The King is Coming!

[quote]Visit will mark the 1st time a monarch has delivered the throne speech since 1977

Fucking hell. Moral support because of their unhinged southern neighbour?

The OLD Alcoholic is coming!

King Charles II died in 1685, you dumb cunt.

Repeatedly meeting Zelensjy and acting as King of Canada on short notice. He's in for a fun royal visit when Trump comes to the UK in a few months

Any chance he’ll visit his Nunavutian territory?

It’s about time they show some interest in their Commonwealth member.

Fuck that idiot that thinks he can annex it or whatever the fuck he wants to do with it.

Charles should just say it is ours, back off, bitch.

R3 is Prince William.

Charles isn't HRH anymore. He's HM (His Majesty). As pointed out above, he's not Charles II but Charles III.

[quote] Repeatedly meeting Zelensjy and acting as King of Canada on short notice. He's in for a fun royal visit when Trump comes to the UK in a few months

My Charlie is loads of fun!

How come Charles didn't take another name like his grandfather (Albert/George VI) and the kings before him.

KISS the ring

r10 Because of an already established public identity, basically. Plus, no one really cares about the baggage that comes with the previous two Charleses, that's just not an issue anymore in modern times.

He chose not to. There was speculation he'd go for George VII since the first two Kings named Charles were a bit unlucky, but he decided on Charles III, maybe taking his example from his mother who famously replied "My own, of course" when asked what name she wanted to reign under.

He wanted to be called Loretta

R5 Iqaluit is absolutely beautiful at the end of May, a real "Paris of the Arctic."

[quote] How come Charles didn't take another name like his grandfather (Albert/George VI) and the kings before him.

There was no need for him to do so.

Very few monarchs choose a regnal name other than the one they have been called by, and by custom, they can only choose one of the names they were given at their christenings.

Queen Victoria was christened "Alexandrina Victoria," and when she grew up, she was invariably called "Drina" (short for Alexandrina), but she chose Victoria as her regal name because she was crowned when so young and she wanted to establish her independence from her mother and stepmother.

Her son Edward VII was christened "Albert Edward" at birth, and was expected by his mother to reign as Albert Edward I, and was always addressed and referred to as "Bertie" by his family. But he hated living in his father Prince Albert's shadow, and insisted on reigning as "Edward VII," which would have made his late mother furious.

His grandson George VI was christened "Albert Frederick Arthur George," and like grandfather was always known to the family as "Bertie." He could have reigned as Albert I, but both Baldwin and Churchill suggested to him that the British public really needed some stability after the abdication crisis, and that he should reign under the same name as his recently deceased father George V,

His grandson Charles was christened "Charles Philip Arthur George," so he could have reigned as Charles III, Philip I, Arthur I, or George VII. There was some talk when he was much younger that he would rule as "George VII" (just because he liked to do things against his parents' wishes when he could get away with it), but he kept Charles as his regnal name because he came to the throne so late everyone would have been enormously confused had he chosen the regnal name George. Moreover, by that time he had enormnously reconciled himself to his mother (and vice-versa).

William was christened "William Arthur Philip Louis," so he could reign as William V, Arthur I, Philip I, or Louis I. he will almost certainly rule as William V given that he will want to maintain tradition.

Prince George was christened "George Alexander Louis." He could reign as George VII, Alexander I, or as Louis I (or Louis II in the unlikely event his father reigns as Louis I).

…famously replied "My own, of course…” in a fictional tv series. FIFY

I read of that response by Elizabeth II on books long before The Crown existed.

Show your work—who was in the room to write about it?

The officials who asked her? It's in biographies of her. Perhaps read a few?

Do you think he’ll find it easy to get travel insurance? I do worry so.

I was molested by Larry King

That ship sailed years ago.

The "My own of course" was reported by Michael Parker, the man who asked her the question. It's in Sally Bedell Smith's biography and others and was quite well known before Netflix filmed their series.

He looks like the Winter Warlock after his icy heart melted. Not a good look.

R20 you’re making it up—as did Julian

Cribbing from random internet searches doesn’t count

Since Elizabeth II's full name was "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary," she could have reigned as Queen Alexandra I or as Queen Mary III.

