Subject title will be edited as circumstances warrant.
Reports from the UK suggest that the Queen does not have long to live.
For anybody under the age of 70, this will be the first British royal death/ascension in our lifetimes.
The new King can choose his own name, so Charles III is not automatic. Phillip, Arthur, and George VII are all possibilities, though all four have drawbacks.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on September 08, 2022, 11:30:01 AM
Subject title will be edited as circumstances warrant.
Reports from the UK suggest that the Queen does not have long to live.
For anybody under the age of 70, this will be the first British royal death/ascension in our lifetimes.
The new King can choose his own name, so Charles III is not automatic. Phillip, Arthur, and George VII are all possibilities, though all four have drawbacks.
That could be interesting as the Queen's own father was Albert (Bertie) but took the name George VI upon coronation. A new British monarch is so weird because she's been queen since before I was born and I'm on Social Security.
Quote from: skluth on September 08, 2022, 12:01:07 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on September 08, 2022, 11:30:01 AM
Subject title will be edited as circumstances warrant.
Reports from the UK suggest that the Queen does not have long to live.
For anybody under the age of 70, this will be the first British royal death/ascension in our lifetimes.
The new King can choose his own name, so Charles III is not automatic. Phillip, Arthur, and George VII are all possibilities, though all four have drawbacks.
That could be interesting as the Queen's own father was Albert (Bertie) but took the name George VI upon coronation. A new British monarch is so weird because she's been queen since before I was born and I'm on Social Security.
Also interesting that Prince Charles is 73 and might only rule for 10-20 years, if that. Once upon a time, there was a lot of scuttlebutt about Charles potentially stepping back and allowing Prince William to become King, but I don't know how seriously that was considered.
Quote from: abefroman329 on September 08, 2022, 12:45:27 PM
Quote from: skluth on September 08, 2022, 12:01:07 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on September 08, 2022, 11:30:01 AM
Subject title will be edited as circumstances warrant.
Reports from the UK suggest that the Queen does not have long to live.
For anybody under the age of 70, this will be the first British royal death/ascension in our lifetimes.
The new King can choose his own name, so Charles III is not automatic. Phillip, Arthur, and George VII are all possibilities, though all four have drawbacks.
That could be interesting as the Queen's own father was Albert (Bertie) but took the name George VI upon coronation. A new British monarch is so weird because she's been queen since before I was born and I'm on Social Security.
Also interesting that Prince Charles is 73 and might only rule for 10-20 years, if that. Once upon a time, there was a lot of scuttlebutt about Charles potentially stepping back and allowing Prince William to become King, but I don't know how seriously that was considered.
It's unclear whether that could even happen. It's not solely up to the Monarch; Parliament is involved (when Edward VIII abdicated, a statute was passed to effectuate the succession) and the other realms over which the Monarch rules have to be involved as well. It's not so simple as just skipping a generation.
The Queen is dead. Long live the King.
Yes, the Palace has just announced Her Majesty's death.
Just hearing it on the news; this is a sad day for England.
RIP. Can't believe that churchill was her first prime minister
Quote from: Henry on September 08, 2022, 01:40:50 PM
Just hearing it on the news; this is a sad day for England.
Not to mention our friends in Canada, and the rest of the Commonwealth.
PM Liz Truss, who was formally appointed by the Queen just 2 days ago at Balmoral, refers to Charles as King Charles III in her remarks following the Queen's passing:
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1567938864760717312?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Didn't occur to me until I heard it mentioned that now they have to produce an entirely new set of currency/coinage.
Confirmed that Charles will use his given name and be known as King Charles III.
It was only a month ago that I visited an exhibit on Elizabeth II, then the Queen of Canada's Platinum Jubilee at the Government House in Victoria, BC. This visit to Canada was the first time I ever set foot on Commonwealth soil, meaning I waited until the last 0.1% of her reign to do so.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on September 08, 2022, 02:39:20 PM
Didn't occur to me until I heard it mentioned that now they have to produce an entirely new set of currency/coinage.
Some currency will change, but her image will remain on some level. By all accounts, she's one of the most beloved and well-known monarchs of all time. I don't think they'll be quick to remove her face from anything.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 08, 2022, 02:52:45 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on September 08, 2022, 02:39:20 PM
Didn't occur to me until I heard it mentioned that now they have to produce an entirely new set of currency/coinage.
Some currency will change, but her image will remain on some level. By all accounts, she's one of the most beloved and well-known monarchs of all time. I don't think they'll be quick to remove her face from anything.
New currency will be produced, but old currency will remain in circulation.
I have several Canadian pennies with George VI on them that came up in loose change.
I still don't know what those royals even do. From where I sit, they only serve the purpose of giving douchebag tabloids something to gossip about.
Long live King Andrew! :-D
Because she was queen, she was a WW2 truck and ambulance mechanic (https://markholtz.info/1v0), and could be called a "gearhead".
I also believe that she was the glue that held what remained of the British empire together. Now that she has passed....
God couldn't save the queen today.
Quote from: thspfc on September 08, 2022, 03:46:35 PM
God couldn't save the queen today.
That depends on your beliefs about salvation.
Operation London Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_London_Bridge) is now in effect. Since the Queen passed away in Scotland, Operation Unicorn also applies, so the first obsequies will be in Edinburgh.
Official website of the UK Government (https://www.gov.uk/):
(https://i.imgur.com/wysFege.png)
Official website of the British monarchy (https://www.royal.uk/):
(https://i.imgur.com/e1TWsRr.png)
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on September 08, 2022, 03:01:06 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 08, 2022, 02:52:45 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on September 08, 2022, 02:39:20 PM
Didn't occur to me until I heard it mentioned that now they have to produce an entirely new set of currency/coinage.
Some currency will change, but her image will remain on some level. By all accounts, she's one of the most beloved and well-known monarchs of all time. I don't think they'll be quick to remove her face from anything.
New currency will be produced, but old currency will remain in circulation.
I have several Canadian pennies with George VI on them that came up in loose change.
I mean new currency. My gut tells me that they (countries that use her face on currency) will continue to put her face on
some currency well after her death. Things will continue to be named in her honor, statues erected, etc. Even those who may have disdain for her, likely have their disdain rooted in anti-monarchy values; ergo, nothing personal.
The biggest change to the coinage besides the new monarch will be they now face left as QEII faced right
As far as I am aware, the actual time of the Queen's death has not yet been released. There was a tweet from the monarchy's official account at 6.41 PM local time, but it has been reported (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/08/queen-death-fake-news-twitter/) that news was brought to Liz Truss and Keir Starmer in Parliament at 12.21 PM that prompted long faces; BBC anchor Huw Edwards was in a black suit and tie at 1.48 PM; and another BBC anchor tweeted at 3.07 PM that Buckingham Palace had announced the death and retracted it at 3.19 PM, saying no announcement had yet been made.
When I checked the Guardian around noon my local time (six hours behind BST), she was still described as being "under medical supervision." I actually first learned the news about an hour later through the Washington Post's banner headline. This all feels very sudden--as recently as two days ago she was only described as having mobility issues that required Truss to fly to Scotland to kiss hands.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 08, 2022, 05:25:55 PM
As far as I am aware, the actual time of the Queen's death has not yet been released. There was a tweet from the monarchy's official account at 6.41 PM local time, but it has been reported (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/08/queen-death-fake-news-twitter/) that news was brought to Liz Truss and Keir Starmer in Parliament at 12.21 PM that prompted long faces; BBC anchor Huw Edwards was in a black suit and tie at 1.48 PM; and another BBC anchor tweeted at 3.07 PM that Buckingham Palace had announced the death and retracted it at 3.19 PM, saying no announcement had yet been made.
When I checked the Guardian around noon my local time (six hours behind BST), she was still described as being "under medical supervision." I actually first learned the news about an hour later through the Washington Post's banner headline. This all feels very sudden--as recently as two days ago she was only described as having mobility issues that required Truss to fly to Scotland to kiss hands.
Seems like they were waiting for the family to all get there before announcing it, which is reasonable.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on September 08, 2022, 02:30:50 PM
PM Liz Truss, who was formally appointed by the Queen just 2 days ago at Balmoral, refers to Charles as King Charles III in her remarks following the Queen's passing:
[tweet]1567938864760717312[/tweet]?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Damn PM Liz Truss was just elected and Queen Elizabeth lived up to PM Trusses Inauguration to the PM seat.
But it's crazy to think that Queen Elizabeth was inaugurated when Churchill was PM.
