6 hours ago, Old Croc said:

Racist and petty even in the gravest times for this family.

 

I'm hoping the passing of this gracious lady will mark the beginning of the end of this anachronistic monarchy.  At the very least I can now hope that my country will become a republic without the new entitled toff remaining as our head of state.

I can't think about this lot without remembering how they became what they are, nor wonder why people in this modern world still kowtow to this hybrid German-Anglo bunch.

 

 

Russia sounds the place for you ......  oh'  don't worry you'll have plenty of vodka nights in the barracks 

5 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

France gets more tourists

That's because the Germans have to pass though France to get to Spain !!!

Just now, NeoDinosaw said:

That's because the Germans have to pass though France to get to Spain !!!

PS    and all the Nordic and Benelux counties too

4 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

I know who Id rather have a beer with.

Long live the King ....

3 hours ago, Old Croc said:

Perhaps you should complain, it was your main system of comment. It's a lot more work if you have to come up with some original thoughts of your own, not just quote others, spellcheck, whine or hit the "sad" button.

t

What "sad" button?

Reported off topic posts and response removed.

I've not known very few families in which the matriarch or patriarch has passed away without some family drama coming into play.   

 

The glue that holds the family together is gone.

4 hours ago, James105 said:

It distracts from more important issues.    Since the royal family are just ceremonial figures and are not allowed to do anything of real significance (such as changing laws etc), in order to keep them in the public eye they are reported on incessantly for carrying out the most mundane of tasks that literally any able-bodied human in the UK is capable of doing.

I've heard senior armed forces people explaining something I wasn't aware of. Basically that the armed forces are loyal to the monarch, not to the government.

Firstly because the monarchy remains stable and apolitical whereas governments change.  And secondly in case the government of the day 'turns bad' the monarch can step in with the backing of the armed forces and kick them out. That is apparently a critical part of our constitution and a reason why the monarch is important ????‍♂️

Wonder if any ex forces folk on here can confirm or correct that?

18 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Wonder if any ex forces folk on here can confirm or correct that?

This Is what I signed as an Officer Cadet (Midshipman) in 1972.

 “I swear by almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.”

 

I cannot however make any comment regarding your reasons, re;

Firstly because the monarchy  etc;

4 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It was quite widely reported that it was a gathering for close family members only and the Queen had actually died before Harry got to Balmoral 

Yep. Apparently only King Charles and and Princess Anne were at the Queen's bedside when she passed away. And that's because they were both quite near to Balmoral when she deteriorated. 

9 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Middleton wasn’t there either. 

Well it was her three children's first day at a new school. She and her husband probably thought it important that she was at home for them, especially as someone had to explain that their great grandmother had died .

8 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

France gets more tourists

Maybe they do.

 

My point was nothing about who gets the most.

11 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Well it was her three children's first day at a new school. She and her husband probably thought it important that she was at home for them, especially as someone had to explain that their great grandmother had died .

The OP goes into that and further about why she didn’t go. 
 

And let me be clear my posts are not in any way intended to criticise the protocols followed during this time, but rather try to show they may not have been particularly applied to markle as the mail would have us believe. 

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

The OP goes into that and further about why she didn’t go. 

Yes, realised that now. My post was clumsily worded, and not really aimed at you, rather I suppose at all the putative conspiracy theorists out there...

3 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Yes, realised that now. My post was clumsily worded, and not really aimed at you, rather I suppose at all the putative conspiracy theorists out there...

No worries, seems we are in agreement. 

10 hours ago, Old Croc said:

Racist and petty even in the gravest times for this family.

 

There is quite alot of ill feeling between the Royal Family and Megan (and also towards Harry to a certain degree) , thy have both made unpleasant accusations about the Royal Family in public and its rather hostile at the moment . 

   Not to mention Megan often uses the marriage for self publicity and interviews with the media .

 *Megan exclusive* : "My final moments with the Queen as she lay on her death  bed* 

   *Last photo on page 2 * 

2 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

I've heard senior armed forces people explaining something I wasn't aware of. Basically that the armed forces are loyal to the monarch, not to the government.

Firstly because the monarchy remains stable and apolitical whereas governments change.  And secondly in case the government of the day 'turns bad' the monarch can step in with the backing of the armed forces and kick them out. That is apparently a critical part of our constitution and a reason why the monarch is important ????‍♂️

Wonder if any ex forces folk on here can confirm or correct that?

Bingo. It's something that sets us above Republics. Who else remembers the Canadians looking down their noses and laughing at the Watergate debacle. The clever ones knew then what they had.

The system is perfect, a head of state, who keeps their nose out of things and carries little power except the ultimate power just is case it is ever needed.