R28 So?

Or “Queen Sharon” if she had wanted. Monarchs call themselves what they like.

There is no style of “HRM”, R9 - why do you Americans bother?

[quote] Or “Queen Sharon” if she had wanted. Monarchs call themselves what they like.

Not in the UK. In the UK they have always chosen one of the names with which they were christened.

It is extremely unlikely this precedent would be broken, and certainly not in our lifetimes.

And then there’s Maud (disputed).

So what?

It used to be that popes “could” only choose one name, or that no pope “could” choose Francis.

Life goes on…

I thought this might be a Gaithers thread with a special appearance by DL fave, Vestal Goodman.

Is the King still in London?

There’s a difference between precedent and legality, R32. But you know that.

[quote] There is no style of “HRM”, [R9] - why do you Americans bother?

Shut up, you!!!

Philip I! Arthur I! Alexandra I!

You don't get a 'I' after your name until someone comes along as a 'II'. I recall reading that they wanted Elizabeth the Second to choose 'Alexandra' because Elizabeth I was such an iconic figure in English history.

It would have been cool if he had taken another name. It would have been the only exciting thing to happen during his reign

Getting back to the topic that OP posted . . . I think what is significant about this story is that it shows the King is giving some important support to Canada at a time when it is being threatened by Trump.

Canada doesn’t need sausage fingers to deal with Trump effectively.

Hers going as Head of State of Canada- he’s King of Canada, so it’s not an issue that he is opening its - his - parliament.

Just speculating but maybe he wants to go while he still can.

Exactly—once before he croaks—nothing to do with Trump, as Chuck has no relevance on that point .

[quote] The King is Coming!

He last came to Canada in 2022.

He wasn't King then r45

I’ve never been pro monarchy but King Charles is better than Dump

I though Elvis died in 1977.

He belongs in Schitt’s Creek.

I look forward to seeing King Charles stand up for his country.

arrival... understated.

Not a bad crowd... enthusiastic...

I watched some of the coverage and it was very interesting to see how the Canadian press - politely, of course - kept emphasizing that this event would highlight Canada's difference from the US. The king is head of state, no more, and was expressly invited by the Canadian govt but at at the same it is good timing. It's a great reminder of Canada's history and how their system of government is very different from the US (a bit different from the UK too).

One commentator was remarking how the US ambassador basically told Canada to "get over" the 51st thing and they were not amused. I knew Charles was king of other realms but had to refresh my memory that he is king of Canada is in his own right, not because he is king of the UK. I also hadn't realized Canada has been fully independent only since 1982.

Anyone willing to fly halfway across the world for a 24 hour jaunt while fighting [likely terminal] cancer just to give Trump a subtle middle finger is fine by me.

R53, he is King of Canada as well as the other Commonwealth Realms separately from his role as King of the UK. For example, he is King of New Zealand and King of Australia.

Is his face on British money? Are the Queen's still in circulation?

In addition, the royal family seem to have a special affection for Canada. For example, the late Queen would spend time outside her official visits at private properties of Canadians with just her family and her spending time as “normal” and as relaxed as is possible for them without press surveillance and protocol.

[quote] Is his face on British money? Are the Queen's still in circulation?

Yes and yes.

r56 He is, and yes. Though Liz will gradually gets fazed out over time when the coinage and notes are discontinued and reminted/reissued.

Isn't he dead yet?

The Queen was seemingly never fazed about anything.

[quote] I also hadn't realized Canada has been fully independent only since 1982.

Technically, yes but in reality since the Statute of Westminster in 1931.

The King is not still in London.

Is he bringing that swamp creature with him?

r64 No Andrew is still at Windsor.

R62 Yup the Statue of Westminster 1931 basically ended the UK's political rights in Canada. Funny enough, it was meant to be the first step in the patriation of Canada's (and the other Commonwealth Realms) constitution, but it took until 1982 for the federal government and provinces to agree on an amending formula to replace UK Parliament. This is one major reason why no one, despite waning support, wants to actually go through the process of removing the monarchy for our system of government.

The most read newspaper in Norway, VG, published an article about the royals visiting Canada.

