Elizabeth II has died

[Cheerful Charlie]

SYDNEY (Reuters) - The Australian government said on Tuesday that the image of King Charles III would not automatically replace Queen Elizabeth II's on A$5 notes, and it may be replaced by Australian figures.

I suggest instead the majestic Australian bin chicken.

 

[Politesse]

Yes, it should be a famous Australian political leader like.... er...

Hm.

Gimme a minute...

Priscilla, Queen of the Desert? She was one of yours, right?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

First Dog On The Moon.

 

[steve_bank]

If you go by the British reporting just about everybody loved the queen and everybody wants the monarhy.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

OK. Queen of the bin chickens it is.

 

[lpetrich]

SYDNEY (Reuters) - The Australian government said on Tuesday that the image of King Charles III would not automatically replace Queen Elizabeth II's on A$5 notes, and it may be replaced by Australian figures.

I suggest instead the majestic Australian bin chicken.

???

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

 

[Politesse]

NYT posted an interesting article this morning, discussing the new king's financial holdings:

King Charles Inherits Untold Riches, and Passes Off His Own Empire​

Charles, who formally acceded to the British throne on Saturday, spent half a century turning his royal estate into a billion-dollar portfolio and one of the most lucrative moneymakers in the royal family business.

While his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, largely delegated responsibility for her portfolio, Charles was far more deeply involved in developing the private estate known as the Duchy of Cornwall. Over the past decade, he has assembled a large team of professional managers who increased his portfolio’s value and profits by about 50 percent.

The conglomerate’s holdings are valued at roughly $1.4 billion, compared with around $949 million in the late queen’s private portfolio. These two estates represent a small fraction of the royal family’s estimated $28 billion fortune. On top of that, the family has personal wealth that remains a closely guarded secret.

The growth in the royal family’s coffers and King Charles’s personal wealth over the past decade came at a time when Britain faced deep austerity budget cuts. Poverty levels soared, and the use of food banks almost doubled. His lifestyle of palaces and polo has long fueled accusations that he is out of touch with ordinary people. And he has at times been the unwitting symbol of that disconnect — such as when his limo was mobbed by students protesting rising tuition in 2010 or when he perched atop a golden throne in his royal finery this year to pledge help for struggling families.

Most of the family wealth is likewise tied up in the oldest con game in Europe: real estate. But its extent and nature is by design not well understood by or accesible to the public.

Or it's all just a friendly old dead lady, her cute dogs, and the antics of her wacky, fun-loving sons. Something like that. Symbolic, you know. Of all of our shared values as English speaking peoples.

 

[Tigers!]

Yes, it should be a famous Australian political leader like.... er...

Hm.

Gimme a minute...

The man you are thinking of is Sir Les Patterson

 

[DrZoidberg]

NYT posted an interesting article this morning, discussing the new king's financial holdings:

King Charles Inherits Untold Riches, and Passes Off His Own Empire​

Charles, who formally acceded to the British throne on Saturday, spent half a century turning his royal estate into a billion-dollar portfolio and one of the most lucrative moneymakers in the royal family business.

While his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, largely delegated responsibility for her portfolio, Charles was far more deeply involved in developing the private estate known as the Duchy of Cornwall. Over the past decade, he has assembled a large team of professional managers who increased his portfolio’s value and profits by about 50 percent.

The conglomerate’s holdings are valued at roughly $1.4 billion, compared with around $949 million in the late queen’s private portfolio. These two estates represent a small fraction of the royal family’s estimated $28 billion fortune. On top of that, the family has personal wealth that remains a closely guarded secret.

The growth in the royal family’s coffers and King Charles’s personal wealth over the past decade came at a time when Britain faced deep austerity budget cuts. Poverty levels soared, and the use of food banks almost doubled. His lifestyle of palaces and polo has long fueled accusations that he is out of touch with ordinary people. And he has at times been the unwitting symbol of that disconnect — such as when his limo was mobbed by students protesting rising tuition in 2010 or when he perched atop a golden throne in his royal finery this year to pledge help for struggling families.

Most of the family wealth is likewise tied up in the oldest con game in Europe: real estate. But its extent and nature is by design not well understood by or accesible to the public.

Or it's all just a friendly old dead lady, her cute dogs, and the antics of her wacky, fun-loving sons. Something like that. Symbolic, you know. Of all of our shared values as English speaking peoples.

Isn't he supposed to be "out of touch with ordinary people"? If we'd want him to be able to relate to ordinary people then why on Earth wouldn't we elect our king from those same ordinary people? People sometimes whine about the strangest things.

 

[Ford]

If you go by the British reporting just about everybody loved the queen and everybody wants the monarhy.