Liz Truss is in the crazy position to inaugurate the next King of England right when she is getting ready to set up her cabinet.
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/prime-ministers-served-queen-elizabeth-ii-89540491
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 08, 2022, 05:25:55 PM
As far as I am aware, the actual time of the Queen's death has not yet been released. There was a tweet from the monarchy's official account at 6.41 PM local time, but it has been reported (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/08/queen-death-fake-news-twitter/) that news was brought to Liz Truss and Keir Starmer in Parliament at 12.21 PM that prompted long faces; BBC anchor Huw Edwards was in a black suit and tie at 1.48 PM; and another BBC anchor tweeted at 3.07 PM that Buckingham Palace had announced the death and retracted it at 3.19 PM, saying no announcement had yet been made.
When I checked the Guardian around noon my local time (six hours behind BST), she was still described as being "under medical supervision." I actually first learned the news about an hour later through the Washington Post's banner headline. This all feels very sudden--as recently as two days ago she was only described as having mobility issues that required Truss to fly to Scotland to kiss hands.
The family going to her bedside was a clue that she was nearing death,
This couldn't have happened at a worse time for the monarchy–the British public is undergoing a cost-of-living crisis that by all accounts I've read is far worse than what we got hit with in the US. There will be no way to do the traditional pomp and circumstance of the coronation (which costs a great deal of public money) without it coming off as catastrophically tone-deaf.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 08, 2022, 05:25:55 PM
As far as I am aware, the actual time of the Queen's death has not yet been released. There was a tweet from the monarchy's official account at 6.41 PM local time, but it has been reported (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/08/queen-death-fake-news-twitter/) that news was brought to Liz Truss and Keir Starmer in Parliament at 12.21 PM that prompted long faces; BBC anchor Huw Edwards was in a black suit and tie at 1.48 PM; and another BBC anchor tweeted at 3.07 PM that Buckingham Palace had announced the death and retracted it at 3.19 PM, saying no announcement had yet been made.
When I checked the Guardian around noon my local time (six hours behind BST), she was still described as being "under medical supervision." I actually first learned the news about an hour later through the Washington Post's banner headline. This all feels very sudden--as recently as two days ago she was only described as having mobility issues that required Truss to fly to Scotland to kiss hands.
Here in Wichita, KAKE news jumped the gun by a little bit. My wife texted me she had read a social media post by KAKE that the Queen was dead, and that text message was at 6:34pm (Britain time). She then realized there wasn't an actual article to go along with the post, so she checked the official royal site, and no official announcement had yet been made. Then, literally seconds later, she saw it change on the royal site. She then texted me to let me know it was official, and that message was at 6:39pm (Britain time).
To make this thread road-related, the Queen was born the same year that the US highway system was officially introduced.
QE2 reigned for about 28.5% of the time the United States has existed.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on September 08, 2022, 06:52:52 PM
The family going to her bedside was a clue that she was nearing death,
The BBC news presenters having switched to black clothes hours before the formal announcement was the even more telling clue.
https://twitter.com/mroctober/status/1567959503081189376
Quote from: jakeroot on September 08, 2022, 05:11:56 PM
I mean new currency. My gut tells me that they (countries that use her face on currency) will continue to put her face on some currency well after her death. Things will continue to be named in her honor, statues erected, etc. Even those who may have disdain for her, likely have their disdain rooted in anti-monarchy values; ergo, nothing personal.
Canada announced awhile back that the mint will change their coins more or less as soon as they get new dies approved by the Crown, but the Queen will remain on the $20 bill until it next comes up for redesign. I'm going to guess that's a couple of years out, after they finish working on the design of the new $5.
I'm not sure if there's a requirement that the Sovereign be on the $20, and I suppose there's a chance they might choose to become a republic.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 08, 2022, 08:11:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 08, 2022, 05:11:56 PM
I mean new currency. My gut tells me that they (countries that use her face on currency) will continue to put her face on some currency well after her death. Things will continue to be named in her honor, statues erected, etc. Even those who may have disdain for her, likely have their disdain rooted in anti-monarchy values; ergo, nothing personal.
Canada announced awhile back that the mint will change their coins more or less as soon as they get new dies approved by the Crown, but the Queen will remain on the $20 bill until it next comes up for redesign. I'm going to guess that's a couple of years out, after they finish working on the design of the new $5.
I'm not sure if there's a requirement that the Sovereign be on the $20, and I suppose there's a chance they might choose to become a republic.
We got to check if Australia and New Zealand will change their coins as well.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2022, 07:10:03 PM
This couldn't have happened at a worse time for the monarchy–the British public is undergoing a cost-of-living crisis that by all accounts I've read is far worse than what we got hit with in the US. There will be no way to do the traditional pomp and circumstance of the coronation (which costs a great deal of public money) without it coming off as catastrophically tone-deaf.
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/1121266992/liz-truss-prime-minister-queen-elizabeth
And the crazy part here is that PM Truss still needs to appoint cabinet members to office and she finds herself having to get the UK Mourn the now former Queen and Inaugurate the next King of England. This is a crazy start for Truss but understandable.
https://www.khou.com/article/news/verify/world-verify/king-charles-automatically-takes-throne-england-after-queen-elizabeth-death/536-142f1571-c29d-44b9-80a2-155879ed555c
https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/3634826-will-king-charles-iii-now-appear-on-bank-of-england-banknotes/
Quote from: davewiecking on September 08, 2022, 08:10:14 PM
https://twitter.com/mroctober/status/1567959503081189376
I was waiting for this.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2022, 07:10:03 PM
This couldn't have happened at a worse time for the monarchy–the British public is undergoing a cost-of-living crisis that by all accounts I've read is far worse than what we got hit with in the US. There will be no way to do the traditional pomp and circumstance of the coronation (which costs a great deal of public money) without it coming off as catastrophically tone-deaf.
The Coronation will not happen until next Summer or the following Spring. They need time to plan.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2022, 07:10:03 PMThis couldn't have happened at a worse time for the monarchy–the British public is undergoing a cost-of-living crisis that by all accounts I've read is far worse than what we got hit with in the US. There will be no way to do the traditional pomp and circumstance of the coronation (which costs a great deal of public money) without it coming off as catastrophically tone-deaf.
It doesn't have to be done immediately--Elizabeth's own ceremony did not take place until almost 16 months after she succeeded her father. It cost £1.57 million in 1953 nominal money (the equivalent of about £43 million in 2019).
At the moment the cost-of-living debate is focused on a regulatory cap on household energy bills that is set up to go to £3800 annually for a typical household on October 1 (
typical here used advisedly since the cap is actually based on maximum rates per day (https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/check-if-energy-price-cap-affects-you)--the October increase corresponds to a jump from £0.28 to £0.52 per kWh of electricity and £0.07 to £0.15 per kWh of gas). Even middle-class households are expected to struggle to pay their bills.
How long will it be before Canada's QEW (Queen Elizabeth Way) becomes the KCW (King Charles Way)?
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on September 08, 2022, 10:54:21 PMHow long will it be before Canada's QEW (Queen Elizabeth Way) becomes the KCW (King Charles Way)?
It never will. It is actually named after Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on September 08, 2022, 09:20:59 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on September 08, 2022, 08:10:14 PM
https://twitter.com/mroctober/status/1567959503081189376
I was waiting for this.
Someone is going to have to explain this to me. (I still despise Reggie because he played for the A's in 1972).
Quote from: hbelkins on September 08, 2022, 11:12:10 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on September 08, 2022, 09:20:59 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on September 08, 2022, 08:10:14 PM
https://twitter.com/mroctober/status/1567959503081189376
I was waiting for this.
Someone is going to have to explain this to me. (I still despise Reggie because he played for the A's in 1972).
It's a reference to Reggie's appearance in "The Naked Gun".
https://www.outkick.com/reggie-jackson-references-naked-gun-in-queen-elizabeth-tribute/ (https://www.outkick.com/reggie-jackson-references-naked-gun-in-queen-elizabeth-tribute/)
I was an 11-year-old A's fan living in Walnut Creek, CA in 1972. They won the World Series that year and in '73 and '74 as well. I knew they wouldn't win it every year but my 11-year-old mind calculated about 20 World Series wins for the A's by 2022. Hmmm, somehow that hasn't happened. I would note that the A's won the 1972 World Series without Reggie, as he blew out his hamstring stealing home in the final game of the ALCS in Detroit. Your Reds lost because of a lot of Gene Tenace and Rollie Fingers.
