His Majesty King Charles III

The Tower of London's proclamation was at noon today, which seemed odd for the same reason.* But the ceremony was quite nice, with very few people turning up specifically for it. The Resident Governor of the Tower marched out with an escort of Yeoman Warders, there was a trumpet fanfare, then the governor read out an explanation of the proclamation, then the official proclamation. There was a command (I think of "God Save the King") followed by all the Beefeaters shouting "Amen!" loudly and in unison. They then repeated this at the four corners of the Tower property.

I then decided to push my luck and head to Buckingham Palace. The line to get up to it was 90 minutes long, wending through the park. This was at 1:30 pm or so. A policewoman told me it had been like that all day, much busier than previous days.

*There was a fair amount of confusion around the proper date and time. The Independent yesterday said it would be yesterday at 12 noon. Someone at the Tower yesterday told me it would be today at 12 noon. Today, the first volunteer I asked said today at 11:30 am. Then 11:45. Then 12:15, which is about when it started.

Yes it went very well. 3 times singing the National Anthem...no mistakes!

That happened at ours also! He was very flustered though as his mike wouldn't work and so he had to shout all the way through - we could hardly hear him. And we didn't even sing the National Anthem.

Yes it was a real moment of history , in this social media instant news it was good to step back to past times.

Ceremonies and rituals have indeed been a part of human life since the beginning of time. They are still important to many, but I think we must also recognise in this day and age that they are a luxury, not a necessity. For example, if the King (or formerly, Queen) did not "officially" open Parliament each year, Parliament would not cease to exist. The country would still have to be run and people would have to continue in their jobs. Parliament would still open, one way or another.

I'm not saying we should necessarily get rid of such traditions, but we should recognise them as representing a lifestyle that is no longer lived. It is all a living museum piece, not a piece of the present day. But on the other hand, British history is very interesting and museums (whether living or not) are a fascinating way to look back.

King Charles has had three costume changes today so far, and he'll probably have to get back in uniform this evening again. Good business for dry cleaners.

A ‘tradition’ = anything done twice.

A great many traditions are petty and trivial - there’s no good reason to do the traditional thing, beyond it having been done that way before. It doesn’t matter in the vast majority of cases, of course, but it does when people continue traditions that are harmful.

Granting a tradition more importance than the well-being of actual human beings is inherently harmful.

Stability is not fundamentally personal, we expect things to change in our relationships but expect the foundations of our lives to remain stable.

We know we could come home but be surprised by our nearest and dearest but do expect the house to be still there.

The Royal Family is deeply engrained in the British psyche, it is a constant, further amplified by the longevity of the Queen’s reign, if we were to ask a 100 people what fundamentally defined being British the Royal Family would be high on the list and this has been defined by the Queen for most people.

I was surprised by the immediate impact, not for my love of the monarchy but the change this will entail, we are beginning to see its impact on the Commonwealth, as the Queen’s reign was the end of Empire, Charles’ reign will likely become the end of the Commonwealth.

As Brexit was fundamentally a reaction to the diminishing influence of Britain this will be a further shock as we have to settle into being the Country we are, not the Country we were, whilst the Queen was alive we had a link with our past and future and we now only have the future.

Personally is the death of the Queen going to impact my immediate stability, no, is the death of the Queen going to impact the stability of this island we live on this is unequivocally yes, it may be benign but this is not the same Britain as a week ago.

Not a lot of stability at Clarence House. Up to 100 staff were told they might be made redundant on Monday while the King was at the memorial service in Edinburgh. So much for caring sharing Royals!

And as for the possibility of redundancies, the timing is a little insensitive but that sort of change is inevitable.

Clarence House will no longer be a site of major royal activity. The new Prince of Wales will be based in Windsor not London and so the new team will be based there.

And with the Royal Household seeking a more streamlined approach, not running duplicate establishments for the King is the right move.

Some of the Clarence House staff may move with Charles, some may transfer to Windsor.

At least this isn't like some ancient dynasties rulers where close servants were killed to help serve the dead ruler in the afterlife.

It seems employers have a legal obligation to tell staff of the possibility of redundancy as soon as they become aware of this. This will be one of those damned if they do and damned if they don't situations, although safe to say that most staff would have been aware that changes were inevitable. It's expected that many staff will be redeployed, but we have one less senior royal and one less royal household to manage. Hopefully some will be ready to move on or retire, and perhaps some of what were in theory the Queen's staff were already working with Charles as he took over more of her duties, so this was already a work in progress.

The question of timing is an interesting one and people will have different views. Is it better to have maximum possible notice so you can plan your life, or is it better to let people stay happily ignorant for as long as possible? This happens whenever a large company announces possible or actual redundancies before Christmas. Yes, it might 'ruin' Christmas if you know you are about to lose your job, but is that really worse than letting people spend more than they should or need to in that period?

There's a case to be said that they didn't need to say it out loud just yet as most staff would have realised that change was afoot and that would include some redundancies, but you can be sure it would be held against them at some point.

People say they like the idea of a slimmed down royal family and want them to cut costs. What did they think would happen?

I do feel sorry for those involved. Everything must be a big shock for them, and I don't blame them if they are upset, but the media commentators misreporting an organisation correctly following employment law to generate outrage and clicks are not the good guys here.

King Charles and his pen preferences has me fixed on my own writing instruments this week.