[quote] HRH Charles II is coming to Canada

He must have risen from his grave!

BUFFY! STAKE HIM!

"Canada doesn’t need sausage fingers to deal with Trump effectively."

No, they don't. Which makes the visit all the more special. The King is in bad health, fighting cancer, and yet he chose to come and give this speech in a show of solidarity with the Canadian people, and to give the middle finger to Trumpiepumpy. And isn't that what kings are for??

I want to call him Kong Charles all the time now!!

I'm not a royalist but one of the (few) advantages of having the royal family is that every few years the come to Canada and it draws both national and international attention to important Canadian events/accomplishments that a homegrown head of state would be able to.

One that is surprising me about this visit is that support for the monarchy seems to be shifting to the centre-left over the right. Two polls out one by Pollara and other by Ipsos showed that more Liberal, Green and even NDP voters support retaining the monarchy than abolishing it, while the Conservatives majority vote to abolish it...which supports the theory that the conservative party to day is basically just a pro-MAGA US party.

R71 a homegrown head of state wouldn't be able to do...oh dear...

The opening of parliament will be interesting.

He wears the crown at the UK opening of parliament. Will he wear it and the ceremonial robes? That might be a bit much.

Do you guys think the royal family ever reads things about themselves online! I never considered.

He needs to keel over and die already!

R74 No, the Canadian state opening is much more low key. When Queen Elizabeth II opened Parliament in 1957 and 1977 she wore a tiara. I'm guessing the King will wear a military uniform and Camilla a gown with tiara.

The King will be giving the Throne Speech to the Canadian House of Commons later this morning.

CBC has coverage with Rosemary Barton from 9:00 am to 1:30 pm ET.

Die, cancerous fucker! Die!!!

New seating plan for the House of Commons showing where each Minister & Member of Parliament sits:

R56,

UK here.

Banknotes, coins and stamps with the late Queen’s image remain in circulation and are legal tender.

Likewise here in Canada R81.

Likewise here in the USA

Oh, God. This currency talk has led to an intrusive, unwanted thought. What if Trump wants an actual U.S. Treasury bill bearing his likeness? No more of the meme coin scam shit. Actual United States legal tender. Like replacing Grant or Jackson. He's probably asked for it already.

Something’s Coming

The Usher of the Black Rod is about to summon the members of the Commons to attend the King in the Senate.

See, they are different. They call it Black Rod, we call it BBC. Which is also not a TV station in the U.S.

It’s all so very understated, so Canadian.

Margaret Trudeau just kissed the King on both cheeks.

I suppose it's a step up from flashing the beav at Studio 54. Or at least age appropriate.

Justin Trudeau somehow looks just slightly diminished.... less vibrant and much leaner.

Mila Mulroney is one of those women who you just want to know the same of her surgeon. Terrific at 71.

Just Trudeau looks good in retirement. Most leaders look half-dead after their term of office.

Harper looked half dead during his term of office.

It's a bit of a bizarre procedure... they're just waiting around talking while they're waiting for the Commons to show up.

Incidentally, what do they call the wife of a prime minister?

Not "first lady" I gather.

Justin Trudeau's "retirement" is going to be short lived. He'll be back....

The wife of the prime minister is called the wife of the prime minister, r94. Why on earth would a parliamentary system need the prime minister to have a "first lady" (or gentleman)?

I like that he had to read what’s written…who knew he was so focused on the Canadian dental plan ;)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

R98 is from Alberta

Charlie did well with this visit. I’ll give him his due—they won’t ever see him in the True North again.

[quote]You don't get a 'I' after your name until someone comes along as a 'II'.

This isn't always true.

He should go to NZed and Papua New Guinea next.

[quote]r94 = Incidentally, what do they call the wife of a prime minister?

His prime rib.

All hail King Adam I

Say what you will, there's still magic in a king. Look at all the MPs scrambling to meet them, get a hand shake. Je ne sais quoi, Dieu et mon droit.

I just want to say...I'd love to have his tailor. The fabrics and the suits he's been wearing very recently have been impeccable. Exquisite really.

A single Frenchwoman moves on. Sakkari is moldy eggplant at this point.