As an dual-citizen Aussie-American, and married to an Aussie, this was a sad day. I was more sad about this than I thought I'd be. Charles III is definitely a step down.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 08, 2022, 10:38:06 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2022, 07:10:03 PMThis couldn't have happened at a worse time for the monarchy—the British public is undergoing a cost-of-living crisis that by all accounts I've read is far worse than what we got hit with in the US. There will be no way to do the traditional pomp and circumstance of the coronation (which costs a great deal of public money) without it coming off as catastrophically tone-deaf.
It doesn't have to be done immediately--Elizabeth's own ceremony did not take place until almost 16 months after she succeeded her father. It cost £1.57 million in 1953 nominal money (the equivalent of about £43 million in 2019).
At the moment the cost-of-living debate is focused on a regulatory cap on household energy bills that is set up to go to £3800 annually for a typical household on October 1 (typical here used advisedly since the cap is actually based on maximum rates per day (https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/check-if-energy-price-cap-affects-you)--the October increase corresponds to a jump from £0.28 to £0.52 per kWh of electricity and £0.07 to £0.15 per kWh of gas). Even middle-class households are expected to struggle to pay their bills.
That corresponds to a rate of about $0.60 per kWh in USD. By comparison, in 2022, US customers pay $0.16/kWh for electricity, with Hawaii's citizens paying the most at about $0.40/kWh and California citizens paying about $0.27/kWh. While we in the States have been dealing with our own issues with higher energy costs, at least we're not even close to what the UK and Europe are facing.
This is a sad day indeed, and feels a lot like the ending of an era. The Queen's longevity was incredible, as she ascended to the throne while not much older than me (an early 20s college student), and reigned until a few years short of 100. She was the Queen during the existence of 14 different U.S. presidential administrations (starting with Harry S. Truman), and her reign also precedes the Interstate Highway System by a few years. I was shocked to see the news when I came out of class today, especially since it was such a sudden decline (I do remember seeing the news articles about limited mobility causing the cancellation of an appearance a few days ago). This news also hit me harder than I would have expected, especially since I have no connections to Britain at all. But it's something about a significant point of transition in history that weighs heavy with significance and contemplation. RIP, she will go down in history as a true icon of the 20th and 21st Centuries.
Fun fact... The PM when QEII ascended the throne and the PM when she died were born over a hundred years apart. (Winston Churchill, b.1874; Liz Truss, b.1975.)
Quote from: hbelkins on September 08, 2022, 11:12:10 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on September 08, 2022, 09:20:59 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on September 08, 2022, 08:10:14 PM
https://twitter.com/mroctober/status/1567959503081189376
I was waiting for this.
Someone is going to have to explain this to me. (I still despise Reggie because he played for the A's in 1972).
How have you never seen The Naked Gun?
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on September 09, 2022, 06:47:59 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 08, 2022, 11:12:10 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on September 08, 2022, 09:20:59 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on September 08, 2022, 08:10:14 PM
https://twitter.com/mroctober/status/1567959503081189376
I was waiting for this.
Someone is going to have to explain this to me. (I still despise Reggie because he played for the A's in 1972).
How have you never seen The Naked Gun?
Heh. You should peruse more of HB's posts. Him not seeing The Naked Gun is pretty middlin' when it comes to his other pop culture blind spots. :D
Quote from: qguy on September 09, 2022, 06:45:22 AM
Fun fact... The PM when QEII ascended the throne and the PM when she died were born over a hundred years apart. (Winston Churchill, b.1874; Liz Truss, b.1975.)
It keeps making me think of a true bizarre fact about American history:
The late President John Tyler (served 1841 to 1845, died in 1862) has one grandson who is still alive today. His first wife died, he remarried a much younger woman, and he had children by her, including one son born very late in John Tyler's life. That son, in turn, married a much younger woman and had sons very late in life, one of whom died just a few years ago and another of whom (born in 1928) remains alive today. It's mind-boggling to think that there is someone alive today whose grandfather was born when George Washington was president and George III was king!
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 08, 2022, 08:11:04 PMCanada announced awhile back that the mint will change their coins more or less as soon as they get new dies approved by the Crown, but the Queen will remain on the $20 bill until it next comes up for redesign. I'm going to guess that's a couple of years out, after they finish working on the design of the new $5.
I'm not sure if there's a requirement that the Sovereign be on the $20, and I suppose there's a chance they might choose to become a republic.
I just read that there's no law in Canada requiring the Monarch be on Canadian coins and currency. Charles III will probably appear on the coins because of tradition, but the new C$20 bill may go with a non-royal, as concerns of diversity/equity make "an old white man" a less-than-desirable choice for the new bill.
The Premier League has cancelled this weekend's matches and potentially next weekend's. Pretty dumb decision given the fixture congestion already created by the winter World Cup.
Quote from: Rothman on September 09, 2022, 07:16:15 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on September 09, 2022, 06:47:59 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 08, 2022, 11:12:10 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on September 08, 2022, 09:20:59 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on September 08, 2022, 08:10:14 PM
https://twitter.com/mroctober/status/1567959503081189376
I was waiting for this.
Someone is going to have to explain this to me. (I still despise Reggie because he played for the A's in 1972).
How have you never seen The Naked Gun?
Heh. You should peruse more of HB's posts. Him not seeing The Naked Gun is pretty middlin' when it comes to his other pop culture blind spots. :D
Actually, I have seen it, but it's been many years ago, and I did not recall the scene.
I'm still stuck on "Blazing Saddles" as the greatest movie ever.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on September 08, 2022, 11:30:01 AM
Subject title will be edited as circumstances warrant.
Reports from the UK suggest that the Queen does not have long to live.
For anybody under the age of 70, this will be the first British royal death/ascension in our lifetimes.
The new King can choose his own name, so Charles III is not automatic. Phillip, Arthur, and George VII are all possibilities, though all four have drawbacks.
You could really go as far as to say anyone under 80 hasn't really seen the passing of the crown. Those that are 80 now were 10 when King George Vi died, and can you really grasp the gravitas of that event at that age? It's almost safe to say that there are very few people alive that can actually remember the crown passing. Pretty amazing to comprehend all that time passing!
Quote from: Bruce on September 09, 2022, 10:27:58 AM
The Premier League has cancelled this weekend's matches and potentially next weekend's. Pretty dumb decision given the fixture congestion already created by the winter World Cup.
No doubt their decision is based in no small part on Pete Rozelle's oft-stated comment that his biggest regret as NFL Commissioner as not cancelling games the weekend after President Kennedy was shot. Crowds were not the least bit into the games and it was evidently an utterly awkward experience all the way around. Even recognizing that an assassination is fundamentally different from, and far more shocking than, the death of a 96-year-old monarch, it's still fair to recognize that the Queen was a towering figure of a sort Kennedy was not (other than in the mythology that built up after his death). They're just soccer games. It's not that hard to tweak the schedule later to fit them in somewhere, much as the NFL did when it cancelled all games the weekend after 9-11.
Quote from: Bruce on September 09, 2022, 10:27:58 AM
The Premier League has cancelled this weekend's matches and potentially next weekend's. Pretty dumb decision given the fixture congestion already created by the winter World Cup.
I don't think there are any major national club tournaments next summer, so adding onto the end of the season shouldn't be too problematic.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2022, 10:48:03 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 09, 2022, 10:27:58 AM
The Premier League has cancelled this weekend's matches and potentially next weekend's. Pretty dumb decision given the fixture congestion already created by the winter World Cup.
No doubt their decision is based in no small part on Pete Rozelle's oft-stated comment that his biggest regret as NFL Commissioner as not cancelling games the weekend after President Kennedy was shot. Crowds were not the least bit into the games and it was evidently an utterly awkward experience all the way around. Even recognizing that an assassination is fundamentally different from, and far more shocking than, the death of a 96-year-old monarch, it's still fair to recognize that the Queen was a towering figure of a sort Kennedy was not (other than in the mythology that built up after his death). They're just soccer games. It's not that hard to tweak the schedule later to fit them in somewhere, much as the NFL did when it cancelled all games the weekend after 9-11.
And it is also worth noting is that the late Queen and Rozelle were born in the same year. 1926 will go down in history again!
Another thought to ponder: we will never see another queen of England in our lifetime. The next 3 in line for the crown...Charles, William, and William's first born... will be kings. That time period may cover the lives of most of our grandchildren.
