|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What has the Queen ever done for us?
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
This week, HM Queen Elizabeth II became the longest reigning British monarch ever. Which is an achievement that I would congratulate her on.
What has always struck me is that we tend to know what "Victorian" means, in a whole range of contexts - housing, engineering, morals and attitudes etc. But I am not sure what will be identified as "Elizabethan", when referring to our current Queen? What do people think will be her lasting legacy?
Note this is in heaven because it is intended as a gentle, positive, affirming discussion, not a debate about the monarchy or QEII herself.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
But I am not sure what will be identified as "Elizabethan", when referring to our current Queen?
Small yappy dogs?
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Saved us from presidential elections. And presidents for that matter.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Saved us from presidential elections. And presidents for that matter.
Amen to that.
When we think of 'Victorian', what we tend to mean is what changed in Victoria's reign (which was a huge amount). So I suppose some future historian looking back on the second Elizabethan period will consider what has changed into last sixty years or so. The big things may well be the breakdown of the nuclear family and the rise of IT and communications technology. These aren't things particularly connected with ER, of course, but then I'm doubtful if Queen Victoria was especially 'into' manufacturing and technology (and as for 'Victorian' attitudes to s-e-x, well, she and Prince Albert seem to have been at it like rabbits).
What other things might future historians look back at and think, 'That was when everything changed'? It's probably anyone's guess, but one possibility is the area of environmentalism and climate change. Perhaps in a hundred years time people will think that the Elizabethan period was when we woke up to the dangers (with the Prince of Wales being an early supporter of environmentalism, and having the freedom to do so because of the long reign of his mother).
Or they might look back and think it was a storm in a teacup. Or they might not look back at all because the world has been fried to a crisp.
[ 10. September 2015, 20:29: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Queen Victoria's journals make it very clear that she enjoyed sex - it was the babies she wasn't too keen on! But then having to give birth with members of the Privy Council present, plus the Archbishop of Canterbury (if he wasn't available the Bishop of London or at least a bishop) would rather put one off that element.
The present queen? Well, one is rather hamstrung calling it the 'Elizabethan' age by the fact that we already refer to things being Elizabethan, meaning Elizabeth Tudor. Maybe we need another term - how about Windsorian?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The present queen? Well, one is rather hamstrung calling it the 'Elizabethan' age by the fact that we already refer to things being Elizabethan, meaning Elizabeth Tudor. Maybe we need another term - how about Windsorian?
Deuterobethan?
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The present queen? Well, one is rather hamstrung calling it the 'Elizabethan' age by the fact that we already refer to things being Elizabethan, meaning Elizabeth Tudor. Maybe we need another term - how about Windsorian?
Her reign appears likely to be coincidental with that of the Welfare State, which could well be dead and buried before she is, in which case we could call this period the Bever-age.
(I'll get my coat .....)
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I was going to say the rise and fall of the welfare state. But got pipped to the post.
I think if we're wanting to pick out what were the resounding changes during the "Second Elizabethan Period" (albeit risking the ire of Scots Nationalist by using the word 'second' in there) we should probably concentrate on those things that are somewhat associated with the nations she reigns over, rather than global developments - which probably rules out the nuclear developments in power and bombs, or the Apollo program.
So, in addition to the rise and fall of the welfare state. My suggestion at the top of the list is the end of Empire and replacement by the Commonwealth.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
This week, HM Queen Elizabeth II became the longest reigning British monarch ever. Which is an achievement that I would congratulate her on.
Slightly off topic, the online comic strip "The New Adventures of Queen Victoria" did its own version of honoring Elizabeth's achievement.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
The Queen is lovely – great sense of duty and very hard-working. She still keeps going even at her age and has been a great ambassador for the country for decades. She has an indomitable spirit and is devoted to the country. I think she’s quite amazing – how many other pensioners have her stamina, keep as active and travel as much at that age?
Anyone who can cope with endless hours of sitting through every possible kind of entertainment, hosting visiting politicians and dignitaries, meeting and greeting, endless top-quality lunches and dinners without flinching or showing any signs of boredom or wanting to scream deserves commendation. Prime ministers and presidents only do it for a fixed term. She’s done it for a lifetime.
I think that’s a generational thing, though: that sense of unswerving duty and steadfastness isn’t something you often see today.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Anyone who can cope with endless hours of sitting through every possible kind of entertainment, hosting visiting politicians and dignitaries, meeting and greeting, endless top-quality lunches and dinners without flinching or showing any signs of boredom or wanting to scream deserves commendation.
