18,777 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 9, 2022 10:17:29 GMT
of the many things going through my emotional head today, the thought crossed it of who will be re-embroidering the mammoth ROH curtain? stamps, bank notes. Full marks to Huw Edwards to simply keeping going for so long yesterday. Post boxes have had the E 👑 R insignia emblazoned on them for 70 years, they will all have to be changed. Not only bank notes but all of our coins, she is omnipresent throughout our society and culture. It’s a huge change and could take years.
|
|
7,492 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Sept 9, 2022 10:28:35 GMT
Apparently the internet made the Les Mis twitter account delete their condolences post, but Hamilton didn't - I always thought they had the same social media team, especially because it was the same text. Why did they have to delete it?
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Sept 9, 2022 10:44:06 GMT
I don't think they change postboxes do they? My local one is an Edward VII one. I think it's just that any new ones will have Charles on.
One of the organisations I'm involved with has had the Queen as patron since she was Princess Elizabeth. It's a very long time. I do hope we have another royal patron in the future, but it feels odd to even think about it being somebody else.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 9, 2022 10:56:31 GMT
No, they don’t replace post boxes.
|
|
6,285 posts
|
Post by Jon on Sept 9, 2022 10:57:30 GMT
Things like curtains, coins, notes will take a while to replace as it's very expensive.
|
|
861 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Sept 9, 2022 11:10:18 GMT
Coins and notes will be replaced when they're no longer suitable for use, which could be years now that they're plastic, and decades for coins unless we change currency for some reason. Even after decimalisation two shilling George VI coins could be used as a 10p bit for quite some time, (or at least to make calls from a phone box...in prehistoric times).
|
|
|
Post by digne on Sept 9, 2022 11:43:44 GMT
Apparently the internet made the Les Mis twitter account delete their condolences post, but Hamilton didn't - I always thought they had the same social media team, especially because it was the same text. Why did they have to delete it? Fans furious that the social media team doesn't understand what they believe is the point of the show.
|
|
6,285 posts
|
Post by Jon on Sept 9, 2022 11:45:33 GMT
Coins and notes will be replaced when they're no longer suitable for use, which could be years now that they're plastic, and decades for coins unless we change currency for some reason. Even after decimalisation two shilling George VI coins could be used as a 10p bit for quite some time, (or at least to make calls from a phone box...in prehistoric times). The banknotes have only just finished their rollout of the polymer series so yes it could be at least a decade before they're changed, maybe longer.
|
|
|
Post by sph on Sept 9, 2022 13:39:20 GMT
Apparently new banknotes are printed everyday though, so I imagine the image of Charles will start to appear in circulation sooner than we think.
|
|
2,955 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Sept 9, 2022 13:52:50 GMT
Why did they have to delete it? Fans furious that the social media team doesn't understand what they believe is the point of the show. A rebellion against an entirely different type of monarch and regime in another country nearly 200 years ago? I'm amazed the Les Mis team caved in to the sort of vile people who yesterday tweeted stuff like this to them (offensive comment behind spoiler brackets) I hope the queen rots in the fiery depths of hell. but it looks like they have.
|
|
36 posts
|
Post by greenice on Sept 9, 2022 14:45:50 GMT
Fans furious that the social media team doesn't understand what they believe is the point of the show. A rebellion against an entirely different type of monarch and regime in another country nearly 200 years ago? I'm amazed the Les Mis team caved in to the sort of vile people who yesterday tweeted stuff like this to them (offensive comment behind spoiler brackets) I hope the queen rots in the fiery depths of hell. but it looks like they have. Exactly, those fans don't really understand Les Miserables or appreciate its depth if they think a point being made in that part of the story is constitutional monarchy bad, republic good. However it does illustrate twitter in a nutshell.
|
|
6,285 posts
|
Post by Jon on Sept 9, 2022 14:46:40 GMT
They do realise Les Mis is about a revolution but not The French Revolution...