There were a few omens in the past week that had me feeling a little uneasy. The last time a new prime minister and the monarch shared a given name was 1835 when King William IV appointed William Lamb, Viscount Melbourne. (Yes, Liz Truss's given name is Mary, but she goes by her middle name; the Queen's given names were Elizabeth Alexandra Mary.) The last time a prime minister was appointed at Balmoral was 1895 when Queen Victoria appointed the Marquess of Salisbury. In both cases, said PM was the last appointed for the respective monarch's reigns. William IV was replaced by Victoria in 1837, and Melbourne continued in office through 1841. Victoria was replaced by Edward VII in 1901, and Salisbury continued in office until the next year.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcLKt6mXEAAeV_q?format=jpg&name=medium)
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2022, 11:25:48 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcLKt6mXEAAeV_q?format=jpg&name=medium)
Is the Daily Stoopid is the British counterpart of the satiric news sites like The Onion and the Babylon Bee?
I don't know which country it's from, but I assume that is the case. I just found the headline amusing. It reminded me of one of the British tabloids that ran a headline, when the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to Prince George, saying simply "Woman has baby."
Here are the countries (or country subdivisions, for those with their own currency) where a newspaper could reasonably cost $23:
Nicaragua: US$0.64
Taiwan: US$0.75
Suriname: US$0.87
Mexico: US$1.15
Solomon Islands: US$2.81
Macau: US$2.85
Hong Kong: US$2.93
Brazil: US$4.43
Also note that Thursday was the 8th, not the 7th. I'm leaning toward entirely fake.
Quote from: cjk374 on September 09, 2022, 11:19:24 AM
Another thought to ponder: we will never see another queen of England in our lifetime. The next 3 in line for the crown...Charles, William, and William's first born... will be kings. That time period may cover the lives of most of our grandchildren.
As dramatized in
The Crown, Winston Churchill addressed the nation in February 1952 on the passing of The King and the accession of HM The Queen and said:
"I, whose youth was passed in the august, unchallenged, and tranquil glories of the Victorian era, may well feel a thrill in invoking once more the prayer and the anthem: 'God Save the Queen!'"
At that time, it had been almost 51 years since the passing of Queen Victoria, so the anthem had been "God Save the King" for a half century. It maybe that long or longer before we have a queen regnant again for the anthem to switch again.
Quote from: 1 on September 09, 2022, 12:46:48 PM
I'm leaning toward entirely fake.
It's from the Twitter feed for "The Daily Stoopid", which describes itself as "All original content / Puns, dad jokes, and other Photoshop nonsense".
https://mobile.twitter.com/daily_stoopid
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2022, 12:15:40 PM
I don't know which country it's from, but I assume that is the case. I just found the headline amusing. It reminded me of one of the British tabloids that ran a headline, when the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to Prince George, saying simply "Woman has baby."
Somewhere in the British Isles.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on September 09, 2022, 01:15:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2022, 12:15:40 PM
I don't know which country it's from, but I assume that is the case. I just found the headline amusing. It reminded me of one of the British tabloids that ran a headline, when the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to Prince George, saying simply "Woman has baby."
Somewhere in the British Isles.
It was the
Private Eye (https://www.private-eye.co.uk/), published in London.
Quote from: 1 on September 09, 2022, 12:46:48 PM
Here are the countries (or country subdivisions, for those with their own currency) where a newspaper could reasonably cost $23:
Nicaragua: US$0.64
Taiwan: US$0.75
Suriname: US$0.87
Mexico: US$1.15
Solomon Islands: US$2.81
Macau: US$2.85
Hong Kong: US$2.93
Brazil: US$4.43
Also note that Thursday was the 8th, not the 7th. I'm leaning toward entirely fake.
Wait, was there really a question on whether or not a newspaper called "The Daily Stoopid" was real or not? :rolleyes:
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on September 09, 2022, 01:37:22 PM
Wait, was there really a question on whether or not a newspaper called "The Daily Stoopid" was real or not? :rolleyes:
Stephan Dumas and 1995hoo both thought it was real.
Quote from: 1 on September 09, 2022, 01:40:46 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on September 09, 2022, 01:37:22 PM
Wait, was there really a question on whether or not a newspaper called "The Daily Stoopid" was real or not? :rolleyes:
Stephan Dumas and 1995hoo both thought it was real.
Since when did I say I thought it was real? That's your misinterpretation. I thought it was funny. (I suppose the headline is arguably true, of course.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2022, 01:51:26 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 09, 2022, 01:40:46 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on September 09, 2022, 01:37:22 PM
Wait, was there really a question on whether or not a newspaper called "The Daily Stoopid" was real or not? :rolleyes:
Stephan Dumas and 1995hoo both thought it was real.
Since when did I say I thought it was real? That's your misinterpretation. I thought it was funny. (I suppose the headline is arguably true, of course.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2022, 12:15:40 PM
I don't know which country it's from
This implies it's an actual newspaper that's being sold, even if it is a parody (which was obvious from the beginning).
When I was mentioning real vs. fake, I meant actual parody newspaper vs. just an image.
Quote from: 1 on September 09, 2022, 01:52:53 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2022, 01:51:26 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 09, 2022, 01:40:46 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on September 09, 2022, 01:37:22 PM
Wait, was there really a question on whether or not a newspaper called "The Daily Stoopid" was real or not? :rolleyes:
Stephan Dumas and 1995hoo both thought it was real.
Since when did I say I thought it was real? That's your misinterpretation. I thought it was funny. (I suppose the headline is arguably true, of course.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2022, 12:15:40 PM
I don't know which country it's from
This implies it's an actual newspaper that's being sold, even if it is a parody (which was obvious from the beginning).
When I was mentioning real vs. fake, I meant actual parody newspaper vs. just an image.
It doesn't imply that at all. Read the post immediately prior to mine: "Is the Daily Stoopid is the British counterpart of the satiric news sites like The Onion and the Babylon Bee?" I replied, "I don't know which country it's from ...." In other words, it's a satiric website from someplace and I don't know where.
I didn't quote the post before mine because I didn't feel it was necessary to do so. I suppose I should have thought about the fact that you have to smack some forum members over the head because they don't seem to understand nuance.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2022, 01:58:44 PM
I suppose I should have thought about the fact that you have to smack some forum members over the head because they don't seem to understand nuance.
:clap: :clap:
Quote from: 1 on September 09, 2022, 01:52:53 PM
When I was mentioning real vs. fake, I meant actual parody newspaper vs. just an image.
It's very, very clearly not an actual parody newspaper (and instead very clearly an image). Also...
Quote from: 1 on September 09, 2022, 12:46:48 PM
Here are the countries (or country subdivisions, for those with their own currency) where a newspaper could reasonably cost $23:
The date format is North American.
Hey, if a publication called "The Onion" is real, then why should we assume a publication called the "Daily Stoopid" weren't real?
Quote from: bulldog1979 on September 09, 2022, 12:50:11 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on September 09, 2022, 11:19:24 AM
Another thought to ponder: we will never see another queen of England in our lifetime. The next 3 in line for the crown...Charles, William, and William's first born... will be kings. That time period may cover the lives of most of our grandchildren.
As dramatized in The Crown, Winston Churchill addressed the nation in February 1952 on the passing of The King and the accession of HM The Queen and said:
"I, whose youth was passed in the august, unchallenged, and tranquil glories of the Victorian era, may well feel a thrill in invoking once more the prayer and the anthem: 'God Save the Queen!'"
At that time, it had been almost 51 years since the passing of Queen Victoria, so the anthem had been "God Save the King" for a half century. It maybe that long or longer before we have a queen regnant again for the anthem to switch again.
Diving into some hypotheticals, slash open question to anyone who understands the succession lines better than myself:
Should Prince George, at some point in the future, have a daughter as his eldest child, that would most likely be the earliest next Queen, and from what I understand she would not be displaced in line should Prince George have a son after that. Related to that, was there a change at some point that resulted in the eldest child, and not just the eldest son, being the heir apparent? I note that Elizabeth II was George VI's heir presumptive (rather than heir apparent) and that Anne is below Andrew & Edward in line, but conversely in the newest generation Charlotte is ahead of Louis.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on September 09, 2022, 02:13:56 PMShould Prince George, at some point in the future, have a daughter as his eldest child, that would most likely be the earliest next Queen, and from what I understand she would not be displaced in line should Prince George have a son after that. Related to that, was there a change at some point that resulted in the eldest child, and not just the eldest son, being the heir apparent? I note that Elizabeth II was George VI's heir presumptive (rather than heir apparent) and that Anne is below Andrew & Edward in line, but conversely in the newest generation Charlotte is ahead of Louis.
