The Queen/Prince Philip

[47of74]

Just now, AmazonGrace said:

Interesting point... I never thought of pope names that way before but I reckon they feel like adopting a pope name that sounds like a Roman saint or something gives them more of an air of detached authority than if they used their own name from their own personal history that links to their own family history and ethnicity. Some languages adapt the pope names into their language and it would be harder to do with   Pope Jorge Mario or Pope Karol Jozef

John XXIII went with the name John because it was his father's name and the name of the church he was baptized in.  The name hadn't been used in over 500 years because of the last guy to use that name being an antipope during the Western Schism.  Francis kind of bucked tradition being the first Pope in over a thousand years to use a new name.  Last guy to do was Pope Lando.  (Insert all your Lando Calrissian jokes here). 

[JermajestyDuggar]

1 minute ago, 47of74 said:

John XXIII went with the name John because it was his father's name and the name of the church he was baptized in.  The name hadn't been used in over 500 years because of the last guy to use that name being an antipope during the Western Schism.  Francis kind of bucked tradition being the first Pope in over a thousand years to use a new name.  Last guy to do was Pope Lando.  (Insert all your Lando Calrissian jokes here). 

Also poor little John was King George’s little brother who had health problems and died at 12. Some say the name John is just bad luck in the royal family. But I don’t believe in luck. 

[sndral]

Interesting that Camilla is being referred to as Queen Consort, although I’m not surprised since Queen Elizabeth II recently expressed her wish for that to happen when the time came.

[Jana814]

Watching all the coverage & one of the news anchors is having a hard time saying King Charles instead of prince Charles.  It will be weird to hear it I’m sure. 

[WiseGirl]

BBC Llink.    Obituary

And because it's me the People article.

This sums it up for me.

 

[JermajestyDuggar]

11 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

George was one of his names (the last of his personal names, I believe).  My guess is he could have been King Albert except they chose to go with George to remind people of George V and bolster things up after the abdication,  

Royals and aristocrats are used to swapping names and titles as they inherit.  

 Edward (the one who abdicated) was known in the family by the last of his personal names, David.  

His younger brother was Prince George. So it’s sort of weird. He’s king George and his younger brother is Prince George. 

[47of74]

3 minutes ago, WiseGirl said:

BBC Llink.    Obituary

And because it's me the People article.

This sums it up for me.

 

The same.  The goddamn same.  It's going to take me a fornicating long time to get used to God Save The King and King Charles III.

Saw on Twitter one British Pub owner is going to honor her by serving her favorite drinks.

I think I said it earlier but yeah I'm going to go have a memorial oat soda or two after work.

[AmazonGrace]

+

10 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

John XXIII went with the name John because it was his father's name and the name of the church he was baptized in.  The name hadn't been used in over 500 years because of the last guy to use that name being an antipope during the Western Schism.  Francis kind of bucked tradition being the first Pope in over a thousand years to use a new name.  Last guy to do was Pope Lando.  (Insert all your Lando Calrissian jokes here). 

Still pretty saintly names, John and Francis... But  maybe one day people will be good enough for their church wearing their birth name.

"Name matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my name, do you?”  ~ Pope Yoda XII~

[Anna Bolinas]

It's just still odd to me that the name Charles was chosen in the first place. Charles I's legacy goes without saying; Charles II is more remembered for his bastards and his mistresses than anything else. The Hanovers never use the name 'Charles' as a first name following Charles II. Elizabeth II's uncles were named Edward, Henry, George, and John. So where did Charles come from? Knowing he was the heir, it's just weird to me that he was given a name that would connect him to two infamous kings, as opposed to naming him 'George' (the most common regnal name for the House of Hanover/Saxe-Coburg and Gothe/Windsor) or 'Philip' or even 'Albert' (both of which would've wiped the slate clean, so to speak).