[quote] He needs to keel over and die already!

Patience, Charlotte.

Shaking hands with the crowd now. I count at least 6 RCMP security agents around him and Camilla.

R109 gotta watch out for those Quebecoise. Also evil Americans who could sneak into Canada. One thing that is a very small comfort to me is how incompetent our Intel and military Intel people are. Hegseth, Tulsi and Kash Patel who is totally nuts, couldn't carry out a clandestine operation if their lives depended on it.

Au revoir, monsieur.

Nice try, R41; OP's thread went downhill quickly.

Dishy Major Johnny was with him... saw him at the airport departure.

R110 please, Democrats are the evil Americans, who want to turn the USA into a communist police state like the UK and Canada have become.

They have no freedom of speech over there and are under surveillance 24/7 and can also be arrested/cited for not going along with far-left woke ideology (anti-men, anti-white, anti-police, anti-Christianity, anti-Western civilization, anti-women when it comes to the trans/nonbinary issue).

Democrats project a lot when they call Republicans fascists and racists -- all because Republicans are dismantling woke policies, which are un-American and anti-USA.

But Democrats will learn the hard way in the next few years, as they keep doubling down and getting voted out of office. That shit may work in ultraliberal Europe and Canada, but at the end of the day most Americans are moderate/conservative.

The 2024 election showed that there are no blue states, just big blue cities in a sea of red. It's the major cities that are liberal; the suburbs/rural areas tend to be conservative.

You lack gravitas—FYI

…do better

Please welcome the always lovely Pamela Jo Bondi to the thread!

The fuck you talking about, R114? Barely anything you stated about Canada is correct.

Is anything at R114 de facto true?

DL often rides Canada for having king who lives elsewhere, ignoring the benefits of constitutional monarchy as a viable way to arrange your national affairs. A column here in two parts (maybe three) from arguably Canada's most important newspaper, that offers a take on why would you?

" The original idea at Confederation was that this country would be called the Kingdom of Canada: like the United Kingdom, the Kingdom of Sweden, and so on.

But there was concern this would antagonize the Americans, so instead we settled on the “Dominion of Canada” – a fine title in its own right, but one that eventually fell into disuse, a discarded relic of our past. Because that’s what we do in this country: forget our past, when we are not erasing it, as if the very act of remembrance were something shameful.

Or, perhaps, it is what we did.

Throne Speech from King Charles asserts Canada’s sovereignty, vows major transformation in economy

Much has been made of the King’s speech to Parliament, and rightly so. The symbolism was hard to miss. While much of the speech was unremarkable – a bland recapitulation of the Carney government’s core agenda, already familiar from the election campaign – and none of it was earthshaking, what was significant was not what was said but who said it. This was the Sovereign of Canada, speaking in defence of his realm.

He was not merely asserting Canada’s sovereignty, in the face of repeated attempts to undermine and indeed mock it by (we have become numb to the enormity of this) the President of the United States. He was, by virtue of who he is and what he represents, reminding us of what it is based on.

We are, he was saying, not merely a place, or a line on a map. We are a people, a serious people with a proud history, who have built, from some of the most forbidding territory on Earth, a society that is rightly regarded as one of the finest achievements of human statecraft; who have made great sacrifices in defence of their own freedom, and others’; and who have thereby earned the right to take their place among the nations of the Earth. Those who talk of annexing us – or of breaking us apart – would do well to consider just what kind of people they would be tangling with.

And at the core, inescapably, of that history, and that society – that nation – is the Crown. It is the foundation of our system of law and government. It is the symbol of continuity and stability, and yet also the symbol of reform and reinvention: it cannot have escaped notice how many of the rituals surrounding the speech are rooted in the long and ultimately successful struggle to tame the monarchy, such that it became not the enemy of democracy but its chief defender, against the depredations of those in temporary possession of power.

Hence the importance, real and symbolic, of separating the offices of head of government and head of state: as it has been said, when the prime minister bows to the King, he is really bowing to us. The King is the personification of the state, or better to say the humanization of it: it remains striking that at the apex of our system of government we have placed not an entity or an abstraction, but … a family.