Not to mention resisting the urge to kick her husband everytime he opens his mouth.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
I'm not sure 'Victorian', as an epithet, really describes any contribution that Queen Victoria made to society. Rather, it describes things that happened to occur while she was enjoying her unmerited, undemocratic privilege of birth.
If any accreditation might be adduced to the current monarch, then history may be fairly generous, citing her as the force behind the digital revolution, mankind visiting the moon, the creation of the motorway network, package holidays and the furby.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
Perhaps it’s hard to sum up the spirit of the current Queen’s reign because so much has changed, but I’m inclined to think that her legacy is precisely that – she has been an amazing source of stability and reassuring staying-the-sameness while everything else has changed around her.
As for what she’s done for us: simples. Jumped out of a helicopter with James Bond. I can’t think of a single other world leader who could have made a thing like that work (added to which Her Majesty does all her own stunts, you know ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ).
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Ariel's comment that HM has n]been an ambassador for the country must raise questions about just which country - each and every one of those of which she is head of state?
That said, she has shown a deep Christian faith, more and more so as the years have gone by. She has also shown that she has taken her oaths seriously and continues to do so. Finally, she must be admired for her apparent ability to carry out what she sees as her duty. Can you imagine having to put up with people like Blair and Thatcher as regular guests in your house for social functions and longer stays - let alone having to be polite to the Ceascescus and such like?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
She also came out strongly against the invasion of one of the countries of which she is head of state when another country [of which she was not head of state] invaded it.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Yes, I had forgotten Grenada.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Ah yes, poor little Grenada, invaded by the evil empire of the United States. It is a source of great amusement to read the leaked story of her tearing a strip off Thatcher (who knew about it) that she found out about this from the media.
I doubt, as much as I would like to say otherwise, that the mid-20th to early 21st century will have any one name attached to it. The axis of empire has shifted from Great Britain to two diverse empires - possibly three - and whatever the historians name it will be irrelevant to us.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I'm not sure 'Victorian', as an epithet, really describes any contribution that Queen Victoria made to society. Rather, it describes things that happened to occur while she was enjoying her unmerited, undemocratic privilege of birth.
Victoria was, in the first half of her reign, fairly astute about riding social trends. She was good at propaganda for the monarchy as a nice domestic family. And Albert is credited with introducing Christmas trees to the UK. So next January when you're trying to get needles out of the carpet you can think of Victoria.
(After Albert's death Victoria lost a lot of popularity because she shut herself away from the public in mourning.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Albert is credited with introducing Christmas trees to the UK. So next January when you're trying to get needles out of the carpet you can think of Victoria.
I have never owned a single Christmas decoration. My flat is adorned with books, not tinsel, baubles or any kind of evergreen plant. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
She's an example of stability and has a very public Christian witness. She does her duty and appears to have been adaptable up to a point. She has remained publicly impartial on all sorts of issues where I suspect she has strong private views. She has become a national treasure - the kind of whom people say "bless her" (winces)at every choice of clothing and every decision.
I admire her and think her reign has been a generally Good Thing.
But - there has to be some expression of reservation. I'm never sure just how much she - and other family members - really appreciate or want to relate to the wider realm and not just people who are very like her. Does she work of obligation rather than willingness to engage with new people?
She can get it very wrong - especially emotionally: God knows how close the UK was to disowning the Saxe-Coburg/Windsor/Battenburg clan in Sept 1997 but it wasn't far off that's for sure. I carry no card for Diana - serial promiscuity is never attractive - but she was rather more deserving for help than the cold shoulder she received.
The Queen presides over an organisation that is very out of touch with the modern world. Whilst adaptable - I'm not convinced that so very much has changed with her position/role: I'd really like to see how she responds to the kind of re-engineering that affects many of her subjects' jobs on a periodic basis. (It might be interesting to get her to reapplying for the role!) She doesn't do the "job" for free but is paid handsomely for it.
She raised a pretty mixed (and mixed up bunch of children) who - alongside a raft of other relatives - have the whiff of the freeloader about them and, in one or two cases, (Philip, Margaret) the language of the gutter and the heart, attitude and words of the racist.
And those dogs ....... ughhhh! My taxes are much better spent than having some flunkey carry some short legged cross bred canine up the steps.
She inherited the role and was trained for it. It's not like she was a hairdresser first and queen later.
I wonder what nay of us would make of the position of Head of State if we had the chance?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Exclamation Mark quote:
She can get it very wrong - especially emotionally: God knows how close the UK was to disowning the Saxe-Coburg/Windsor/Battenburg clan in Sept 1997 but it wasn't far off that's for sure. I carry no card for Diana - serial promiscuity is never attractive - but she was rather more deserving for help than the cold shoulder she received.