[louisa05]

21 minutes ago, Anna Bolinas said:

It's just still odd to me that the name Charles was chosen in the first place. Charles I's legacy goes without saying; Charles II is more remembered for his bastards and his mistresses than anything else. The Hanovers never use the name 'Charles' as a first name following Charles II. Elizabeth II's uncles were named Edward, Henry, George, and John. So where did Charles come from? Knowing he was the heir, it's just weird to me that he was given a name that would connect him to two infamous kings, as opposed to naming him 'George' (the most common regnal name for the House of Hanover/Saxe-Coburg and Gothe/Windsor) or 'Philip' or even 'Albert' (both of which would've wiped the slate clean, so to speak).

Maybe they just liked the name??? Maybe they wanted him to have his own name...her father was still alive. The royal family has not often repeated first names of living family--at least not the highest ranked ones. 

[viii]

Perhaps they thought it was time to have a positively remembered King Charles. 

[47of74]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

+

Still pretty saintly names, John and Francis... But  maybe one day people will be good enough for their church wearing their birth name.

"Name matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my name, do you?”  ~ Pope Yoda XII~

“When 900 years as Pope you reach, look as good you will not.” - Pope Yoda. 

[tabitha2]

Elizabeth literally said she just liked the name  

[Bluebirdbluebell]

I don't know everything about British history, but my memory is that the Charles II was considered a good king, despite his hedonism.

[Ozlsn]

You know for something entirely expected that was still unexpected news to wake up to. Vale Queen Elizabeth - for better or for worse she's been a prominent figure all of my life. When I was 6 and our class was talking about WW1 the teacher said "and they sang 'God Save The King'" and we all laughed because it sounded so weirdly wrong. And now we'll all get used to hearing it.

[HoneyBunny]

4 hours ago, zygote373 said:

She's gone

 

Such a beautiful picture of the Queen. 😢

[zeebaneighba]

2 hours ago, viii said:

Elizabeth II was 27 when she became queen. 

She was 27 at the coronation.  She became Queen in February 1952 when she was still 25.

[DalmatianCat]

2 hours ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

The family does have longevity on their side. So Charles could live to be quite old. Which means he could rule for 20+ years. 

Possibly…but while Elizabeth outlived her father by decades her mother lived six years longer than she did. If Charles passes at six years younger than his mother that’s 88, which is still a good amount of time, but I doubt he’ll be as visible in his later years as she was. Ever since I saw the Netflix documentary he was in (I think from 2012 or 2015) and noticed how swollen and red his fingers were I wondered what type of health condition he might have.

[SassyPants]

I guess once she met with the new PM on Tuesday, the Queen realized that her inbox was empty and decided  that her work was done and it was time to go. I am glad that she apparently did not suffer or do the hospital shuffle that so many elderly people do in the final months of their lives. Also, that no hospital was involved.

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, Anna Bolinas said:

It's just still odd to me that the name Charles was chosen in the first place. Charles I's legacy goes without saying; Charles II is more remembered for his bastards and his mistresses than anything else. The Hanovers never use the name 'Charles' as a first name following Charles II. Elizabeth II's uncles were named Edward, Henry, George, and John. So where did Charles come from? Knowing he was the heir, it's just weird to me that he was given a name that would connect him to two infamous kings, as opposed to naming him 'George' (the most common regnal name for the House of Hanover/Saxe-Coburg and Gothe/Windsor) or 'Philip' or even 'Albert' (both of which would've wiped the slate clean, so to speak).

It may have been a “nod” to Scotland, where the Stuarts were remembered fondly.  For a long time (well into the 20th century, I believe) there were Scottish military regiments where the toast “To the King” was accompanied by a silent passing of the wine glass over the water glass before drinking.  This signified “across the water.”  The “King across the Water” was the Stuart “Pretender” to the throne, who had been displaced by the Hanoverians (and was “across the water” in exile).

