Royal News

Mikefule

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
753
Reaction score
2,573
Points
149
Location
Lincolnshire UK
I'm always leary of demanding that the grief of others expresses itself in a manner I approve of.

No doubt if Harry & Meghan had issued a long statement emphasising how upset they were, those who wished to criticise would accuse them of "Making it all about themselves."

I would be very surprised if there were not discussions or at least a tacit understanding between the Palace and Harry & Meghan about how they would express themselves when the inevitable finally came to pass.

The royal family seems to be able to unite the entire country: about 1/3 of the country united in admiring and respecting them; 1/3 united in making a point of being disinterested; and 1/3 being united in finding fault with everything the royals say or do.

Is this Fortean? Well, the royal family certainly provides material for many examples of confirmation bias, conspiracy theories, irrational preconceptions (either for or against), and urban legends or rumours accepted as fact.

One of my favourites, trotted out regularly in the media is that the "Monarchy is an institution that has lasted 1,000 years."

In the last 1,000 years, we have had all of the following, and more:
  • 3 Danish kings, Cnut, Harold Harefoot, and Harthacnut
  • Saxon dynasties: the House of Wessex, displaced by the House of Godwin
  • An invasion and takeover by the Normans, then:
  • The rebellion of 1088
  • The Anarchy (before the UK) from 1135 to 1154 relating to a succession crisis
  • The revolt of 1173 to 1174
  • The 1st and 2nd Barons' Wars
  • The Despenser War: a 3rd revolt by the barons
  • The Wars of the Roses
  • The 1st, 2nd and 3rd English Civil Wars.
  • The execution of Charles I
  • The Commonwealth (a period as a republic)
  • The restoration
  • The Glorious Revolution
  • The Jacobite Wars
The Monarchy has not been a single continuous institution. There have been succession crises, civil wars, and a period with no monarchy at all. Even without the rebellions, civil wars, execution, commonwealth, and restoration, there is virtually no similarity or continuity between the role, powers, or territory of the monarch in 1021 and the monarch in 2021.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
8,292
Reaction score
17,819
Points
309
No doubt if Harry & Meghan had issued a long statement emphasising how upset they were, those who wished to criticise would accuse them of "Making it all about themselves."

I would be very surprised if there were not discussions or at least a tacit understanding between the Palace and Harry & Meghan about how they would express themselves when the inevitable finally came to pass.

The royal family seems to be able to unite the entire country: about 1/3 of the country united in admiring and respecting them; 1/3 united in making a point of being disinterested; and 1/3 being united in finding fault with everything the royals say or do.

Is this Fortean? Well, the royal family certainly provides material for many examples of confirmation bias, conspiracy theories, irrational preconceptions (either for or against), and urban legends or rumours accepted as fact.

One of my favourites, trotted out regularly in the media is that the "Monarchy is an institution that has lasted 1,000 years."

In the last 1,000 years, we have had all of the following, and more:
  • 3 Danish kings, Cnut, Harold Harefoot, and Harthacnut
  • Saxon dynasties: the House of Wessex, displaced by the House of Godwin
  • An invasion and takeover by the Normans, then:
  • The rebellion of 1088
  • The Anarchy (before the UK) from 1135 to 1154 relating to a succession crisis
  • The revolt of 1173 to 1174
  • The 1st and 2nd Barons' Wars
  • The Despenser War: a 3rd revolt by the barons
  • The Wars of the Roses
  • The 1st, 2nd and 3rd English Civil Wars.
  • The execution of Charles I
  • The Commonwealth (a period as a republic)
  • The restoration
  • The Glorious Revolution
  • The Jacobite Wars
The Monarchy has not been a single continuous institution. There have been succession crises, civil wars, and a period with no monarchy at all. Even without the rebellions, civil wars, execution, commonwealth, and restoration, there is virtually no similarity or continuity between the role, powers, or territory of the monarch in 1021 and the monarch in 2021.

From 886 until 1707 England had a monarch (once or twice, more than one
!), except for the dark days under Cromwell for ~10 years.

l’d call that close enough to continuous for government work.

maximus otter
 

Victory

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
1,162
Reaction score
2,529
Points
154
Location
London
@Mikefule

Yes, the monarchy has changed radically ever since Aethelstan's time, the changes have sometimes been revolutionary (Charles I), at other times political reform (the bedchamber crisis) , we have had monarchs who barely set foot in the country, others who married abroad, some who have been monarch without being crowned, at least one who couldn't speak English, some who had their bum officially wiped for them by others, and one who hated the colour blue...but with the exception of the Interregnum, a monarchy of sorts we have had for a very long time.
 

Dinobot

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 19, 2015
Messages
3,586
Reaction score
4,339
Points
159
Location
Broadcasting from the moon...
I still think they wasted an opportunity with the 41 Gun Salute. They could have shelled Cromer with 41 guns. Philip would have liked that, he never got to finish off Swifty.
Philip did insist on using inferior monsters...
gorgo1961.jpg
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
32,876
Reaction score
40,941
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
I've seen a slightly better formatted version, but what on earth possessed the writer to include the ellipsis (...)?