I'm surprised at you EM, swallowing the press and media interpretation of the relationship between Diana and the royal family hook, line and sinker.
As it happens, there is plenty of evidence that she received much greater support from some senior royals than ever she did from some members of her own family. Don't forget, her father moved in a new partner (the less-than-lovely Raine) who was violently disliked by all the Spencer children and for rather more reason than the usual 'wicked stepmother' syndrome.
As for 1997, where did the Queen get it wrong? In choosing to stay away from the prying lenses with her grandsons: don't forget they didn't just have to cope with their mother's sudden death, but that she died with someone they barely knew, and with all the attendant media speculation about whether or not Diana and Mr Fayed were going to marry, was she pregnant, etc, etc, etc. And that was after Diana had subjected them to the Panorama interview when William was just 11 and Harry not quite 9. In fact, HM behaved exactly as a grandmother should have done, which is more than can be said of Diana's own mother whose chief concern seems to have been to get hold of her letters to her daughter and shred them.
Enough, if the queen has done nothing more than spare us from President Blair and President Heath that's enough for me.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
@OP
She's on our money. She is very rich. There's a connection somehow.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I am aware that Victoria was not personally responsible for all the progress and developments within her reign. It is just that the period takes its name from her, to define a time when there was substantial changes made. My question was really about what the LizWindsorian time might be known for, what the substantial and world-changing developments will have happened in her time, when we look back. I do not expect her to be personally responsible for any or all of them. At the same time, it would seem wrong that, as the longest serving monarch, nothing is associated with her time.
I think maybe it will be seen as a time of astounding change and development across the world - the rise of computers and the internet being just the latest aspects of this. I also think, despite what some have said, that she will be seen as someone who changed the role of the monarchy with the changing world, not going with every whim, but listening and adapting in time. Yes, far too slowly for some, but that is the nature of it.
I was privileged to work, briefly, for the royal household, on a project involving cataloguing and documenting a particular set of works held by the monarch. This is a very long term job (25+ years), and will help and inform a comparatively few people, mainly academics, across the world. That is something that no other organisation would be liable to do - the time scale and payback is unrealistic. It is this long-term perspective that I think the monarchy gives us, and why I would be sad to lose it.
Not to mention, the alternative would be having politicians with more power, and I cannot see that being a good thing.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
And it is a Heavenly inquiry, so forgive me if I treat it a little more light-heartedly than I would a Purg discussion.
It seems to me that one of the things that I think of as "Victorian" or, for that matter "Elizabethan" in the original sense, pertains to fashion. Such-and-such clothing looks "Victorian" or "Elizabethan."
Following that line of thought, I would suggest that things like business suits (both male and female) and even khakis-and-polo-shirts could be referred to as Deuterobethan.*
*I don't care if nobody else likes the term. It has grown on me once I realized the last two syllables had to be pronounced the same as the last two in "Elizabethan." It is the long e that makes all the difference.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
When I saw her and her mum and her sister together my first thought was aren't they tiny! But a few years later I moved to South India where a lot of people are even shorter.
And I'm not a corgi lover but I loved those dogs, quite unconscious of their station in life they just tried to cadge food off anybody who had any - and then later there was one lying on each step of the open door into Clarence House but we'd been asked not to bring cameras so I missed a wonderful shot!
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Speaking as an American, I really admire the old lady's sense of humor and gameness. Do you remember the James Bond thing for the Olympics? She didn't have to do that, but she did. And only the Queen could have done it. (The only thing that would have made it better is if she actually parachuted, like George H.w. Bush, but I can quite understand her not stepping up for that.)
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
When Queen Victoria died, I get the impression that it felt like the end of an era for the country. Most of the people alive when Victoria died had known no other monarch. A sense of certainty and continuity went when she died.
I think it will be the same when Elizabeth goes.
Also, Prince Charles is 66 now, he'll be 67 in November. Is it certain that he will succeed her? Will there be much popular backing for the coronation of a man knocking on for 70? (Edward VII was 60 when he succeeded.) I think that will exacerbate the sense of loss of certainty.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
I think that HM has her eye on outliving the PofW!
(And I hope she does)
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Also, Prince Charles is 66 now, he'll be 67 in November. Is it certain that he will succeed her? Will there be much popular backing for the coronation of a man knocking on for 70?
