 "I'm A King Bee" (The Rolling Stones) |
Posted on 09/10/2022 2:45:26 PM PDT by Twotone
The royal beekeeper - in an arcane tradition thought to date back centuries - has informed the hives kept in the grounds of Buckingham Palace and Clarence House of the Queen’s death.
And the bees have also been told, in hushed tones, that their new master is now King Charles III.
The official Palace beekeeper, John Chapple, 79, told MailOnline how he travelled to Buckingham Palace and Clarence House on Friday following news of The Queen’s death to carry out the superstitious ritual.
He placed black ribbons tied into bows on the hives, home to tens of thousands of bees, before informing them that their mistress had died and that a new master would be in charge from now on.
He then urged the bees to be good to their new master - himself once famed for talking to plants.
The strange ritual is underpinned by an old superstition that not to tell them of a change of owner would lead to the bees not producing honey, leaving the hive or even dying.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
All younger boys are called Master if they’re too young to be called Mister.
My grandmother was from a Mayflower family, and oddly called all her grandsons ‘master’. I always thought it odd.
No.
The one who manages to mate with the queen actually has his guts ripped out after, and dies.
(A number of insects are all warm and fuzzy like that :-)
Two bee oar knot too be ...
Love that show!
Well played. :^)
The winner of the thread!
Absolutely true! Would love to go there someday.
As seen on an episode of “MIDSOMER MURDERS”, if remembered
correctly. Old wives have long tales.... like that of:
a woman in labor places a knife under her back in order
to cut the pain. Soes it work? Do queen bees move on even
after being told their queen has passed?
I don’t know...but bees are weird critters.
And as for the knife (which would have been of iron or an early, iron-heavy steel) there may have been some sort of magnetism going on which actually may have helped with the lower back pain.
Actually, I think that now, with the ascension of Charles, Harry’s kids ARE prince and princess. They were too far down the line prior to the Queen’s death to have those titles.
Still not changed in the official royal succession line...so either Charles is considering nixing it..which has significant ramifications or parents haven’t decided to accept the title
I don’t see how they would ‘trump’ anyone before them in the line, no matter how things were. Harry and his kids certainly aren’t going to come before William’s.
You didnt understand my post. The Succession Line was changed with all the new names. When it was updated the names were not changed for Harry’s kids
I’m sorry if I misunderstood, but I’m not sure what you mean by ‘names’; and it seems to me that everyone is in the proper place with regard to normal succession. (As far as I’m aware, no titles or hereditary rights have been ‘stripped’ from anyone, so far; and the Duke of York is still in his proper place, as well.)
There is one thing that I’ve wondered about though, regarding the position of a Queen Consort; and perhaps we can enlist the knowledge of Naturalman, should he have time:
I’ve wondered how things would be done if something were to happen to a King while his immediate heir were still underage.
Would a Queen Consort be understood as able to assume that? Or, the Consort not being royal, would the position fall to someone else?
If a minor is the legal heir of the monarch, my understanding is the next in line of succession who is of age acts as a ‘regent’ until the heir is eligible.
See ‘Regency Acts’.
Thank you.
Would a Queen Consort be understood as able to assume that? Or, the Consort not being royal, would the position fall to someone else?
Such things are determined by Parliament through the form of laws called 'Regency Acts' - in the event of the monarch not being at least eighteen years of age, a Regent exercises the powers of the Monarch until they reach eighteen.
Parliament could technically appoint anybody to the role, but recent historical precedent has meant the appointment either goes to the first person in the line of succession who is at least twenty-one (they set the minimum age for a regency higher than the age to rule in your own right) or a living parent or grandparent of the Monarch.
Under the current Regency Act (1953) if something happened to King Charles, and Prince William, leaving Prince George as the new King, Prince Harry, as the next person over age 21, in line, would become Regent. I would expect a new Regency Act to be passed in the near future which would likely place the Princess of Wales (Katherine) ahead of Harry - this is in line with the precedent set by the 1953 Act which stated that Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, would have acted as Regent for Charles (or any of his younger siblings) until they were 18 if needed. But currently, it would be Harry until a new Act is passed. Of course, that would be a fairly apocalyptic situation.
If Queen Camilla was the grandmother of George, rather than his step-grandmother, she might have been a possible regent ahead of Harry as well, but I doubt Parliament will take that step, given there is no blood relation, and the Princess of Wales is available. It's not impossible, though.
Thanks very much. I was confused as to the possibility of a non-royal Consort as ‘regent’.
"I'm A King Bee" (The Rolling Stones) |
Prince versus Master
princess versus whatever is in front of lillibets name right now in the official royal succession list
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.