|
|
215 posts
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Sept 9, 2022 16:13:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Sept 9, 2022 17:37:31 GMT
I've shed a few tears today too - I'm a republican and on the Left but her public service and dignity through all the years have been exemplary. I have to add that the social media comments and behaviour, the lack of basic human empathy towards a family losing a mother and grandmother, coming from some on the 'left' today have been revolting. I'm one of those people who accepts that on paper having a Monarchy seems mad, and if we were starting from scratch we wouldn't invent it. And yet, it's an institution that works well in practice and the thought of having extra elections to decide on who should become our elected President/Head of State fills me with massive dread. Whenever there have been votes on who should be head of state, the Queen always won, followed by David Attenborough and a selection of other royals. I'm sure there are many lovely people who would be capable of doing the job, but how many of them would want it? In practical terms, having a head of state separate from head of government works well. Having a head of state that's been in the job and recognised by everyone around the world is of massive value. The Queen could host leaders and dignitaries from around the world and do ribbon cutting and ship launching far better than any Prime Minister. There could be an enhanced role for 'national treasure' types, but I fear the process of deciding on who that would be would ruin it for them and us. And if we are wanting to improve democracy in the UK, I'd start with fixing the voting system for Westminster to make seats proportional to votes. Plus as you say crowblack, the lack of basic empathy from some of the more vocal Republicans is not helping them make their case. I don't care whether or not you liked her or what she stood for. Celebrating the death of someone who dedicated her life to service is not a good look. Sycophancy is not required, but you wouldn't go around telling friends, colleagues or neighbours that you are glad their relative died.
|
|
|
Post by sph on Sept 9, 2022 18:22:49 GMT
The amount of rather violent, intense anger towards a 96 year old woman is quite shocking. Some people seem to be holding her personally responsible for colonialism and genocides and wars. Many of them are college age kids who weren't even alive to witness any of it.
As I've said, I'm no Royalist, but considering the privileged position she may have been born into, the Queen never took it for granted and worked every day of her life to fulfil the duties involved. I can't imagine any of the things carried out previously during wars or colonialism brought her any happiness.
I thought she came across as a kind and likeable person, a Mother or Grandmother to the nation. There may be something valuable in having a non-political representative for a country, although I do think that perhaps it is time to scale the institution down a great deal.
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Sept 9, 2022 19:05:52 GMT
I remember years ago - possibly 1990s or early 2000s that Charles made a statement to the effect that the Royal Family would be slimmed down when he took over, and everyone seemed happy enough with this advanced notice they'd be shifting towards the Dutch or Danish models where the minor royals get themselves proper jobs. But with the Queen living for so long and Charles' kids inevitably having their own children, the core family seemed to be growing, rather than shrinking.
Then there was the fuss about Harry's kids not automatically becoming Princes or Princesses at birth (which was in keeping the protocols), with people insisting it would be easy to change protocols if they wanted to. After all, they changed the rules so the heir is the first-born child, not first male, so why not change it for a mixed-race child to become Prince/Princess? I think the rules on royal protection may change now too, which was apparently the other bone of contention.
It's a bit of a lose-lose situation for Charles now. Most people support the idea of a slimmed down monarchy in theory, but organisations love a royal patron, and the media like having a high profile extended family to report on. Zara Philips/Tindall's lack of HRH or title of any kind didn't stop them from obsessively writing about her when she was younger.
|
|
3,926 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Sept 9, 2022 19:36:31 GMT
of the many things going through my emotional head today, the thought crossed it of who will be re-embroidering the mammoth ROH curtain? stamps, bank notes. Full marks to Huw Edwards to simply keeping going for so long yesterday. It looks like the ROH got onto the curtains jolly quickly anyway. Photos on Twitter from tonight's performance show the curtains currently have black patches where the EIIR monogram was. The curtains have been looking a bit worn for the last few years so I imagine they felt it wasn't worth getting a new EIIR pair but hopefully they've got a nice new pair with CIIIR tucked away somewhere ready to go when appropriate after the funerl & mourning period.