There was a change in law sometime after 2000 (I forget the exact year and caption of the statute) that removed male preference and also the ban on marrying Catholics.
Barring accidents or untimely deaths due to cancer and so on, I think it may well be over a century before anyone else ascends to the throne in his or her twenties, as Elizabeth did. The sheer length of her reign means that not only Charles', but also William's and George's, will be short.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on September 09, 2022, 02:13:56 PM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on September 09, 2022, 12:50:11 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on September 09, 2022, 11:19:24 AM
Another thought to ponder: we will never see another queen of England in our lifetime. The next 3 in line for the crown...Charles, William, and William's first born... will be kings. That time period may cover the lives of most of our grandchildren.
As dramatized in The Crown, Winston Churchill addressed the nation in February 1952 on the passing of The King and the accession of HM The Queen and said:
"I, whose youth was passed in the august, unchallenged, and tranquil glories of the Victorian era, may well feel a thrill in invoking once more the prayer and the anthem: 'God Save the Queen!'"
At that time, it had been almost 51 years since the passing of Queen Victoria, so the anthem had been "God Save the King" for a half century. It maybe that long or longer before we have a queen regnant again for the anthem to switch again.
Diving into some hypotheticals, slash open question to anyone who understands the succession lines better than myself:
Should Prince George, at some point in the future, have a daughter as his eldest child, that would most likely be the earliest next Queen, and from what I understand she would not be displaced in line should Prince George have a son after that. Related to that, was there a change at some point that resulted in the eldest child, and not just the eldest son, being the heir apparent? I note that Elizabeth II was George VI's heir presumptive (rather than heir apparent) and that Anne is below Andrew & Edward in line, but conversely in the newest generation Charlotte is ahead of Louis.
Male-preference primogeniture ended in 2011 as to anyone born after the change took effect.
Edited to add: As a practical matter, had they made it retroactive it would have turned out not to have made a difference at the present time.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2022, 02:26:12 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on September 09, 2022, 02:13:56 PM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on September 09, 2022, 12:50:11 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on September 09, 2022, 11:19:24 AM
Another thought to ponder: we will never see another queen of England in our lifetime. The next 3 in line for the crown...Charles, William, and William's first born... will be kings. That time period may cover the lives of most of our grandchildren.
As dramatized in The Crown, Winston Churchill addressed the nation in February 1952 on the passing of The King and the accession of HM The Queen and said:
"I, whose youth was passed in the august, unchallenged, and tranquil glories of the Victorian era, may well feel a thrill in invoking once more the prayer and the anthem: 'God Save the Queen!'"
At that time, it had been almost 51 years since the passing of Queen Victoria, so the anthem had been "God Save the King" for a half century. It maybe that long or longer before we have a queen regnant again for the anthem to switch again.
Diving into some hypotheticals, slash open question to anyone who understands the succession lines better than myself:
Should Prince George, at some point in the future, have a daughter as his eldest child, that would most likely be the earliest next Queen, and from what I understand she would not be displaced in line should Prince George have a son after that. Related to that, was there a change at some point that resulted in the eldest child, and not just the eldest son, being the heir apparent? I note that Elizabeth II was George VI's heir presumptive (rather than heir apparent) and that Anne is below Andrew & Edward in line, but conversely in the newest generation Charlotte is ahead of Louis.
Male-preference primogeniture ended in 2011 as to anyone born after the change took effect.
Edited to add: As a practical matter, had they made it retroactive it would have turned out not to have made a difference at the present time.
Second in line of succession Prince George is 9, so barring some sort of tragedy, it will be 60+ years until the next possibility of having a queen, and even then it would require George's firstborn to be a girl or for George to be childless, passing the throne to his sister.
Prevailing opinion is that the monarchy will go away by then, and thus we may have heard "God Save the Queen" for the very last time ever.
One item of note is that in the King's first public remarks, he named William as Prince of Wales, which is a created and not inherited title. The current king was not created Prince of Wales until over six years after becoming heir to the throne, though he was only 3 years old when he became heir so there is good reason not to follow that precedent.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 09, 2022, 02:24:35 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on September 09, 2022, 02:13:56 PMShould Prince George, at some point in the future, have a daughter as his eldest child, that would most likely be the earliest next Queen, and from what I understand she would not be displaced in line should Prince George have a son after that. Related to that, was there a change at some point that resulted in the eldest child, and not just the eldest son, being the heir apparent? I note that Elizabeth II was George VI's heir presumptive (rather than heir apparent) and that Anne is below Andrew & Edward in line, but conversely in the newest generation Charlotte is ahead of Louis.
There was a change in law sometime after 2000 (I forget the exact year and caption of the statute) that removed male preference and also the ban on marrying Catholics.
Yep, the Perth Agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth_Agreement), enacted 2011-2015. (It took four years because it had to be separately enacted by seven Commonwealth realms, plus every Australian state, so that they'd continue to all have the same monarch.)
Of course, it remains theoretically possible that Prince George will die young, in which case his younger sister Princess Charlotte would take his place in the line of succession.
Quote from: kphoger on September 09, 2022, 02:11:50 PM
Hey, if a publication called "The Onion" is real, then why should we assume a publication called the "Daily Stoopid" weren't real?
Define "real". Both the Onion and Daily Stoopid are online "publications".
Quote from: jakeroot on September 09, 2022, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 09, 2022, 02:11:50 PM
Hey, if a publication called "The Onion" is real, then why should we assume a publication called the "Daily Stoopid" weren't real?
Define "real". Both the Onion and Daily Stoopid are online "publications".
Is the
Onion not published in actual print anymore?
Does the
Daily Stoopid even exist other than memes posted on Twitter? I don't think there are any "stories" to go along with them.
(Humorous tidbit: The
Daily Stoopid just re-tweeted this from Stephen King: "Fun fact: Ants don't catch Covid because they have these teeny little anty bodies.")
Quote from: kphoger on September 09, 2022, 04:20:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 09, 2022, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 09, 2022, 02:11:50 PM
Hey, if a publication called "The Onion" is real, then why should we assume a publication called the "Daily Stoopid" weren't real?
Define "real". Both the Onion and Daily Stoopid are online "publications".
Is the Onion not published in actual print anymore?
Does the Daily Stoopid even exist other than memes posted on Twitter? I don't think there are any "stories" to go along with them.
(Humorous tidbit: The Daily Stoopid just re-tweeted this from Stephen King: "Fun fact: Ants don't catch Covid because they have these teeny little anty bodies.")
The Onion
ceased physical printing in 2013 (https://slate.com/technology/2013/09/changes-at-the-onion-americas-finest-news-source-adjusts-to-internet-speed.html).
The Onion is certainly the more "legit" of the two. I'm just pointing out that they're both a functioning satirical news "outlet".
Quote from: Bruce on September 09, 2022, 10:27:58 AM
The Premier League has cancelled this weekend's matches and potentially next weekend's. Pretty dumb decision given the fixture congestion already created by the winter World Cup.
I'm annoyed by this. I'm down in Central America and was looking forward to watching the Tottenham/Man City match at a local bar.
If it was English, it would be in £ and not $.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2022, 10:48:03 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 09, 2022, 10:27:58 AM
The Premier League has cancelled this weekend's matches and potentially next weekend's. Pretty dumb decision given the fixture congestion already created by the winter World Cup.
No doubt their decision is based in no small part on Pete Rozelle's oft-stated comment that his biggest regret as NFL Commissioner as not cancelling games the weekend after President Kennedy was shot. Crowds were not the least bit into the games and it was evidently an utterly awkward experience all the way around. Even recognizing that an assassination is fundamentally different from, and far more shocking than, the death of a 96-year-old monarch, it's still fair to recognize that the Queen was a towering figure of a sort Kennedy was not (other than in the mythology that built up after his death). They're just soccer games. It's not that hard to tweak the schedule later to fit them in somewhere, much as the NFL did when it cancelled all games the weekend after 9-11.
It's probably also important to note that nearly all the posters on this board are naturally detached from the situation by not living in the UK, so the reason for the postponements carry little personal interest beyond "well that sucks, no soccer on TV this weekend" or analyzing how it messes up the EPL table. That's not meant to be a criticism of Bruce or jayhawk, just an observation, because I would be privately annoyed too if I was a soccer fan.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 09, 2022, 05:32:08 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2022, 10:48:03 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 09, 2022, 10:27:58 AM
The Premier League has cancelled this weekend's matches and potentially next weekend's. Pretty dumb decision given the fixture congestion already created by the winter World Cup.
