Elizabeth II

Truth be told up front, I've not read this thread passed the first page.

Could not care less about the british monarchy.

My mother's side of the family dates back to Virginia british settlements of the 1630's.

Folks left England for the Americas for a reason: to be able to tell England, and its royal inbreds, to FOAD.

FOAD, already.

Just sayin'.
 
Prince Philip's body will be moved from its current location (St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle) and reburied next to hers.
How can us simply move the tomb of a deceased person? It is very disrespectful.

When the remains is embalmed, does it mean it will not be rotten so fast?
 
Could not care less about the british monarchy.
Yet still you found the time to post. How thoughtful.
My mother's side of the family dates back to Virginia british settlements of the 1630's.
And that somehow gives you an excuse to be a ****?
Folks left England for the Americas for a reason: to be able to tell England, and its royal inbreds, to FOAD.
Yet "England, and its royal inbreds" clearly live rent-free in your head. Go figure.
FOAD, already.
After you.
Just sayin'.
The British monarchy has no impact on you (other than living rent-free in your head, it seems), has had no impact on your family likely since America gained independence, and are as inconsequential to you as a bad neighbour from your previous home now several thousand miles away - probably less so - yet still you harbour a grudge? Other than you being somewhat of a pathetic excuse of a human being, why do they fill you with such vitriol that you would wish ill of them? Do you really have nothing better to do but show everyone how much of a **** you are?

Just sayin'.
 
How can us simply move the tomb of a deceased person? It is very disrespectful.
They're not moving the tomb. Prince Philip was interred within St. George's Chapel, but that was never intended to be his final resting place, which was to be beside his wife when she was buried. His internment was always to be temporary. They will be moving the coffin (in which his remains lie) with the utmost respect both in terms of religious and societal considerations.
So, no, it is not "very disrespectful" at all.
When the remains is embalmed, does it mean it will not be rotten so fast?
Yes. Look it up on t'internet if you want details.
The Queen will be buried in Winsor Castle? Will Putin attend her funeral?
No.
 
Yet still you found the time to post. How thoughtful.
And that somehow gives you an excuse to be a ****?
Yet "England, and its royal inbreds" clearly live rent-free in your head. Go figure.
After you.
The British monarchy has no impact on you (other than living rent-free in your head, it seems), has had no impact on your family likely since America gained independence, and are as inconsequential to you as a bad neighbour from your previous home now several thousand miles away - probably less so - yet still you harbour a grudge? Other than you being somewhat of a pathetic excuse of a human being, why do they fill you with such vitriol that you would wish ill of them? Do you really have nothing better to do but show everyone how much of a **** you are?

Just sayin'.
By the way, just to wind up chippy and self-righteous Americans even more, I see the monarch the King most admires, after his late lamented mother, is George III. "Farmer George" seems to be routinely portrayed in school-level American history as approaching Ivan the Terrible in autocratic savagery. I always find this hilarious, but it does serve to show how partial the different versions of history can be.:D
 
By the way, just to wind up chippy and self-righteous Americans even more, I see the monarch the King most admires, after his late lamented mother, is George III. "Farmer George" seems to be routinely portrayed in school-level American history as approaching Ivan the Terrible in autocratic savagery. I always find this hilarious, but it does serve to show how partial the different versions of history can be.:D
There's the old joke about why the film of the play "The Madness of King George III" dropped the "III" for its title: 'cos otherwise Americans would think they hadn't seen the first two films! :D
 
It's terrible how bad Americans are with geography, finding countries on a map, etc. It's somewhat understandable with not finding the UK on a map though, don't you think? :)
 
Do you think the Commonwealth will grow under Charles or decline?
The Commonwealth is political, so I'm not sure the change in monarch will have much affect. It may bolster interest as and when the new monarch does his inevitable tour of the Commonwealth, but that may just be a short-term boost. Any decline would, I think, be irrespective of the monarch.
 
Do you think the Commonwealth will grow under Charles or decline?
I suspect the Commonwealth will atrophy rather, due to the development of so many other geopolitical ties over time. But there will remain reasons for Commonwealth countries to continue to belong to a common club (democracy, albeit imperfect in some cases, language, legal systems, some longstanding preferential trade arrangements, etc), I'm not sure the change of monarch will alter things that much, though I suppose it could bring to the surface some issues that were tacitly buried while Queen Elizabeth was alive. I can't see how the Commonwealth can grow. Who would be eligible to join that is not already a member? It could shrink. But why would you leave? I suspect it won't do either, but will just weaken.
 
Buckingham Palace Made Their Stance On Who's Invited To The Queen's Funeral Crystal Clear (msn.com)

I don't think Trump should attend - it will cause a media frenzy and the Queen's funeral is about her alone.
I think they will restrict the invitations to current world leaders. After all, plenty of space has to be allocated to the many UK figures who might expect to attend the funeral of their own monarch. She has met so many past foreign leaders that once you invite one you have to invite thousands, unless you pick and choose, which would be extremely invidious in terms of foreign relations. So I think there's an elegant way of avoiding Trump, without singling him out.
 
You've referenced letterheads - which is stationery, not documents.
That's a pretty miniscule quibble. :)

The point is that you can't print documents on existing letterheads. And many offices DO keep an inventory of letterheads. And every one of those offices has to be notified to get rid of the old letter heads and, since many people don't read their email, there has to be a follow-up. And even if there were NO old letterheads anywhere in the organization, every office would have to be notified to set their computers to use the new language on any letterhead they print in the future. AND there would have to be a follow-up.
And even physical stationery really isn't that onerous. I've been through many a company take-over / name change, and it isn't difficult. Costly? Sure. Difficult? No.
I said costly in message #67. YOU were the one who said it would be "easy" and i questioned that. I still do.
But what obsolete documents are you referring to???
Anything with "Her Majesty" or "Queen Elizabeth" on it. And thousands of public buildings will need new portraits of the monarch.
And existing contracts don't need to change. If it had a letterhead referring to QEII then it is still valid and enforceable. It does not need to be reprinted on new letterheads reflecting the new monarch.
As I said, you and I don't decide what is needed. Some obscure goober in some obscure office decides. And every obscure goober in an obscure office needs to be notified what the department's policy is. And every department needs to be notified what the government's policy is. And all of it needs to be followed up.

Bureaucracy.
 
Back
Top