a lot of the family's attitudes. Friendly and compassionate on the outside, believing they're touched by the hand of God in reality. It can easily be overlooked that Brenda was born just a few years after Queen Victoria died, and she believed that her subjects should adore her just because.

By a few years you mean 25 years.

[davidjay]

My mother in law always said the Queen Mum, Gawd bless 'er, never smiled with her eyes and that to me sums up a lot of the family's attitudes. Friendly and compassionate on the outside, believing they're touched by the hand of God in reality. It can easily be overlooked that Brenda was born just a few years after Queen Victoria died, and she believed that her subjects should adore her just because.

By a few years you mean 25 years.

The twinkling of an eye in a family that can trace its ancestry back across the millennia.

[The Weeping Angel]

By that logic she was born within a few years of George IV.

[Cyclist]

Lizard Overlord exempts herself from Scottish "Green" Laws

A draft law in the Scottish Parliament was amended to exempt the Queen's land from measures to encourage green energy after her lawyers raised "concerns".

The changes meant land owned by the royal household could not be subject to compulsory purchase orders without the monarch's approval...


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58005875

Compulsory things are only compulsory if you're not the super-rich spreader of a disease which causes people to bend at the knee.

[Nigredo]

https://www.businessinsider.com/pandora ... ev-2021-10

Charlie Boy learnt it all from mummy.

[Crabcakes]

By that logic she was born within a few years of George IV.

Factually correct, but perception-wise the royals are almost as permanent as their palaces. Old wooden teeth was queen in 1936, and still alive in the 21st century. Liz has been on the throne longer than many people's entire lives and was around well before then. Chuck is probably gearing up for a good 20 years on the throne even though he's 72 now, and his mum shows no signs of expiring. William isn't likely to get a sniff of it until he's in his 60s at the earliest.

[davidjay]

By that logic she was born within a few years of George IV.

I've only just noticed this one. Liz was born almost a hundred years after the reign of George IV, whereas there were people involved in her upbringing who would have been at the court of Victoria and shared the Empress of India's ideals.

[The Weeping Angel]

By that logic she was born within a few years of George IV.

I've only just noticed this one. Liz was born almost a hundred years after the reign of George IV, whereas there were people involved in her upbringing who would have been at the court of Victoria and shared the Empress of India's ideals.

Yeah and this proves what exactly?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

By that logic she was born within a few years of George IV.

I've only just noticed this one. Liz was born almost a hundred years after the reign of George IV, whereas there were people involved in her upbringing who would have been at the court of Victoria and shared the Empress of India's ideals.

Yeah and this proves what exactly?

Rubber biscuit moment...

[davidjay]

By that logic she was born within a few years of George IV.

I've only just noticed this one. Liz was born almost a hundred years after the reign of George IV, whereas there were people involved in her upbringing who would have been at the court of Victoria and shared the Empress of India's ideals.

Yeah and this proves what exactly?

That her upbringing, and therefore perhaps her world view was shaped, was much as it would have been in the rich man in his castle/poor man at the gate time of Queen Victoria. I've no idea what George IV had to do with it.

[The Weeping Angel]

I've only just noticed this one. Liz was born almost a hundred years after the reign of George IV, whereas there were people involved in her upbringing who would have been at the court of Victoria and shared the Empress of India's ideals.

Yeah and this proves what exactly?

That her upbringing, and therefore perhaps her world view was shaped, was much as it would have been in the rich man in his castle/poor man at the gate time of Queen Victoria. I've no idea what George IV had to do with it.

Or perhaps not.

[kreuzberger]

Or perhaps not.

Malc, trying his diplomatic best, suggested that you might want to reconsider these snippy, disrespectful, pointless posts.

Cut it. Capito?

[The All New KevS]

By that logic she was born within a few years of George IV.

Factually correct, but perception-wise the royals are almost as permanent as their palaces. Old wooden teeth was queen in 1936, and still alive in the 21st century. Liz has been on the throne longer than many people's entire lives and was around well before then. Chuck is probably gearing up for a good 20 years on the throne even though he's 72 now, and his mum shows no signs of expiring. William isn't likely to get a sniff of it until he's in his 60s at the earliest.

Good point. My father was born at the end of 1947, and he says he can just about remember George VI. I'll wager anyone born in 1948 or later will not be able to. No matter your views on royalty, when you think about it, that is a real jaw dropping fact. As I've said before, when Brenda does hop the twig (which, with the greatest of respect, realistically could actually be any day now), we are going to witness a VERY strange week that will put Diana week in the shade.

Prepare on one side for the Mail et al watching everything and everyone for suitable levels of sackcloth and ashes, and on the other, people screaming that EastEnders has been cancelled on the actual day of death. Me? I'm just going to keep my head down and wallow in the historical aspect of it all.

[Andy McDandy]

An important thing to remember is that hardly anyone had television sets. My mother was born in 1948 and can barely remember his Christmas speeches (which is understandable - my earliest memory is from being 3 years old and asking my mum who that man under the blanket was - it was the Yorkshire Ripper being led into trial). The king was literally a voice, an occasional newspaper photo.

[Nigredo]

She's not just been the monarch for my entire life, but for my late mother's as well.

To go one further, she's been the monarch for all of my father's conscious life (though that may be skewed as I doubt he remembers what his first memory is).

[The All New KevS]

Let's say 95 years is the age a monarch gets to, and Ma'am was to go tonight, you're looking at the following reigns

Charles 2021 - 2044
William 2044 - 2077
George 2077 - 2108

Even now, barring some cataclysmic tragedy, you can't see George beating Great Grandma's reign. That's startling.

[kreuzberger]

There's an easy way to put paid to all this idle speculation.