And yet for decades it seemed we felt a need to distance ourselves from the monarchy, as if out of some fit of adolescent insecurity: as if acknowledging where we had come from somehow stood in the way of becoming what we might become. Perhaps this was understandable, in the immediate aftermath of imperial rule. But long after the Statute of Westminster, this petulant attitude remained. Our history was something either to be ignored, or to be mined for grievances, but never to be celebrated, as something of which, for all our many sins, we can be proud. And then we wondered why, cut off from our roots, we failed to grow.

Perhaps this might come to be regarded as the moment we left our adolescence – when we developed a more mature relationship with our past. In the heat of the current existential crisis, it was remarkable how many people, even those not usually inclined to support the monarchy, turned instinctively to the King to speak in our defence; how instantly right it felt when it was announced that he would be delivering the Throne Speech. In our gut we knew that what was needed at this moment was a bit of gravitas, the kind that comes with a thousand years of history: a gravitas that was always a part of us, but which we had suppressed.

Perhaps, indeed, this might be seen as the moment we finally patriated the monarchy, as an emotional and not merely a constitutional inheritance; when we got over the idea that monarchy was all right for places like Britain or Sweden or Japan or The Netherlands, but too grand for little old us; when we became, at last, the Kingdom of Canada.

Another bit from another writer making the case for constituional monarchy as a system of governmernt: "History is pretty clear that there is a deep, dark part in almost all of us that craves a strongman: A powerful person in a fancy hat and a shiny palace who seems to know to know what they’re doing.

So what’s the point? By putting a symbolic figurehead in the top job, you have someone who can deny power to others.

No matter how politically powerful you get in Canada, you still have to bow to the King, literally and figuratively. You want to put yourself in charge of the military? Sorry; we’ve already got someone doing that. You think the courts should answer to you? They can’t, because they already answer to this guy. If you don’t have one of these people, you find one. Russia did it (Putin). France did it (Napoleon)." Germany notably did it...

Do you have a link to the piece at R121?

Yes—it’s right there^^^

R122, no it was in the gawdawful National Post - a right wing rag.

R100 According to the Times UK, assuming the King's health holds and the minority government doesn't fall, another visit is already in the works for next year (likely around Canada Day). Also they say that Canada will likely be Catherine's (and William's) first major overseas visit when she's ready to go.

It would make sense for the Wales family to come. Like Australia, it's a great country for kids to see and the photo ops would be kick ass.

Even better than that, R126 -It would focus more attention Canada, which will piss off a certain asswipe in Washington. Many people in the US have royalist fantasies, and they follow the British royal family closely. Lord knows a little Canada Envy would do some good around here...

Honestly, while this has been the shortest royal tour there's ever been in my lifetime, I think its been one of the most successful. Often times royal tours are used to promote things happening in Canada (given the royals draw a lot of international press attention) and then the royals go back to the UK. But this one feels like a real attempt to bind the country together and reassert Canadian patriotism, at least in the sense of "we are not the US, we have our own customs and traditions."

One thing this visit did highlight is how anti-Canadian the Conservative party (or least its base) has become. It's basically a GOP-Lite party now that has major penis evny for the US and Trump.

Is the King back in London?

“He’s the king da da, da da da….” 👑

Yes, the king is back h ome. He was barely there for 24 hours. The point is, he went. He decided to find a way to add it to his schedule.

God help them, R128 -those with penis envy should not look to Donald Trump for anything except reassurance that there are, indeed, men with smaller cocks.

This wasn't a royal tour, r128, it was a brief visit with a specific purpose (the opening of parliament).

[quote]Just Trudeau looks good in retirement. Most leaders look half-dead after their term of office.

I agree that Justin Trudeau looked good. Still probably the sexiest person in that room even though he is now in his early 50's. He's still got a good head of hair, too.

It was sweet the way he escorted his mother into the Senate Chamber:

Does he get a Burger King crown?

Mark Carney lived for many years in the UK as governor of the Bank of England so he saw the value of these rituals at first hand.

[quote]Also they say that Canada will likely be Catherine's (and William's) first major overseas visit when she's ready to go.

Canada was also their first overseas trip as a married couple.

