13 thoughts on “Queen Elizabeth II”

  1. Story is that when her father died, she learned of the news while at the Treetops Resort in Kenya. Reportedly her sister Margaret said, “Poor You!

  2. She was at Treetops, when she got the news about her father – but IIRC, the ‘Poor you!’ was what Pr. Margaret said years before when they both were children, around the time of the abdication. It was the first time that someone had sat down and explained to them what the abdication meant – that their father would have to be king, and that Elizabeth as the oldest child would have to be queen after him.
    It was an unforced reaction by a small child, which is why it has stuck with me. Poor her – her father was a younger son, he and his family could have lived quite contentedly, several removes down the line of sucession. But instead…
    Being born into that situation must be like being instantly comissioned into a very high rank in the military: lots of responsibility, required duties, and always ‘on’. I think it must come close to wrecking any but those who have a very strong character. To be always so self-controlled, and to seem always pleasant and gracious, never putting a foot wrong under any circumstances. To have borne up under that responsibility for so long.
    Ah, well… long live the Queen.

  3. Sgt – did you see The King’s Speech?

    It was a wonderful movie and I had an “epiphany” that when we saw his 2 young daughters I had a V8 moment –

    Whenever it was said Margaret seemed wise beyond her years – and to die an alcoholic.

    If anyone deserved to become an alcoholic it was Elizabeth.

    But forever it is worth I think Elizabeth has done a fantastic job in keeping the monarchy “relevant” in this day and age.

    Can’t say Charles would keep it up but I have hopes for William.

  4. Joseph – it would be an interesting – and of course futile – discussion to wonder if it had been anyone but King George III would we have rebelled?

  5. I can’t stand Charles and would be grateful, as would many others, if he removed himself from the line of succession.

    The title of the Monarch, as head of the Church of England (Anglican Church to you) is Defender of The Faith. Charles, ever ready to dress up in Arab attire, wishes to change this ancient title to Defender of Faith. So inclusive for the muslims doncha know. He is an interfering fool.

  6. Interfering Fool is the Key Point, Verity. Over the centuries there have been good monarchs and bad ones. And I guess “our” King, George III, had dementia.

    Those revolutionary times were interesting – only about an active 3rd of the population wanted separation from the Crown; a third supported it, and the other third didn’t care one way of the other.

    The Tories in this country, after the revolution – many fled to Canada or West – what is now West Virginia but was western Virginia – wilderness at the time. My family had some of these. I have some old Virginia ancestors so undoubtedly had some fighting for separation, too.

    As to Charles I think if he were King the Monarchy would become a laughingstock –

    Dumping Diana for Camilla – I don’t get that either. She married into an asylum I think.

    Elizabeth, William, Harry seem the only “normal” ones.

    BTW Harry was over here (may still be here) training to fly an Apache helicopter.

    He recently rented a Harley and rode to Las Vegas.

    No standoffish Royal, he.

  7. The faith referred to in “Defender of The Faith” is the Roman Catholic faith espoused by Henry VIII before he decided he’d prefer a sort of London Catholic faith instead.

  8. Bill Brandt – He didn’t “dump Diana for Camilla”. It was always Camilla. She hung around and hung around and hung around for years … his “official”, so to speak, girlfriend … but he never made a move to marry her. Eventually, life ticking away as is its wont, she decided to marry Col Parker Bowles, so she could be a wife and, eventually, a mother. However, after a few years, Charles and Camilla resumed their friendship, but Charles needed an heir, Camilla was taken and Diana was very young and naive, came from the right aristocratic bloodline and was totally infatuated.

    She didn’t know it, being only 19 or whatever she was at the time, and from a sheltered environment, but it didn’t take Charles long to resume his relationship with Camilla and Diana, little by painful little, got the picture. Which is why she started taking up with playboys.

    Once Charles had his “heir and a spare”, he didn’t seem to care what she did. When she was killed in the car crash in Paris, it didn’t take him long to marry Camilla who, by then, was divorced.

    Most people in Britain don’t seem to like him (not that I’ve done a survey or anything …) for the appalling way he treated the naive 19 year old Diana, and other failings, like wanting become Defender of Faith and other peculiarities.

  9. @Bill Brandt: Tories from Virgina on south, fleeing the Revolution also headed out to the Bahamas. The Abacos were largely populated by Tories and their descendents remain–at least on the smaller islands–the dominant group.

  10. @Verity – I think from the beginning of their marriage Charles started his affairs with Camilla. And I thing Camilla bragged to Charles that her ancestors – at least 1 – for filled the same function for some distant English king. And I suppose in years past the woman married to the king just remained publicly stoic.

    The Royals do seem to have romantic lives that seem alien to most of us.

    Andrew and Fergie live in the same house, years after their divorce. Fergie did seem like a “high maintenance woman” and the last straw had to be her selling influence to Andrew (long after their divorce).

    But they seem to have an understanding.

    @John – the fate of the Tories would be an interesting book. Other than being “tarred and feathered” (who thought that one up?) they really didn’t have to fear for anything worse.

    I think some went back to England, too.

    Didn’t know the Bahamas angle but that would make sense.

  11. Bill Brandt … “@Verity – I think from the beginning of their marriage Charles started his affairs with Camilla. And I thing Camilla bragged to Charles that her ancestors – at least 1 – for filled the same function for some distant English king. And I suppose in years past the woman married to the king just remained publicly stoic.”

    His “affairs with Camilla”? How does that work, then?

    If you had read my post, you would have noted that Camilla and Charles had been an item for years. Years and years. They were a couple. Accepted as such by the media.

    Charles never committed to her, though and, as her life was slipping away over the years, she stopped hanging around polo matches and waiting at the airport for him to come home from official trips overseas and she married Col Parker-Bowles. It is essential that you understand the sequence.

  12. Verity – as I understood it when he was courting Diana he stopped seeing Camilla – and once he was married started seeing her again, almost right after the wedding day.

    That is the sequence I understand.

    That’s how it worked.

Comments are closed.