Prince Charles has never been popular, exactly. Also it would be difficult for anyone to take the Queen's place. He'll succeed to the throne, but as you point out he's not a young man and I don't imagine he'll be around for long. William will be much more popular when his time comes and will probably reign for a long time. Probably most of those reading this thread won't be around by the time George inherits the throne.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
I think that HM has her eye on outliving the PofW!
(And I hope she does)
I don't, I think for many people it is a personal tragedy to outlive your child.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
Schroedinger's Cat has it pat: Long term thinking.
Monarchies may, politicians do not.
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think there is a strong case that Charles would not be popular, and would probably not want to take on the responsibility. I think William will do a good job, reign a long time, and be popular.
In a sense, Charles is the fallout from the changes that Elizabeth has made, and William is the beneficiary. I strongly suspect that Charles will abdicate quickly, and find himself a good role for him and Camilla to settle into. In truth, I am not a fan of Charles, and I don't think he would make a good king. In a sense, the monarchy would be stronger if it skipped him.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think there is a strong case that Charles would not be popular, and would probably not want to take on the responsibility.
I don't think the Prince of Wales wants the responsibility, but I am certain that he thinks that it's his duty to take it up when the time comes.
Chance of him retiring to be a country gentleman and dumping the whole affair on the Duke of Cambridge? Zero.
I agree that King William would be much more popular than King possibly-George, but I don't think that's the biggest issue. I think the monarchy has much more to lose if it starts playing games with the succession because someone else is more popular. That opens up all kinds of cans of worms.
Her Majesty is 89. I see no reason at all why she won't be sending herself a telegram (it's a card, now, I think) in 2026. At that time, the Prince of Wales will be 77. I suspect that he won't prove nearly as hardy as the Duke of Edinburgh, so would expect his reign to be quite short.
I do think, however, that we'll see the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge take on an increasing number of duties - particularly so when the Duke of Edinburgh is no longer here to support The Queen.
[ 12. September 2015, 00:29: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
@OP
She's on our money. She is very rich. There's a connection somehow.
But much better value for that money than, say, the Trident missile submarines.
The solitary thing I know against her is that she was said to have liked Harold Wilson, of whom my opinion is still un-Heavenly.
--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)
Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
The question of skipping an heir should not arise. There was a question in 1936 whether Prince Albert was strong, mentally and emotionally, to succeed his brother, the former King, on his abdication or whether he and his progeny should be skipped over entirely and the throne offered to George, Duke of Kent, on the basis that he had a male heir. Henry, Duke of Gloucester, was not even considered since at that time, newly married, he had no heirs (at least until Prince William was born in 1942.)
That didn't last, thank goodness.
Certainly, given his genetic material, the current heir might even last 20-25 years once Mummy pops her clogs. He will grow into his job much as Albert Edward (Edward VII) did. He only reigned just over 9 years, but even his era is named after him.
As stated above, I think that the custom of attaching a regnal name to an era is past. But I honour the Queen, God Bless her, and give her many more years to reign over us.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... Do you remember the James Bond thing for the Olympics? ...
That had come into my mind about a nanosecond before I read your post, and I was thinking exactly what you said - what a sport!
[tangent]
Was I alone in thinking, "blimey, they've got a really good look-alike to play ... bloody hell, it really is her!"?
[/tangent OFF]
I agree with L'Organist about HM's actions in the wake of the Princess of Wales's death: whatever she thought of her daughter-in-law, the whole thing must have been a hell of a shock and I certainly don't blame her for staying at Balmoral to support her family.
I don't know that there's any one particular thing for which she'll be remembered except her extraordinary sense of duty, but I'm absolutely sure that the country would have been a lot worse without her.
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
He will grow into his job much as Albert Edward (Edward VII) did. He only reigned just over 9 years, but even his era is named after him.
As stated above, I think that the custom of attaching a regnal name to an era is past.
Indeed. Edwardian (pre-WWI) is the last of the royal adjectives in use, isn't it? We do not refer to the reigns of George V and George VI as "Georgian", nor to Edward VIII's brief era as "Edwardian". And EIIR's reign just doesn't work with "Elizabethan".
The regnal adjective seems to be dead.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
We do (or at least did when I was at school and uni) talk of Georgian poets, people like Walter de la Mare and so forth. They more or less did not survive WW ! in any sort of critical esteem. the war poets, like Brooke an Sassoon were streets ahead of them.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I wonder if it needs more time before the regnal name gets attached to an era. We still talk about the inter-war period and post-war. Maybe when these are less clear - when there are too many wars to highlight these - we will need other terms.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
The Queen allowed me to take a piss in St. James's Park close to her palace last Friday. (Well, she didn't allow me, but I did.)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cattyish
Wuss in Boots
# 7829
|
Posted
She's difficult to judge while still the only monarch I've lived under. Unfortunately it's no longer available, but I enjoyed the nonsense of King Charles III on Radio 3 recently. I'm not sure the Palace liked it much.