No doubt their decision is based in no small part on Pete Rozelle's oft-stated comment that his biggest regret as NFL Commissioner as not cancelling games the weekend after President Kennedy was shot. Crowds were not the least bit into the games and it was evidently an utterly awkward experience all the way around. Even recognizing that an assassination is fundamentally different from, and far more shocking than, the death of a 96-year-old monarch, it's still fair to recognize that the Queen was a towering figure of a sort Kennedy was not (other than in the mythology that built up after his death). They're just soccer games. It's not that hard to tweak the schedule later to fit them in somewhere, much as the NFL did when it cancelled all games the weekend after 9-11.
It's probably also important to note that nearly all the posters on this board are naturally detached from the situation by not living in the UK, so the reason for the postponements carry little personal interest beyond "well that sucks, no soccer on TV this weekend" or analyzing how it messes up the EPL table. That's not meant to be a criticism of Bruce or jayhawk, just an observation, because I would be privately annoyed too if I was a soccer fan.
I mean, yeah, but the NBA didn't cancel games when Kobe died. I get that it's not 100% analogous, but Kobe at least had something to do with the NBA whereas QE2 didn't reeaallly have anything to do with the EPL.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 09, 2022, 04:45:21 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 09, 2022, 10:27:58 AM
The Premier League has cancelled this weekend's matches and potentially next weekend's. Pretty dumb decision given the fixture congestion already created by the winter World Cup.
I'm annoyed by this. I'm down in Central America and was looking forward to watching the Tottenham/Man City match at a local bar.
As a Chelsea fan I 100% support postponing matches for several weeks.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on September 09, 2022, 05:41:21 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on September 09, 2022, 04:45:21 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 09, 2022, 10:27:58 AM
The Premier League has cancelled this weekend's matches and potentially next weekend's. Pretty dumb decision given the fixture congestion already created by the winter World Cup.
I'm annoyed by this. I'm down in Central America and was looking forward to watching the Tottenham/Man City match at a local bar.
As a Chelsea fan I 100% support postponing matches for several weeks.
Because they can't score just like I said in the other thread?? :D :D :D
Also, for the record, this is a sentiment posted on Sports Illustrated (https://www.si.com/soccer/2022/09/09/premier-league-decision-postpone-matches-queen-elizabeth-death) which fairly accurately sums up my views on why cancelling was wrong (outside of my own bummer-ment).
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2022, 10:48:03 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 09, 2022, 10:27:58 AM
The Premier League has cancelled this weekend's matches and potentially next weekend's. Pretty dumb decision given the fixture congestion already created by the winter World Cup.
No doubt their decision is based in no small part on Pete Rozelle's oft-stated comment that his biggest regret as NFL Commissioner as not cancelling games the weekend after President Kennedy was shot. Crowds were not the least bit into the games and it was evidently an utterly awkward experience all the way around. Even recognizing that an assassination is fundamentally different from, and far more shocking than, the death of a 96-year-old monarch, it's still fair to recognize that the Queen was a towering figure of a sort Kennedy was not (other than in the mythology that built up after his death). They're just soccer games. It's not that hard to tweak the schedule later to fit them in somewhere, much as the NFL did when it cancelled all games the weekend after 9-11.
Except the NFL didn't have to schedule around other concurrent competitions that need teams and players. UEFA isn't cancelling Champions League fixtures and certainly won't delay them for the sake of an English club who has to play league matches after potentially making it to the final. And the players still need to be released to national teams for the international windows, so if the league overruns into them that's another headache.
Also, I really don't think the FA/PL were thinking about an obscure bit of American sports history when this decision was made. They are following the recommended protocols put out by the Royal Family, though ignoring their own history: when King George VI died in 1952, fixtures went on as scheduled but with a minute of silence and the national anthem (source: FFT (https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/what-happened-to-football-in-the-uk-after-king-george-vi-died)).
Here is the feed for King Charles taking the crown
Watching the accession ceremony (never heard of it before, either) in which Charles formally became king, I was struck by the odd combination of once in a lifetime spectacle and mundane administration.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 09, 2022, 08:29:08 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 08, 2022, 08:11:04 PMCanada announced awhile back that the mint will change their coins more or less as soon as they get new dies approved by the Crown, but the Queen will remain on the $20 bill until it next comes up for redesign. I'm going to guess that's a couple of years out, after they finish working on the design of the new $5.
I'm not sure if there's a requirement that the Sovereign be on the $20, and I suppose there's a chance they might choose to become a republic.
I just read that there's no law in Canada requiring the Monarch be on Canadian coins and currency. Charles III will probably appear on the coins because of tradition, but the new C$20 bill may go with a non-royal, as concerns of diversity/equity make "an old white man" a less-than-desirable choice for the new bill.
For many years HRH The Queen was NOT on many Canadian banknotes. ie, Wifred Mcdonald as on some in the late 20th century. King Charles III will be on new Canadian coins when the Royal Canadian Mint (Winnipeg, MB) receives dies that have been approved by the Royal Family.
Mike
Watching the procession transporting Her Majesty's coffin from Balmoral to Edinburgh. Crowds in every town and village.
(Nice video of the Scottish road network also.)
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on September 10, 2022, 10:22:54 AM
the accession ceremony (never heard of it before, either)
Not surprising. The last one was in 1952, and that one wasn't even televised. I'm not even sure it was broadcast on the radio.
One thing that I find very interesting is that the media–both in the UK and in the US–are portraying the Queen's death as an occasion for widespread mourning, that everyone is universally distraught, the country is basically shut down, etc. Reports on the ground on social media, however, show that it's mostly business as usual; most people are already over it, if they were even grief-stricken at all. I saw a video where some official announced the new king, and the response was a loud chorus of boos that was quickly drowned out with trumpet fanfare.
Of course, the BBC is owned by the British government, so they have a vested interest in showing the monarchy in a positive light, and Sky is owned by a wealthy businessman who is happy enough with the status quo. (No idea who's responsible for Channel 4.) I've seen it summed up as the British media showing the news from the perspective of the upper class; if the proles have a different opinion on the matter it simply goes unheard. The US media doesn't have an excuse for covering it in the same way, other than it's not their clowns/not their circus, so it's easiest to just copy the tenor the BBC is taking.
Still, though, goes to show you that the easiest form of media bias to hide is in what's not reported, rather than what is.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 12, 2022, 07:23:15 PM
One thing that I find very interesting is that the media–both in the UK and in the US–are portraying the Queen's death as an occasion for widespread mourning, that everyone is universally distraught, the country is basically shut down, etc. Reports on the ground on social media, however, show that it's mostly business as usual; most people are already over it, if they were even grief-stricken at all. I saw a video where some official announced the new king, and the response was a loud chorus of boos that was quickly drowned out with trumpet fanfare.
Of course, the BBC is owned by the British government, so they have a vested interest in showing the monarchy in a positive light, and Sky is owned by a wealthy businessman who is happy enough with the status quo. (No idea who's responsible for Channel 4.) I've seen it summed up as the British media showing the news from the perspective of the upper class; if the proles have a different opinion on the matter it simply goes unheard. The US media doesn't have an excuse for covering it in the same way, other than it's not their clowns/not their circus, so it's easiest to just copy the tenor the BBC is taking.
Still, though, goes to show you that the easiest form of media bias to hide is in what's not reported, rather than what is.
What exactly are we expecting, DPRK-style mourning? Of course people are going about their business. It's not a fascist monarchy.
Reminds me of this clip....
https://youtu.be/5Ce_954P20I
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 12, 2022, 07:23:15 PM
Of course, the BBC is owned by the British government, so they have a vested interest in showing the monarchy in a positive light, and Sky is owned by a wealthy businessman who is happy enough with the status quo.
Nitpick: Sky UK was brought out by Comcast/ NBCU a few years ago...
Quote(No idea who's responsible for Channel 4.)
Channel 4 is owned by HM government but run as a quasi-commercial entity, unlike the BBC.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 12, 2022, 08:45:17 PM
What exactly are we expecting, DPRK-style mourning? Of course people are going about their business. It's not a fascist monarchy.
They've arrested people for protesting too close to the funeral procession, so...