Thank you for your service (and other stuff that I'm too weary to mention)?

EyoQ5VaWUAMtT3n.jpeg
 

Mikefule

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
753
Reaction score
2,573
Points
149
Location
Lincolnshire UK
I've seen a slightly better formatted version, but what on earth possessed the writer to include the ellipsis (...)?

I absolutely agree that the ellipsis is out of place in this context.

An ellipsis is a specific punctuation mark to show that something has been omitted or left unsaid.

However, credit where credit is due: they have used exactly 3 dots. A lot of people just write a long string of dots.

This is strange as no one would think of writing a colon : as 3 or more dots arranged vertically.

Also, at least they haven't splashed exclamation marks ! all over it to give it more emphasis. :)

It is strange how these tributes are addressed to the one person who is certainly never going to read it. "You will be greatly missed."

I see this sort of thing so often on social media and always think, "Your beloved spaniel never read Facebook when he was alive, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't now."
 

WeeScottishLassie

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,043
Reaction score
4,357
Points
153
I've seen a slightly better formatted version, but what on earth possessed the writer to include the ellipsis (...)?

Thank you for your service (and other stuff that I'm too weary to mention)?

View attachment 37934
It's a bit cold but I don't think they could do anything right.

They're dammed if they do and damned if they don't!
 

Vardoger

I'm #1 so why try harder
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
6,135
Reaction score
5,657
Points
309
Location
Scandinavia
No doubt if Harry & Meghan had issued a long statement emphasising how upset they were, those who wished to criticise would accuse them of "Making it all about themselves."

I would be very surprised if there were not discussions or at least a tacit understanding between the Palace and Harry & Meghan about how they would express themselves when the inevitable finally came to pass.

The royal family seems to be able to unite the entire country: about 1/3 of the country united in admiring and respecting them; 1/3 united in making a point of being disinterested; and 1/3 being united in finding fault with everything the royals say or do.

Is this Fortean? Well, the royal family certainly provides material for many examples of confirmation bias, conspiracy theories, irrational preconceptions (either for or against), and urban legends or rumours accepted as fact.

One of my favourites, trotted out regularly in the media is that the "Monarchy is an institution that has lasted 1,000 years."

In the last 1,000 years, we have had all of the following, and more:
  • 3 Danish kings, Cnut, Harold Harefoot, and Harthacnut
  • Saxon dynasties: the House of Wessex, displaced by the House of Godwin
  • An invasion and takeover by the Normans, then:
  • The rebellion of 1088
  • The Anarchy (before the UK) from 1135 to 1154 relating to a succession crisis
  • The revolt of 1173 to 1174
  • The 1st and 2nd Barons' Wars
  • The Despenser War: a 3rd revolt by the barons
  • The Wars of the Roses
  • The 1st, 2nd and 3rd English Civil Wars.
  • The execution of Charles I
  • The Commonwealth (a period as a republic)
  • The restoration
  • The Glorious Revolution
  • The Jacobite Wars
The Monarchy has not been a single continuous institution. There have been succession crises, civil wars, and a period with no monarchy at all. Even without the rebellions, civil wars, execution, commonwealth, and restoration, there is virtually no similarity or continuity between the role, powers, or territory of the monarch in 1021 and the monarch in 2021.
Is'nt the current royal family originally german?
 

Souleater

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
3,414
Reaction score
5,850
Points
203
Is'nt the current royal family originally german?
Pretty much yes, well German ancestry.

"The British Royal Family Tree. TheHouse of Windsor as we know it today began in 1917 when the family changed its name from the German “Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.” Queen Elizabeth's grandfather, King George V, was the first Windsor monarch, and today's working royals are the descendants of King George and his wife, Queen Mary."

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/a20736482/british-royal-family-tree/
 

pandacracker

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
1,206
Reaction score
2,820
Points
184
The family name of the house of S.C.G. is Wettin

I learnt this when we did "Oh What a Lovely War" as a production in secondary school because there's a line where someone says the royal family have changed their name "From Wettin to Windsor" (The drama teacher got the lad who delivered the line to pronounce it "Vettin to Vindsor", which makes it funnier)
 

Souleater

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
3,414
Reaction score
5,850
Points
203
Quite reasonably, she won't be there because she's pregnant, and therefore banned from flying. No, not on a broomstick.
I think the rules on flying when pregnant only come into play if you are near to full term, but im not 100%, ive never flown whilst pregnant :p
 

Cochise

Priest of the cult of the Dog with the Broken Paw
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,738
Reaction score
9,302
Points
284
No doubt if Harry & Meghan had issued a long statement emphasising how upset they were, those who wished to criticise would accuse them of "Making it all about themselves."

I would be very surprised if there were not discussions or at least a tacit understanding between the Palace and Harry & Meghan about how they would express themselves when the inevitable finally came to pass.