|
|
4,588 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Sept 9, 2022 20:14:28 GMT
[/quote]Post boxes have had the E 👑 R insignia emblazoned on them for 70 years, they will all have to be changed. Not only bank notes but all of our coins, she is omnipresent throughout our society and culture. It’s a huge change and could take years. [/quote]
Most of our bank notes have had Charlie on em for years (boom tish)
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 9, 2022 20:31:17 GMT
I remember years ago - possibly 1990s or early 2000s that Charles made a statement to the effect that the Royal Family would be slimmed down when he took over, and everyone seemed happy enough with this advanced notice they'd be shifting towards the Dutch or Danish models where the minor royals get themselves proper jobs. But with the Queen living for so long and Charles' kids inevitably having their own children, the core family seemed to be growing, rather than shrinking. Then there was the fuss about Harry's kids not automatically becoming Princes or Princesses at birth (which was in keeping the protocols), with people insisting it would be easy to change protocols if they wanted to. After all, they changed the rules so the heir is the first-born child, not first male, so why not change it for a mixed-race child to become Prince/Princess? I think the rules on royal protection may change now too, which was apparently the other bone of contention. It's a bit of a lose-lose situation for Charles now. Most people support the idea of a slimmed down monarchy in theory, but organisations love a royal patron, and the media like having a high profile extended family to report on. Zara Philips/Tindall's lack of HRH or title of any kind didn't stop them from obsessively writing about her when she was younger. People misunderstood the point about Archie’s title. Technically William’s younger children were not entitled to be called Prince/Princess either - new letters patent granting them the titles were issued, in part in anticipation of the fact that they would become entitled when Charles succeeded. They could have made the same decision for Archie. They decided not to. The explanation given to Harry and Meghan was that the plan was to change the George V rules about who is entitled to Royal titles after Charles succeeds. Especially for Archie, it seemed to her, given the other comments being made and the undeniably racially-tinged coverage by the tabloids - though more likely as part of the ‘slimmed down monarchy’ scheme. Indeed, some legal experts suggested that Archie would not automatically be elevated to a Prince after the Queen’s death - there is some ambiguity about whether the original letters patent cover that eventuality, as Royal Styles are announced at birth. Press outlets are reporting that Archie and Lillibet have automatically become Prince and Princess. I suppose The Firm will not make a point of changing the rule now and it will be allowed to stand. But if the original story that Harry and Meghan had declined titles for Archie had been maintained, I rather suspect it would be different.
|
|
1,329 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Sept 9, 2022 22:05:05 GMT
We knew this was coming, and I was following the TV coverage from lunchtime onwards yesterday so knew it was imminent, and yet when the announcement finally came, I was swamped by grief. I've been trying since to understand why... I held the Queen in the utmost respect, for a lifetime of exemplary service, but this was out of all proportion. On reflection, I think it's because she was of the same generation as my late parents and while she lived, she was a comforting connection to their lives, their values, their experiences. As I grieve for her, I grieve again for them.
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Sept 9, 2022 22:22:45 GMT
The reason it was changed it for William's children was also quite important (and not relevant to Harry's children), but people tend to forget that.
They'd just changed it so birth order was key, rather than sons first. But the titles hadn't changed, and the rule for that was that only the first male child of the Prince of Wales's oldest son would be styled Prince.
So if they hadn't changed it, it would have been Prince George, Lady Charlotte, and Louis would probably have used a lower title of William's (like Edward's son does) until Charles became King, when they'd all become Prince/Princess.
The problem would have been if they hadn't changed it and a girl had been born first. Say Charlotte and George were the other way around, you'd have had Lady Charlotte outranked in title by a younger brother (Prince George) but actually ahead of him in the line of succession.
I suppose it isn't often you have four generations alive at once! Letting them have their Prince/Princess titles "early" got rid of the problems of a younger brother outranking an older sister in terms of title.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 10, 2022 7:49:35 GMT
Except of course the Royal patents were issued long after they knew the first child was a boy. So that wasn’t actually the reason - they knew already that it wasn’t a problem for George to outrank his siblings, as future King.