I suspect this era will be remembered not by the name of the monarch but as the era of electronic information becoming all pervasive.
Cattyish, joining in the pervasion.
Edited for spelling.
[ 13. September 2015, 14:33: Message edited by: cattyish ]
--------------------
...to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived, this is to have succeeded.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Posts: 1794 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
We do (or at least did when I was at school and uni) talk of Georgian poets, people like Walter de la Mare and so forth. They more or less did not survive WW ! in any sort of critical esteem. the war poets, like Brooke an Sassoon were streets ahead of them.
Brooke and Sassoon *were* Georgian poets - the infallible Wikipedia lists Blunden, Brooke, Graves, Lawrence, de la Mare, Sassoon and Drinkwater as the leading lights. 4 of those seven were pretty warry.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I would hope that pretty soon after Her Majesty's death- may it be not for a while yet- the commemoration of 'Elizabeth, Queen, Witness to the Faith' will appear in the Calendar of the CofE and perhaps some other churches too.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
We do (or at least did when I was at school and uni) talk of Georgian poets, people like Walter de la Mare and so forth. They more or less did not survive WW ! in any sort of critical esteem. the war poets, like Brooke an Sassoon were streets ahead of them.
Brooke and Sassoon *were* Georgian poets - the infallible Wikipedia lists Blunden, Brooke, Graves, Lawrence, de la Mare, Sassoon and Drinkwater as the leading lights. 4 of those seven were pretty warry.
I don't know what Wikipedia says. By the time I reached uni, over 50 years ago, even Gerry Wilkes would not have included Sassoon and Brooke as Georgians, and Graves and Blunden were fast outreaching that school halfway through the war.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
We do (or at least did when I was at school and uni) talk of Georgian poets, people like Walter de la Mare and so forth.
I've only come across Georgian (as an era in British history rather than relating to the Eastern European country) to cover the Hanoverian kings George I - IV, sometime extended to add William IV to prevent a gap before Victoria. I'd not previously heard it used to refer to the reigns of the later Georges (that would have just been inter-war).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
For history, architecture and furniture, I've only heard it for the Hanoverian ones, and in particular III and IV. In literature, Classical was always used for most of the C18, with Romantics being applied to the next batch. That conveniently left Georgian to be used for the pastel and watercolour school of de la Mare and his ilk - how he would have loved 'of his ilk".
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
Ah yes, poor little Grenada...
I miss Grenada: my father's first cousin's husband was Sir Ian Turbot, the last colonial governor there. He and Lady Nancy used to send us odd things for Christmas and they sent cork-backed placements to my wedding. They even brought an empty turtle shell on one visit.
Sir Ian retired from working for the Queen, stayed in London briefly in the early 70s and then moved his family to the trendy Clontarf area of Sydney. He then commenced telling captains of industry how to run their business. He just called himself an efficiency expert!
--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.
Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
We do (or at least did when I was at school and uni) talk of Georgian poets, people like Walter de la Mare and so forth. They more or less did not survive WW ! in any sort of critical esteem. the war poets, like Brooke an Sassoon were streets ahead of them.
Brooke and Sassoon *were* Georgian poets - the infallible Wikipedia lists Blunden, Brooke, Graves, Lawrence, de la Mare, Sassoon and Drinkwater as the leading lights. 4 of those seven were pretty warry.
I don't know what Wikipedia says. By the time I reached uni, over 50 years ago, even Gerry Wilkes would not have included Sassoon and Brooke as Georgians, and Graves and Blunden were fast outreaching that school halfway through the war.
Maybe the tides going back again with greater distance then? I wouldn't claim to know very much about it, but Brooke at least was a Georgian again by the time I was a sixth-former 16 years ago because I was definitely taught *that.*
To be honest I'd instinctively quibble with Sassoon too, but as I say maybe critical thinking's moved on...*
*which hapens all the time - try mentioning AJP Taylor or AL Rowse these days in historical circles without being laughed at, yet at the time they were titans.
[ 14. September 2015, 10:41: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I was reading up on the WW1 poets to teach them recently and Brooke and early Sassoon are definitely referred to as Georgian in the literature - and this was all introductions to books still in print, or reprinted for the centenary. The later Sassoon didn't get described as Georgian.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