Elvis?

The old git read from a Clark prepared text. Uninspired recitation, what he's done for 70 years. But all you Royalass wet your knickers. Pathetic.

His Mum was equally uninspiring, but she ha been elevated to sainthood for being consistently ordinary. People have invested Elizabeth II with all kinds of qualities and wisdom which, in reality, she never exhibited. She was guided by her staff at all times and her only accomplishment is that in public she never put a foot wrong...that we knew of. Elizabeth was also a very uninspiring reader of speeches written by others. Personally I like Charles. At least we know t here is a human being in there, and with all his shortcomings and personal failings he does project warmth and sincerity even if he doesn't mean it.

R114 reads like AI to me.

r141 Exactly right. The more bland a person is, the more people project all sorts of shit onto them. I've observed this with myself in my own life, but you can also see it with Taylor Swift and her lyrics. I think it was a shock to many after some time had passed after QEII's death, seeing just how inconsequential she was. Really just a glorified tourist attraction, as I had always claimed during her life.

dear god, Margaret Trudeau is still alive? I am positive she died, back in the late 80s? 90s? of cancer. Huh.

Shez hawt

Lol, r140 doesn't realise what a complete fucking idiot he is. He's meant to read from a prepared text, you moron. He's reading the government's programme, which the government writes. R140 probably thinks that Charles decides the laws in the UK, Canada and other countries where he's the head of state.

[quote]The Monarch's Speech

[quote]The Monarch’s Speech is delivered by the Monarch from the Throne in the House of Lords. Although the Monarch reads the Speech, it is written by the government. It contains an outline of its policies and proposed legislation for the new parliamentary session.

Bullshit R141. Eilzabeth absolutely acted independently and on the right side of history in her opposition to Apartheid and Thatcher's approach to the SA regime.

R141 Cultists gotta cult.

R147 thinks The Crown was a documentary.

R147, She did that on the advice of smarter people who told her she had to hold her commonwealth together and it was not a good look to support Apartheid or ignore it. Also she was a dedicated Christian and very conscious of her role as head of the Church of England. She wasn't going to support Apartheid anymore than she would have supported slavery when the tide was clearly running against it. Elizabeth was a good navigator.

Which put her in opposition to her government's position, R150.

Lilibet knew she was a useful tool. She knew her place and how to cannily maintain it for half a century.

Elizabeth Windsor was a bloody GODDESS! WORSHIP HER!

R151 dolts who try to justify your obsolete monarchy are hilarious.Trying to make cosplay relevant is always good for a laugh.

Hey you guys!! This is a Canada thread! Attention must be paid.

[quote] Exactly right. The more bland a person is, the more people project all sorts of shit onto them.

Blandness is an excellent quality in a constitutional monarch, and the ability to be all things to all (or at least most) people is vital to the survival of modern monarchy. History is full of leaders who believed that their charisma and personal qualities were more important than the office they held, and it frequently ends in complete disaster. Edward VIII believed in his own political power, which vanished like mist when he abdicated. Elizabeth II is so respected because she never gave the impression that she believed her personal beliefs were any more important than anyone else’s and she remained unknown despite being recognisable across the globe. Her discretion and emotional control made her a reliable and unifying figure. Her political views were a mystery, but her complete devotion to public service was almost indisputable.

R146 triggered Royalass

She was advised. And was smart enough to take advice. She understood her job. Charles seems to be exhibiting the same ability to understand what is needed from the job.

R156 Lilibet was a cipher who hung on too long and left us her worthless narcisstic spawn. The ultimate Nepo Baby. She knew Brits crave mediocrity. They thrive on it.

A new Lillebet has arisen.

The mentally ill person is back.

OK, spoilt for choice, there, R161. Who you talkin' about, Willis?

You, r162.

[quote] OK, spoilt for choice, there. Who you talkin' about, Wallis?

Fuck off

Yes one would have to be mentally ill to eagerly grovel to accidents of birth.

Her tombstone shall read;

PM and Mistress of the Curtsey

R141 you should retreat while you still have a shred of dignity.

The whole point of the State Opening of Parliament is that the Sovereign reads from a speech written for them by the Prime Minister, outlining the Government's plan for the coming year.