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Sept 10, 2022 9:46:16 GMT
Except of course the Royal patents were issued long after they knew the first child was a boy. So that wasn’t actually the reason - they knew already that it wasn’t a problem for George to outrank his siblings, as future King. I'm sorry, but that isn't correct — it was changed at the end of 2012. She was only just pregnant. They could have done the same for Harry's children, but I suspect the thought was that there was no particular reason to do so — they'd just all become Prince/Princess together. The generation above has a mix of cousins with and without titles and it was never a problem. And being blunt... Harry is the younger son, it doesn't matter as much. Anyway, I don't want to go too off topic. I've been thinking how nice the Queen looked in recent years in the bright colours and lovely jewellery.
|
|
5,582 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 10, 2022 15:38:32 GMT
Except of course the Royal patents were issued long after they knew the first child was a boy. So that wasn’t actually the reason - they knew already that it wasn’t a problem for George to outrank his siblings, as future King. There have been occasions when the number 2 actually became the Monarch, notably the Queen’s own father so this change is very significant. Princess Margaret resented all her life that she didn’t get the same education as her sister. So now we know Charlotte and Louis will get the same education, same attention and will be able to make a full contribution if called upon. So it didn't matter that they knew their first baby was male. (And in the light of current controversies, it makes sense not to define the gender of the future monarch.)
|
|
7,492 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Sept 10, 2022 16:49:29 GMT
How lovely to see the 2 boys doing a walkabout at Windsor and meeting people. So glad Harry hasn't disappeared into the background as, whatever people's views, he has lost his grandmother. Also watching Catherine taking to the crowds you can just see she will make a great queen when her time comes.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 11, 2022 4:17:29 GMT
Except of course the Royal patents were issued long after they knew the first child was a boy. So that wasn’t actually the reason - they knew already that it wasn’t a problem for George to outrank his siblings, as future King. I'm sorry, but that isn't correct — it was changed at the end of 2012. She was only just pregnant. They could have done the same for Harry's children, but I suspect the thought was that there was no particular reason to do so — they'd just all become Prince/Princess together. The generation above has a mix of cousins with and without titles and it was never a problem. And being blunt... Harry is the younger son, it doesn't matter as much. Anyway, I don't want to go too off topic. I've been thinking how nice the Queen looked in recent years in the bright colours and lovely jewellery. The succession rule was changed when she was only just pregnant. The Letters patent for Charlotte and Louis, to grant them the titles of Princess and Prince, were issued when they were born. After George. There was no question of a future female monarch being outranked by her little brother at that point.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Sept 11, 2022 4:29:33 GMT
Except of course the Royal patents were issued long after they knew the first child was a boy. So that wasn’t actually the reason - they knew already that it wasn’t a problem for George to outrank his siblings, as future King. There have been occasions when the number 2 actually became the Monarch, notably the Queen’s own father so this change is very significant. Princess Margaret resented all her life that she didn’t get the same education as her sister. So now we know Charlotte and Louis will get the same education, same attention and will be able to make a full contribution if called upon. So it didn't matter that they knew their first baby was male. (And in the light of current controversies, it makes sense not to define the gender of the future monarch.) I really get the sense that people just don’t understand the intricacies of the George V rules around who gets HRH titles and how Charlotte and Louis were made exception to them.. To be clear, it’s got nothing to do with the change to the succession rules to allow a female monarch. Not is it anything to do with education. They decided to issue letters patent to make Charlotte and Louis HRH when they were born, although they would have become entitled to them automatically when Charles succeeded his mother. They decided not to do the same for Archie. It wasn’t an accident - there was a plan behind those two decisions. Otherwise they’d have issue letters patent granting Archie and Lillibet HRHs when they were born like the did for the others.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 11, 2022 7:53:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Sept 11, 2022 12:04:35 GMT
|
|
4,950 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Sept 11, 2022 13:14:58 GMT
With that, could we perhaps get back to commemorating and celebrating the long life of Her Majesty.
We aren't really a demonstrative family, but I took my mum a bunch of flowers yesterday. It just felt like the right thing to do.
She was there right at the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, and has witnessed every milestone since. Because my grandfather was ill at the time, somehow enough money was found for a television, in the hope it would aid his recovery. They were a very popular family on Coronation Day!
|
|