Charles II was not a great king, but neither were any of the Georges.  Of George III and his sons,  Shelley wrote:

“An old, mad, blind, despised, and dying King; 
Princes, the dregs of their dull race, who flow 
Through public scorn,—mud from a muddy spring
Rulers who neither see nor feel nor know, 
But leechlike to their fainting country cling…”

The name Charles, on the other hand, can be associated with what a bad idea the “Interregnum” was, and with the Restoration of the monarchy as well as the romanticized “Bonny Prince Charlie” of Scottish song and story.

But I am just guessing. 😉

1 hour ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

I don't know everything about British history, but my memory is that the Charles II was considered a good king, despite his hedonism.

Yes.  Especially compared to Cromwell’s repressiveness.

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

Elizabeth literally said she just liked the name  

And that makes sense too. 😉

Edited September 8, 2022 by EmCatlyn
Typos

[tabitha2]

All British Kings other than maybe Alfred  have bad reputations in one way or another but they keep using the same names over and over still so It doesn’t seem like a huge deal to them at all. The Late Queen would not have named her son Charles if she cared about implications or reputations. That said John is just a step to far because of the tragedy that seems to happen every time they use the name. 

 

[47of74]

I just saw this from last year

Quote

Queen Elizabeth is known to enjoy a tipple but Her Majesty is giving up her daily alcoholic beverage at the advice of her doctors. 

While she is in good physical health, the Queen, who has been seen using a cane in recent days including Thursday in Wales where she addressed the Welsh Parliament, has been advised to give up her evening martini as she prepares for one of the most important periods of her reign, Vanity Faircan report. 

According to two sources close to the monarch, doctors have advised the Queen to forgo alcohol except for special occasions to ensure she is as healthy as possible for her busy autumn schedule and ahead of her Platinum Jubilee celebrations next June. “The Queen has been told to give up her evening drink which is usually a martini,” says a family friend. “It’s not really a big deal for her, she is not a big drinker but it seems a trifle unfair that at this stage in her life she’s having to give up one of very few pleasures.”

The doctors should be glad that she wasn’t me. If I was in her shoes at the time and being in my 9th decade I would have responded with what the doctors could go do to themselves. (Hint: it involves self fornication).

(If I live as long as my grandparents I plan on being just as much a PITA to the doctors as they were). 

[Jackie3]

I once read a lovely story about the Queen. It took place in the 80's.

Apparently, the Queen really enjoyed vanilla ice cream but one day decided to jazz it up a bit. She asked her chef to add bits of her favorite chocolate bar to the vanilla he made for her. The result is what we would call chocolate chip. However, she really believed that she had invented this flavor, and, according to Charles' valet, "no one had the heart to tell her she had not." 

It seems like a believable story. After all, she didn't really go to ice cream shops, not even as a child (her childhood was pretty sheltered).  This was before the internet, so she wouldn't have read about chocolate chip ice cream on line. So maybe she truly she had invented this flavor.

35 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

All British Kings other than maybe Alfred  have bad reputations in one way or another but they keep using the same names over and over still so It doesn’t seem like a huge deal to them at all. The Late Queen would not have named her son Charles if she cared about implications or reputations. That said John is just a step to far because of the tragedy that seems to happen every time they use the name. 

 

I have to say, I like the traditional names they use. But they do recycle them a lot!  It would be kind of funny if the next little prince was given a name like Grayer or Axel or Kolter or Xander.

Edited September 8, 2022 by Jackie3

[Jackie3]

3 hours ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Also poor little John was King George’s little brother who had health problems and died at 12. Some say the name John is just bad luck in the royal family. But I don’t believe in luck. 

He died at 13, actually. I always thought it was so sad how he was isolated from the rest of his family. He must have felt so rejected. He didn't have a communicable disease, just epilepsy. I realize he was not mistreated, but still.

OTOH, maybe he didn't mind, since George V was such a harsh and scary father.

[libgirl2]

3 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

He died at 13, actually. I always thought it was so sad how he was isolated from the rest of his family. He must have felt so rejected. He didn't have a communicable disease, just epilepsy. I realize he was not mistreated, but still.

OTOH, maybe he didn't mind, since George V was such a harsh and scary father.

Didn't he have a nanny who adored him?