Better to leave these discussions to the brown-ups and stick to sipping Polish vodka in your smelly bed sit.

Apologies, R141 - my commentary was meant for the mouth breather R140.

God. I think the royal family meme guy was dead. Sadly, I was wrong.

It’s weird that Canada has a king.

Old ALCOHOLIC Coming!

Thought R170 was dead. Sadly I was wrong. Give her a few more weeks.

A curtsey in a knee-length skirt is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen, r166

R174 look again

Nice pins!

Not even the Daily Mail could say that ;)

R175 Disco Cammie!

R175..........WTF????????????????

R173. Believe me, even a diehard republican would welcome your departure.

Without His Majesty I'd die,believe me.

R168 "brown up mouth breathers" You rang.

R168 my bad ,meant "bald philandering brown up mouth breathers"

They really are some of the ugliest people on God's Green Earth. Inbreeding?. Hopefully the next generation will be sterile.

William's all Spencer, all his mother. I suppose it was inevitable... the Windsors have huge chompers and so did Diana. When you meet him, he's the spitting image of his mother. It doesn't always translate in photographs but in person it's quite striking.

Charlotte's getting those huge Windsor chompers too.

Neigh!!

R183 wouldn't get your hopes up

R184 posting from 1998

R184 we're struck, gobsmacked

I withdraw R162.

In one of the early episodes of The Crown, the Queen and Margaret have a whole discussion about whether blandness or personality is more fitting for a monarch. Fictional, of course, but you could argue that the question was answered by real life. If Margaret had become Queen, would the British monarchy even have survived the twentieth century?

R191 pobably not but penicillin would have been invented years earlier.

Very hypothetical scenario, r191, but Elizabeth already had two heirs when she became Queen so it would have been a very long shot for Margaret to succeed her or become Queen instead of her.

In this very hypothetical scenario, Margaret would probably have made herself "bland" (aka dignified) too and behaved accordingly. While Margaret could be described as colourful, we don't necessarily know her own personal political opinions, so in this case she's not unlike the late Queen.

R191 of course it would've survived. There have been reigning monarchs far worse than the way Margaret behaved. She'd have been shielded and less accessible. The courtiers and staff that attends to Royal Family and really run the show, would have made sure that with Margaret less is more. I also believe with a monarch like her, "retirement" in favor of the heir would have been mandatory.

Now I want an alternate history novel wherein young Princess Elizabeth succumbs to air raid injuries from a V2 rocket late in the war and Margaret Rose ascends the throne in 1952 as Queen Margaret. Suitors are desperate for her hand and Mummy wants her to marry cousin Philip Mountbatten, but must she give up her one true love, Peter Townsend, to make a suitable match?

In the end, she abdicates and lets Uncle Henry. Duke of Gloucester, ascend the throne as Henry IX with Queen Alice at his side and two male heirs already waiting the wings.

Margaret, given the title Duchess of Sandringham by Henry IX, and Peter Townsend marry and join Uncle David and Aunt Wallis in eternal exile amongst the jet set.

Mummy is simply furious.

R195, I'd read that (or watch the limited TV series)

Most Canadians are indifferent to the monarchy and probably lean towards republicans. Yet, I am so content that Charles' opening of the Canadian parliament was a thumb in the nose to the current POTUS.

I think the title of this thread is something that Queen Camilla RARELY says about the old doddard...

R197... that's a hard call. I would agree most Canadians are indifferent to the monarchy and might have leaned republican before.... the troubles. I think there's a kind of contentedness in enough of us now that the monarchy hasn't been this strong in awhile. Which isn't to say it is universal or makes hearts pound. But I think it constitutional monarchy may now be seen somewhat more widely as part of the Canadian identity. I mean just in the days since the King opened Parliament. The polling will be interesting. One columnist observed we may be moving out of adolescent rebellion against the notion and now settling into a bemused satisfaction with the quirkiness of it all. Where there is universal agreement, almost, is there's no consensus on what the replace it with and with our Constitution written the way it is it would be almost impossible to replace the thing if we could. Changing the Crown requires unanimity at all senior levels of government. Canada's a pretty fractious country - in peace time - a lot of the Westerners don't like the East, everybody calls Quebec the spoiled child of Confederation, Quebec thinks it's all that and in many ways is... opening the Constitution might replace Pandora's box as the cliche for are you sure you know what you're doing, once the dust settled.