The Guardian is reporting that people have been standing in line for five to seven hours to file past the Queen's coffin in St. Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh, so there are definitely mourners aplenty.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 13, 2022, 03:37:54 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 12, 2022, 08:45:17 PM
What exactly are we expecting, DPRK-style mourning? Of course people are going about their business. It's not a fascist monarchy.
They've arrested people for protesting too close to the funeral procession, so...
I assume that was in the name of "breach of the King's peace". Not exactly a new law.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 12, 2022, 07:23:15 PM
One thing that I find very interesting is that the media–both in the UK and in the US–are portraying the Queen's death as an occasion for widespread mourning, that everyone is universally distraught, the country is basically shut down, etc. Reports on the ground on social media, however, show that it's mostly business as usual; most people are already over it, if they were even grief-stricken at all.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 13, 2022, 04:58:33 AM
The Guardian is reporting that people have been standing in line for five to seven hours to file past the Queen's coffin in St. Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh, so there are definitely mourners aplenty.
Are we equivocating on the definition of "mourn", though? Attending a funeral service, wake, or burial isn't the same thing as being distraught or grief-stricken. Even when a personal friend dies, a person might take off a half-day from work to attend the funeral but otherwise go on with "business as usual", and any grieving or shock would likely wear off within a short period of time–unless that friend had been particularly close.
But I agree with Scott, that the media have portrayed people as being dumbfounded, shocked, grief-stricken, unable to comprehend the loss of their queen. I remember hearing a radio interview with a Scottish serviceman who, upon hearing of the Queen's death, immediately left town and traveled across the country in a whirlwind of emotion–with no indication by the media outlet that his story was anything but an exemplar of the populace at large.
For what it's worth, I imagine there would be more actual grief and disbelief if the Queen had died unexpectedly at age 47. But there's a lot less shock to a 98-year-old passing away.
Quote from: kphoger on September 13, 2022, 01:40:09 PMAre we equivocating on the definition of "mourn", though? Attending a funeral service, wake, or burial isn't the same thing as being distraught or grief-stricken. Even when a personal friend dies, a person might take off a half-day from work to attend the funeral but otherwise go on with "business as usual", and any grieving or shock would likely wear off within a short period of time–unless that friend had been particularly close.
I think we are also equivocating on
media. I can't speak for the sources Scott is referring to, but I've been following the news of Queen Elizabeth's death primarily through the
Guardian, which has long been the most republican of British broadsheet newspapers, and has run multiple pieces on, e.g., how republican advocacy groups are handling Elizabeth's death and Charles' accession to the throne (basically keeping their powder dry until his presumed latent unpopularity surfaces after a honeymoon period), or how arresting anti-monarchy protesters does not square with the right to protest. Even the Washington
Post has noted it was business as usual a day or so after the Queen's passing, partly because businesses can't afford to leave money on the table with a cost-of-living crisis on. I don't watch the news on TV, don't follow the red-tops, and don't use any news feeds, so those are dimensions of the coverage I know I'm not getting.
Quote from: kphoger on September 13, 2022, 01:40:09 PM
Are we equivocating on the definition of "mourn", though? Attending a funeral service, wake, or burial isn't the same thing as being distraught or grief-stricken. Even when a personal friend dies, a person might take off a half-day from work to attend the funeral but otherwise go on with "business as usual", and any grieving or shock would likely wear off within a short period of time–unless that friend had been particularly close.
Well or a lot of people will go through the motions of attending the wake for a friend's parent or something out of a sense of obligation without actually otherwise experiencing any negative emotion about the matter.
I think that's the big thing here with the "national period of mourning". No, people aren't beside themselves. No, people aren't being forced under threat of getting thrown in the gulag to feign grief for the camera. But people still feel a sense of patriotic duty to acknowledge the situation somehow because the royal family serves as iconography central to the national identity of the British (and to a lesser degree, Canadians, Australians, etc.) much in the same way that the flag or bald eagles do for Americans.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 13, 2022, 11:54:13 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 13, 2022, 03:37:54 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 12, 2022, 08:45:17 PM
What exactly are we expecting, DPRK-style mourning? Of course people are going about their business. It's not a fascist monarchy.
They've arrested people for protesting too close to the funeral procession, so...
I assume that was in the name of "breach of the King's peace". Not exactly a new law.
That, and the Public Order Act. Either way, it's not exactly something that squares with the assertion that "it's not a fascist monarchy" in my mind.
If that happened in the US, the ACLU would have a plane packed with lawyers in the air in minutes, en route to file a First Amendment lawsuit.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 13, 2022, 06:19:00 PM
That, and the Public Order Act. Either way, it's not exactly something that squares with the assertion that "it's not a fascist monarchy" in my mind.
If that happened in the US, the ACLU would have a plane packed with lawyers in the air in minutes, en route to file a First Amendment lawsuit.
Yes, well, the US fought a literal war to overthrow this monarchy so things wouldn't be like that here. :sombrero:
Quote from: Duke87 on September 13, 2022, 07:42:03 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 13, 2022, 06:19:00 PM
That, and the Public Order Act. Either way, it's not exactly something that squares with the assertion that "it's not a fascist monarchy" in my mind.
If that happened in the US, the ACLU would have a plane packed with lawyers in the air in minutes, en route to file a First Amendment lawsuit.
Yes, well, the US fought a literal war to overthrow this monarchy so things wouldn't be like that here. :sombrero:
Yes, the Revolution and then the War of 1812 to preserve it. Since then the two countries have been the best of friends in both War and peace.
I have been off and on watching the proceedings as a curiosity.
Mike
Quote from: Duke87 on September 13, 2022, 06:17:13 PM
I think that's the big thing here with the "national period of mourning". No, people aren't beside themselves. No, people aren't being forced under threat of getting thrown in the gulag to feign grief for the camera. But people still feel a sense of patriotic duty to acknowledge the situation somehow because the royal family serves as iconography central to the national identity of the British (and to a lesser degree, Canadians, Australians, etc.) much in the same way that the flag or bald eagles do for Americans.
Yes, it's telling that the UK's national anthem is about the monarchy, while the USA's is about the flag.
Interestingly, there is at present only one high-quality recording of God Save the King with the correct lyrics - made by a French opera singer in 2017.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 13, 2022, 06:19:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 13, 2022, 11:54:13 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 13, 2022, 03:37:54 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 12, 2022, 08:45:17 PM
What exactly are we expecting, DPRK-style mourning? Of course people are going about their business. It's not a fascist monarchy.
They've arrested people for protesting too close to the funeral procession, so...
I assume that was in the name of "breach of the King's peace". Not exactly a new law.
That, and the Public Order Act. Either way, it's not exactly something that squares with the assertion that "it's not a fascist monarchy" in my mind.
If that happened in the US, the ACLU would have a plane packed with lawyers in the air in minutes, en route to file a First Amendment lawsuit.
The US has various laws against 'disturbing the peace' and 'disorderly conduct', but I wouldn't say that makes the USA a fascist authoritarian regime.
The BBC is streaming its funeral coverage on YouTube (no geoblocks):
https://youtu.be/V_gy9DFtw5U
Most local PBS stations are also simulcasting the Beeb's coverage, https://www.pbs.org/livestream/ .
I'm annoyed that PBS bumped part 2 of the latest Ken Burns doc on Monday night for this queen bullshit. Like seriously, a re-broadcast of that instead of one of your tent-pole content producers? Dumb move, PBS!
Quote from: Jeff Foxworthy
The president's on! He's on every channel! We're gonna miss Flipper!!!
Quote from: triplemultiplex on September 20, 2022, 02:44:07 PM
I'm annoyed that PBS bumped part 2 of the latest Ken Burns doc on Monday night for this queen bullshit. Like seriously, a re-broadcast of that instead of one of your tent-pole content producers? Dumb move, PBS!
Something tells me even Ken Burns himself would place his documentary second to the death of QE2.
Covering it live? Yeah, maybe that's justifiable.
Bumping prime-time content to show a rerun of an event that was already broadcasted live? Dumb programming decision.
Doing that in 2022 when anyone who missed it live could just watch it online? Incredibly idiotic decision.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 21, 2022, 01:54:39 AM
Covering it live? Yeah, maybe that's justifiable.
Bumping prime-time content to show a rerun of an event that was already broadcasted live? Dumb programming decision.
Doing that in 2022 when anyone who missed it live could just watch it online? Incredibly idiotic decision.
You presume that everyone has Internet access and the capability to stream video content, let alone cable. Were my grandmother still alive, she'd have exactly two options: set an alarm clock to wake up quite early to watch the funeral live, or rely on a repeat broadcast. Remember that London and Windsor are 5 hours ahead of the US East Coast, so live coverage started here on my local station at 5:30 am EDT. The time difference gets even greater in other time zones, pushing it earlier and earlier.
