Posted on 03/16/2017 9:12:29 PM PDT by naturalman1975
She is venerated around the world. She has outlasted 12 US presidents. She stands for stability and order. But her kingdom is in turmoil, and her subjects are in denial that her reign will ever end. That’s why the palace has a plan.
In the plans that exist for the death of the Queen – and there are many versions, held by Buckingham Palace, the government and the BBC – most envisage that she will die after a short illness. Her family and doctors will be there. When the Queen Mother passed away on the afternoon of Easter Saturday, in 2002, at the Royal Lodge in Windsor, she had time to telephone friends to say goodbye, and to give away some of her horses. In these last hours, the Queen’s senior doctor, a gastroenterologist named Professor Huw Thomas, will be in charge. He will look after his patient, control access to her room and consider what information should be made public. The bond between sovereign and subjects is a strange and mostly unknowable thing. A nation’s life becomes a person’s, and then the string must break.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Here's a link to the Pathe news coverage of Queen Victoria's funeral procession in 1901 at the zenith of the British Empire and dawn of a new century and technology.
The last great gathering of Europe's royalty.
My God, sir, you are a republican!
Thank you for posting this. I read it yesterday, and it is very interesting. It brought up feelings in me I did not expect, and I am not a subject of the Queen.
There was also an article the other day about Camilla becoming Queen at some point. Don’t know if something is up, but with this article, it seemed odd.
If they don’t somehow manage to pass over the idiotic Charles I suspect the British monarchy won’t last much longer.
“What kind of name is Huw Thomas? Did the article mean to say Hew Thomas?”
Welsh?
>
She’s part of history...
The old mailboxes would remain. New ones would have the royal cypher.
Would you happen to know the accuracy of reports that Prince Charles wanted his official title as “Defender of the Faith” to be changed to “Defender of the Faiths”, (PLURAL), thereby putting Christianity down to the same “level” as Islam?
Also, what do you make of how reportedly close he and other members of the Royal Family were to Jimmy Saville, the notorious pedophile?
Thank you for your thoughts.
PUT HER IN A GARBAGE BAG AND TAKE IT TO THE DUMP....
If she does last that long, she could well be doing her Kingdom a final favor—as succession more likely would pass over Charles to William.
Civil war between Charles and his son, William, for control of the kingdom?
I once took you to task, naturalman1975, over the many cringeworthy photos of Charles in muslim garb and his long-ago statement that he wanted to be "Defender of Faiths" instead of "Defender of the Faith", and let's not even go there with his shameless past infidelity. But people can and do grow. I am skeptical of your claim that he is "devout", given the incredibly muddled and heretical state of the Anglican communion's leadership.
However, fair is fair: I do agree with you that Charles has spoken out in defense of persecuted Christians, and commend you for bringing that out. Here is a selection of many articles available online about his activism dated 2017 (top) going back to 2013:
Prince Charles complains Brexit 'obsession' has stifled debate on Christian persecution
Prince Charles Decries 'Unbearable Misery' of Christians Suffering in Syria
Prince Charles Will Raise Plight of Christians During Saudi Arabia Visit
You may also enjoy the 2006 film “The Queen” starring Helen Mirren in the title role. It dealt very deeply with the crisis created by Charles and Diana’s separation and her death, and depicted the Queen’s relationship with the Prime Minister at the time (it was Blair). The scenes of her communing with nature at her Scottish estate, where she sheltered William and Harry in the immediate aftermath of Diana’s death, were breathtaking.
Also regarding Charle’s defense of persecuted Christians, see my post 54 above.
Every second is planned and practiced. But, what if the muslim radicals rear their ever-present ugly heads?
I was an Anglican myself, and I left the Church of England for the Roman Catholic Church precisely because I felt that a lot of the Anglican Church has lost its way. His Royal Highness really doesn't have that option. I am not saying he would take it if he did - because despite the leadership of the Church, there are still many devout Anglicans trying to live truly Christian lives, hoping to save their Church, rather than lead it - but the simple reality is he doesn't have the choice to easily leave. It's not quite unconstitutional (unless he became Catholic) but it could be extremely disruptive in many ways to the fabric of his country and he's not supposed to do that.
I wasn't initially aware during the early days of our friendship just how devout he was. I thought he was going through the motions to some extent. But as I came to know him better, my view on that has changed. He has a profoundly strong Christian belief. From what I can see, it tends towards the Orthodox - remember his Father was a Prince of Greece and Denmark, and baptised Greek Orthodox, there is some family influence there. But it's devout and sincere.
The first part is almost accurate, but not quite, and the distinction is important. Back in 1994, the Prince did say in an interview that he preferred the idea of being a 'Defender of Faith' rather than a 'Defender of the Faith' - and there is a difference between 'Defender of the Faiths' and 'Defender of Faith'. The latter - what he actually said - was an expression of the idea that he wanted to stand up for freedom of religion and for the idea of religion in an increasingly secular society. His specific oaths to protect the Church of Scotland (part of the Accession Oath) and the Church of England (part of the Coronation) were always still to occur, even in this context. Regardless, it has been made clear more recently, including by the Prince himself, that no change in that part of the title will be made.
Also, what do you make of how reportedly close he and other members of the Royal Family were to Jimmy Saville, the notorious pedophile?
I met Savile myself several times - anybody moving in certain circles in England did - and I had no idea of his terrible crimes. They were covered up, so very, very few people knew. The Prince and Savile were reasonably close friends in the 1980s and 1990s, but after that the friendship seems to have cooled considerably and I do wonder in retrospect if that was because somebody within the Royal Household became aware something was potentially wrong, but that's just speculation. Savile was even closer to Margaret Thatcher - again, this was back in the 1980s and early 1990s. The man was a master at ingratiating and infiltrating - that's why he succeeded in the jobs he did, but it was also clearly quite sinister now.
The potential for disruption by radicals of various sorts including Muslims is always possible. There will be contingencies to deal with that, but whether they’d work - hopefully nobody has to find out.
I'm guessing mummification is involved?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.