The royal family seems to be able to unite the entire country: about 1/3 of the country united in admiring and respecting them; 1/3 united in making a point of being disinterested; and 1/3 being united in finding fault with everything the royals say or do.

Is this Fortean? Well, the royal family certainly provides material for many examples of confirmation bias, conspiracy theories, irrational preconceptions (either for or against), and urban legends or rumours accepted as fact.

One of my favourites, trotted out regularly in the media is that the "Monarchy is an institution that has lasted 1,000 years."

In the last 1,000 years, we have had all of the following, and more:
  • 3 Danish kings, Cnut, Harold Harefoot, and Harthacnut
  • Saxon dynasties: the House of Wessex, displaced by the House of Godwin
  • An invasion and takeover by the Normans, then:
  • The rebellion of 1088
  • The Anarchy (before the UK) from 1135 to 1154 relating to a succession crisis
  • The revolt of 1173 to 1174
  • The 1st and 2nd Barons' Wars
  • The Despenser War: a 3rd revolt by the barons
  • The Wars of the Roses
  • The 1st, 2nd and 3rd English Civil Wars.
  • The execution of Charles I
  • The Commonwealth (a period as a republic)
  • The restoration
  • The Glorious Revolution
  • The Jacobite Wars
The Monarchy has not been a single continuous institution. There have been succession crises, civil wars, and a period with no monarchy at all. Even without the rebellions, civil wars, execution, commonwealth, and restoration, there is virtually no similarity or continuity between the role, powers, or territory of the monarch in 1021 and the monarch in 2021.
Ah, but I'm a Jacobite. and possibly (if my father was to be believed) the legitimate - well no, illegitimate, but that's not always been a barrier - claimant to the crown of England and Scotland.

Of course I don't believe it for minute, although it is likely that I have Stuart blood via the Young Pretender's daughter and her dodgy relation with a certain clergyman.

But the point is, there is a blood line - tenuous, but there - from Alfred to Elizabeth II. So in fact the monarchy has lasted more like 1,400 years. Despite William the Bastard and his homosexual son.
 

Frideswide

Fortea Morgana :) PeteByrdie certificated Princess
Staff member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
13,432
Reaction score
15,690
Points
284
Location
An Eochair
I think the rules on flying when pregnant only come into play if you are near to full term, but im not 100%, ive never flown whilst pregnant :p

Why risk a life? I don't see it's any business of ours. She recently had a miscarriage.

What is your fallback position if she suddenly feels that she has to fly and then the baby dies?
 

Souleater

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
3,414
Reaction score
5,850
Points
203
Why risk a life? I don't see it's any business of ours. She recently had a miscarriage.

What is your fallback position if she suddenly feels that she has to fly and then the baby dies?
I wasnt commenting on any particular case, only the rules governing flying whilst pregnant.
 

Cloudbusting

I still dream of Orgonon
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
215
Reaction score
642
Points
93
I absolutely agree that the ellipsis is out of place in this context.

An ellipsis is a specific punctuation mark to show that something has been omitted or left unsaid.

However, credit where credit is due: they have used exactly 3 dots. A lot of people just write a long string of dots.

This is strange as no one would think of writing a colon : as 3 or more dots arranged vertically.

Also, at least they haven't splashed exclamation marks ! all over it to give it more emphasis. :)

It is strange how these tributes are addressed to the one person who is certainly never going to read it. "You will be greatly missed."

I see this sort of thing so often on social media and always think, "Your beloved spaniel never read Facebook when he was alive, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't now."

Sorry this is getting off topic but I just have to say, there is... nothing worse..... than overuse of...... ellipsis and....... long........... unnecessary............ strings of dots. It makes me uneasy, or perhaps queasy is the correct word.

The verbal equivalent (for me) is when someone raises the intonation of their voice of the end of every sentence so every statement sounds like a question? I sat next to classmate who spoke like this for a whole year in school and my ears were practically bleeding by the end of the year?
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
44,291
Reaction score
36,519
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Sorry this is getting off topic but I just have to say, there is... nothing worse..... than overuse of...... ellipsis and....... long........... unnecessary............ strings of dots. It makes me uneasy, or perhaps queasy is the correct word.

The verbal equivalent (for me) is when someone raises the intonation of their voice of the end of every sentence so every statement sounds like a question? I sat next to classmate who spoke like this for a whole year in school and my ears were practically bleeding by the end of the year?
Sorry...
 

Ogdred Weary

Very Naughty Boy
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
5,502
Reaction score
10,189
Points
284
Sorry this is getting off topic but I just have to say, there is... nothing worse..... than overuse of...... ellipsis and....... long........... unnecessary............ strings of dots. It makes me uneasy, or perhaps queasy is the correct word.

The verbal equivalent (for me) is when someone raises the intonation of their voice of the end of every sentence so every statement sounds like a question? I sat next to classmate who spoke like this for a whole year in school and my ears were practically bleeding by the end of the year?

Not as bad!!!!!!!!!!! As the overuse of!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! One might even say it decreases!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Impact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Top