This isn't really that much different than the coverage of the Olympics in terms of the broadcast logistics, except that the schedule of events for the Olympics is known years in advance, and we had just about 9 days notice for this once-in-a-lifetime event.
And there are people who don't have indoor plumbing yet either, yet society doesn't go out of its way to accommodate for those few.
It would be one thing if we lived in the country she was actually queen of. But we don't. Her death is a mere curiosity here. It doesn't justify prime time coverage.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 21, 2022, 06:50:43 AM
And there are people who don't have indoor plumbing yet either, yet society doesn't go out of its way to accommodate for those few.
I personally know multiple people right here in Wichita without internet access. I don't know anyone here without indoor plumbing.
For example, think about all the people in nursing homes who don't have a computer in their room, but who follow the news on TV.
What are the typical demographics of PBS viewers? I suspect, but don't know for certain, that their evening viewership tends to skew older than many other networks' average viewership, and I suspect that might be a significant factor in their programming decisions. (With that said, I know they have a streaming service, PBS Passport, that is available to people who donate more than a certain relatively minimal amount, I think $60 per year. My wife has PBS Passport access and watches it fairly heavily.)
My impression is that PBS heavily re-runs a lot of programming anyway.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 21, 2022, 09:30:32 AM
What are the typical demographics of PBS viewers? I suspect, but don't know for certain, that their evening viewership tends to skew older than many other networks' average viewership, and I suspect that might be a significant factor in their programming decisions. (With that said, I know they have a streaming service, PBS Passport, that is available to people who donate more than a certain relatively minimal amount, I think $60 per year. My wife has PBS Passport access and watches it fairly heavily.)
My impression is that PBS heavily re-runs a lot of programming anyway.
I think the particular problem was that evening PBS was due to air one of their most-anticipated original programs in a long time. Even people that don't normally watch PBS had made plans to watch. If the queen's funeral had been any other day, nobody would have cared if PBS reran it in prime time.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on September 21, 2022, 09:37:51 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 21, 2022, 09:30:32 AM
What are the typical demographics of PBS viewers? I suspect, but don't know for certain, that their evening viewership tends to skew older than many other networks' average viewership, and I suspect that might be a significant factor in their programming decisions. (With that said, I know they have a streaming service, PBS Passport, that is available to people who donate more than a certain relatively minimal amount, I think $60 per year. My wife has PBS Passport access and watches it fairly heavily.)
My impression is that PBS heavily re-runs a lot of programming anyway.
I think the particular problem was that evening PBS was due to air one of their most-anticipated original programs in a long time. Even people that don't normally watch PBS had made plans to watch. If the queen's funeral had been any other day, nobody would have cared if PBS reran it in prime time.
They ran the Ken Burns episode immediately after the funeral recap. They sent out notices to subscribers and/or Facebook followers that they were going to do that. They noted that members could watch it on Passport at their convenience. It's not like this was a sudden decision that screwed up the world.
BTW, my wife and I liked watching the evening 1-1/2 hour program instead of watching the coverage starting from early morning and lasting many hours.
The man himself announced the schedule change last Wednesday.
https://twitter.com/kenburns/status/1570060885292613632
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 21, 2022, 06:50:43 AM
It would be one thing if we lived in the country she was actually queen of. But we don't. Her death is a mere curiosity here. It doesn't justify prime time coverage.
Okay ....
(A) the British Monarchy has been an obsession in this country for decades. Not being in the monarchy has nothing to do with our interest in it; the US is part of the Anglosphere. As well, plenty of other countries have covered her death extensively, many of whom are not British in any way.
(B) PBS thrives on British content. Zero people should be surprised that they would give prime time coverage to the death of QE2.
(https://c.tenor.com/rB1OlzMIERYAAAAM/southpark-i-thought-thiswas-america.gif)
PBS has like four over the air channels. Put the queen shit on one of those channels. I'm sure the guys on This Old House or the quilting lady will understand. Everybody is happy then: the people desperate for quality documentary programming in an era of dogshit about UFO's and ghosts, and the people who fetishize some other country's corrupt, anachronistic figurehead system.
If PBS expected their viewership for the documentary to be less than for the funeral replay . . . then give the people what they want.
It's common for live broadcast content that takes place at inconvenient times to be repeated in prime time when it's easier for people to watch it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 21, 2022, 06:50:43 AM
It would be one thing if we lived in the country she was actually queen of. But we don't. Her death is a mere curiosity here. It doesn't justify prime time coverage.
The point of the American Revolution was not to ensure we would never care about the UK again; it was to ensure we would have the freedom to choose whether to do so.
Quote from: kphoger on September 21, 2022, 01:06:40 PM
If PBS expected their viewership for the documentary to be less than for the funeral replay . . . then give the people what they want.
100%
A friend last night though provided a good take on the passing of HM The Queen. Many people followed the events for reasons similar to following the election of a new pope. The events may not have much personal impact, as many of us are not citizens of a Commonwealth realm or Catholic, but they are a window into the traditions of history that don't happen every day.
While we elect and inaugurate a president every four years, a Demise of the Crown is much less infrequent. From the formation of the United States onward, this is only the ninth, and the first in the living memory of most of our population. Yes, much of that is due to the longevity of two queens who collectively reigned for over 164 years, but it is still an unpredictable and infrequent occurrence.
I have more personal reasons, which I'll share at some later time, but for me, it was a matter of respect for a very remarkable person to follow the events leading up to the funeral.
I'll be blunt. To me, it felt like the O.J. trial. Something that consumed the "front page" of all news outlets that seemed to make no sense the amount of attention that it was getting. Hell, part of the U.S. got crushed by a hurricane and the entire territory was without power and no one gave a shit.
All I can think about during this whole thing:
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/a5/0c/32/a50c32ca1fe8a1dd48e2edcea9264ba0--my-birthday-bucket-lists.jpg)
Quote from: elsmere241 on September 14, 2022, 02:51:15 PMYes, it's telling that the UK's national anthem is about the monarchy, while the USA's is about the flag.
And now the directed allegiance will match too:
https://punchng.com/millions-to-swear-allegiance-to-king-charles-in-historic-coronation/
QuoteDuring the homage, 150 million people across the UK and Commonwealth will be called upon to say: "˜I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.' After a fanfare, the public will add: "˜God save King Charles. Long live King Charles. May the King live for ever.'
Quote from: elsmere241 on May 04, 2023, 02:05:34 PM
Quote from: elsmere241 on September 14, 2022, 02:51:15 PMYes, it's telling that the UK's national anthem is about the monarchy, while the USA's is about the flag.
And now the directed allegiance will match too:
https://punchng.com/millions-to-swear-allegiance-to-king-charles-in-historic-coronation/
QuoteDuring the homage, 150 million people across the UK and Commonwealth will be called upon to say: "˜I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.' After a fanfare, the public will add: "˜God save King Charles. Long live King Charles. May the King live for ever.'
And sing "God Save the King".
:nod:
Mike
All I gotta say about today's royal event is "ugh".
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 06, 2023, 11:47:12 AMAll I gotta say about today's royal event is "ugh".
In the words of John Crace, the
Guardian's parliamentary sketch writer: "Strong bladders required." (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/06/strong-bladders-required-for-interminable-faffing-of-king-charles-coronation)
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 06, 2023, 12:18:06 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 06, 2023, 11:47:12 AMAll I gotta say about today's royal event is "ugh".
In the words of John Crace, the Guardian's parliamentary sketch writer: "Strong bladders required." (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/06/strong-bladders-required-for-interminable-faffing-of-king-charles-coronation)
The need for a strong bladder is the least of my problems here.
I'm certain we'll be in the minority, but my wife (Aussie) and I (dual Aussie-US) got up at 2:30am U.S. Pacific time and watched it live. We found it interesting and liked the historical aspects.
Today the Guardian reports (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/18/events-marking-queen-elizabeths-death-cost-the-public-161m-figures-show) that public bodies in Britain incurred expenses aggregating to £161.7 million in connection with the Queen's death.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 18, 2023, 01:07:22 PM
Today the Guardian reports (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/18/events-marking-queen-elizabeths-death-cost-the-public-161m-figures-show) that public bodies in Britain incurred expenses aggregating to £161.7 million in connection with the Queen's death.
That's about $200m USD.