As a system of government, I think Constitutional monarchy is the way to go.

[quote] it would be almost impossible to replace the thing

Yes. The “thing”. That’s what I call George. Let’s see how impossible it is to replace the thing when he wants to marry his boyfriend.

[quote] I think the title of this thread is something that Queen Camilla RARELY says about the old doddard...

Maybe now, but that old mare was riding that particular stallion for half a century.

[quote]opening the Constitution might replace Pandora's box as the cliche for are you sure you know what you're doing, once the dust settled.

The constitution is the third rail of Canadian politics. Since Meech Lake and then Charlottetown, no prime minister in their right mind would propose opening it up for changes. It would absolutely consume their government agenda.

I was fascinated by the ceremony around having the King of Canada deliver the throne speech. I didn't know there was a guy with a long rod and a feathered hat that has to rap on the chamber doors 3 times to announce the King is coming. The amount of preparation put in for the ceremony was astounding. All the bands and other musicians, ceremonial headdress and hats, amazing uniforms. It was truly something.

Will Britain come to Canada's defense if the US invades Canada?

Maybe I'm imagining this. It was the late news on CTV. They said a recent poll showed Quebec as the province with the LEAST desire to separate.

Yet the Bloc Québecois outdid the NDP on a national level and retained party status. And the Parti Québecois leads in polls leading to the next provincial election.

I love living here.

The Extreme Right in the USA wants to open up our Constitution they want a Constitutional Convention to change it. Our Bill of Rights would never pass in today's political environment.

R205, if Quebec ever leaves Canada, your country will lose some of the hottest guys on the planet.

Where do all the hot Québec guys come from? I'd have thought that the inbred French population would have produced grotesques.

R308, obviously they mixed with the Anglos.

R209: can see into the future (i.e., R308)?

He's so unkingly

R211, except for the part about literally being a king.

I like Charles. His life has been so messy and he's really quite a Queen, a Diva, .....IMO.

R202 makes a good point. The last time the Canadian Constitution was opened (by then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney) it set in motion the destruction of the old Progressive Conservative party. It never recovered and no longer exists at the Federal level.

No Prime Minister has dared reopen the Constitutional debate again since.

[quote]The Extreme Right in the USA wants to open up our Constitution they want a Constitutional Convention to change it. Our Bill of Rights would never pass in today's political environment.

R206 is 100% correct and it's not just the extreme right - it's a good chunk of the right.

R205 without Quebec, there wouldn’t be any Canada…basic history.

R208 you might think that, but you’d be stupid..

Plenty of Catholic intermarriage with Irish immigrants. Also plenty of “pure laine” Québécois —they fucked like rabbits and tended towards extremely large families—compared to other groups. My grandfather was one of 15 and his father was one of 14…and so on.

R214 a similar party under a different name easily replaced it …the party system didn’t really change.

[quote]a similar party under a different name easily replaced it …

Easily? There were years of a stumbling 'Unite the Right' movement taking the reform party to the CRAP party (Canadian Reform Alliance Party... or 'The Reform Party in new panty hose' as Mulroney called it), the disastrous leadership of Stockwell 'Doris' Day causing a dozen of his MPs to break away while the rump PC party under Joe Clark clung to a dozen seats. The Bloc Quebecois was the official opposition and there was no national opposition to Chrétien throughout his reign.

A few years back under Justin Trudeau, Quebec Liberal premier Couillard released a paper designed to start the process of having Quebec sign the constitution 'Notre façon d'être Canadiens' but Justin Trudeau showed no interest. Perhaps a wise choice or perhaps a missed opportunity.

[quote] they fucked like rabbits and tended towards extremely large families

And their absurd habit of having quintuplets certainly didn't help, either.

Two are still alive... turned 91 on May 28th.

[quote]CRAP party (Canadian Reform Alliance Party)

This can't be serious.