The armed forces swear allegiance to the King or Queen and not the government.

Most Republicans can't understand or grasp the concept, they just haven't thought it through. If for instance a despot was ever elected in the UK the Crown has the ultimate power to remove them. Not only that, the Monarchy pays for itself in the money it brings in, it's a win win.

Remove the King or Queen to install another politician, haven't we had enough politicians? I have thanks.

Post in a foreign script removed along with reply.  

 

4 minutes ago, sotonowl said:

Why would I, I'm as British as they come. Try reading the post again without jumping to conclusions.

Fair enough, I thought that the first "republic" you wrote was actually "Republican " and I thought *Here we go again*

18 hours ago, Rimmer said:

King Charles 'told' Prince Harry not to bring wife Meghan Markle to Balmoral Castle as he and other senior royals rushed to the beside of the dying Queen, it was reported last night.

Good for him. That's the right thing to do.

 

However, IMO she'll probably rush to the media to complain about it when gets back to the US.

8 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

I've heard senior armed forces people explaining something I wasn't aware of. Basically that the armed forces are loyal to the monarch, not to the government.

Firstly because the monarchy remains stable and apolitical whereas governments change.  And secondly in case the government of the day 'turns bad' the monarch can step in with the backing of the armed forces and kick them out. That is apparently a critical part of our constitution and a reason why the monarch is important ????‍♂️

Wonder if any ex forces folk on here can confirm or correct that?

Correct. The Queen was head of State when I joined up. Charles is now.

17 hours ago, Old Croc said:

Racist and petty even in the gravest times for this family.

 

I'm hoping the passing of this gracious lady will mark the beginning of the end of this anachronistic monarchy.  At the very least I can now hope that my country will become a republic without the new entitled toff remaining as our head of state.

I can't think about this lot without remembering how they became what they are, nor wonder why people in this modern world still kowtow to this hybrid German-Anglo bunch.

 

 

Be careful what you wish for. For a start your taxes will go to elect yet another politician.

She was head of state, but didn't interfere- way, way better than any politician, spending their time thinking up new ways to make our lives worse.

9 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

I've heard senior armed forces people explaining something I wasn't aware of. Basically that the armed forces are loyal to the monarch, not to the government.

Firstly because the monarchy remains stable and apolitical whereas governments change.  And secondly in case the government of the day 'turns bad' the monarch can step in with the backing of the armed forces and kick them out. That is apparently a critical part of our constitution and a reason why the monarch is important ????‍♂️

Wonder if any ex forces folk on here can confirm or correct that?

While you are correct, refer posts above, members of the British armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch, I’d be more than a little surprised to hear any senior officers, serving or retired discuss the idea of the military overthrowing a British Government.

 

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

While you are correct, refer posts above, members of the British armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch, I’d be more than a little surprised to hear any senior officers, serving or retired discuss the idea of the military overthrowing a British Government.

 

 

 

 

Yes soldiers do swear an oath to the sovereign, his (her) heirs and successors.

 

But overthrowing the government; why, in the case of the infantry it would interfere with the rugby and cricket programs, for the Cavalry polo, and for the Household Division polo. For the logisticians it would involve suddenly dispensing items over the great counters of "no" so they wouldn't want to do it.

 

All the Navy's Large Grey Boats are being mended, and the RAF would insist on it all being done and dusted by Thursday teatime lest it interfered with the weekend.

 

Amongst the "officer corps" the "young thrusters" would hang back to see which way it would go before they got involved; the "passed over"

wouldn't know where to start.

 

Anyway, it would involve facing Penny Mordaunt in full "little Miss Bossy mode" - I would take my chances in battle but sod that for a game of soldiers!

16 hours ago, xylophone said:

17 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Camilla has never had the title of, or been referred to correctly, as "Queen Camilla".

However at some stage in the coming weeks and months, as the UK and the world slowly acclimatise to the accession of King Charles III and Queen Camilla

As I said, Camilla, the Queen Consort, has never had the title of, nor been referred to correctly as, Queen Camilla.

17 hours ago, transam said:

The military is not for you then.....

Yes, you are absolutely correct. I would have been court martialed, or dishonorably discharged within the first month of service. Likely for punching an officer, or telling him off. I do not suffer fools easily. Never have. I respect politicians and bigwigs even less. Highest on the list are the super rich who think they are something special. 

Off topic baiting posts, off topic bickering posts and the replies have been removed.

How petty, if that's true! 

She would have turned up with a netflix camera crew, I am sure.

Which one one is Meghan, is she one of Kim's sisters or an in-law?