On the way home from work this morning, I was listening to the BBC's coverage of...their week-long coverage of her death.

There was one story that stuck out that made me think for a minute. Back in the early part of this century, the queen was scheduled to meet with Holocaust survivors. The story went that the monarch (and the monarchy) was punctual to a fault. She arrived exactly on time and left exactly when scheduled. Down to the second.

The person who'd arranged the meeting said that instead of leaving on time, the Queen stayed for hours after, taking time to listen to the stories of every single survivor. When he asked her exasperated handlers if this had ever happened before, they said "never."

 

[steve_bank]

If you go by the British reporting just about everybody loved the queen and everybody wants the monarhy.

On the way home from work this morning, I was listening to the BBC's coverage of...their week-long coverage of her death.

There was one story that stuck out that made me think for a minute. Back in the early part of this century, the queen was scheduled to meet with Holocaust survivors. The story went that the monarch (and the monarchy) was punctual to a fault. She arrived exactly on time and left exactly when scheduled. Down to the second.

The person who'd arranged the meeting said that instead of leaving on time, the Queen stayed for hours after, taking time to listen to the stories of every single survivor. When he asked her exasperated handlers if this had ever happened before, they said "never."

Don't know what that is supposed to infer. From her yoth she was wlel schooled in what a monarch of the empire does. Beering magnanimous is part of the royal show.

England of her day was not exactly tolerant of Jews, or Catholics either. The radio show plaed part of the cronation. She is anointed with oil with crosses on her forehead, chest, and hands. The crown is covered in crosses. She is enjoined be Christian and promote the Church Of Enflnd, which she agrees to in te rituals and wholeheartedly embraced.

Nither a black wife of a royal, a biracial child of a royal, or a Jew will ever be accepted as a true member of the royal family. They are the keepers of the British white Christina state religion They swear a centuries old oath to protect the church. It is a theocracy without power.

I belive the royal wedding ceremony commands the couple to have Christian babies.

I listened to a rambling BBC radio narrator talking endlessly about the queen in that aristocratic somber tone of superiority on how wonderful the queen was.

From where I sit is comical. A family worth around 75 billion from promoting the royal brand strutting around as if they are somebody knowing they are all figureheads. Despite theirr wealth and influence I feel sorry for them. They will never know what it is really like to live free and earn something.

 

[Politesse]

Indeed she was the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, a role which entails appointing bishops and archbishops, on the advice of the Prime Minister. She had no governance role over the Church of Scotland, but appointed a Lord High Commisioner to represent her at the General Assembly, on three occassions appointing herself to that role, which is ritual in character rather than legislative. Charles III now inherits these roles and privileges. One of his first official acts last week was a public oath to maintain the governmental independence of the Presbyterian churches. He has also, like all previous British Monarchs, taken as one of his royal titles "Defender of the Faith". Defense against what or whom, one might pause to consider? He has previously indicated a desire to use the role defend and protect all of England's faiths, a statement that caused no small measure of controversy within the Anglican Communion of the late 90s (they seemingly expected the Queen to die much sooner than she actually did, apparently forgetting that billionaires have characteristically long life spans these days)

 

[steve_bank]

When King Chuck speaks publicly he is lifeless. Monotone voice, little emotion, an expressionless face.

He does not appear to want to do what he has to do publicly. Feeling responsibility after a soft easy life.

 

[bilby]

He has also, like all previous British Monarchs, taken as one of his royal titles "Defender of the Faith". Defense against what or whom, one might pause to consider?

Well, the history of the title might be illuminating: It was awarded to Henry VIII by the pope (Leo X), in 1521, in recognition of Henry's defending the Catholic Church against Martin Luther. Henry wrote a book Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, which defended, amongst other things, the sacrament of marriage and the supremacy of the pope as head of the Christian faith.

So to answer your question, Protestantism.

When Henry bailed on the pope, in a fit of pique about being refused a divorce, one of his ways of sticking a finger up at the Vatican was his refusal to give up the title 'Fidei Defensor'.

The whole thing is massively ironic. English monarchs have used 'FD' as a title ever since, despite being the heads of a major Protestant church. But THE faith (singular) to which the title refers is Roman Catholicism, a faith that the English Monarch is legally prohibited from holding.

 

[Politesse]

He has also, like all previous British Monarchs, taken as one of his royal titles "Defender of the Faith". Defense against what or whom, one might pause to consider?

Well, the history of the title might be illuminating: It was awarded to Henry VIII by the pope (Leo X), in 1521, in recognition of Henry's defending the Catholic Church against Martin Luther. Henry wrote a book Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, which defended, amongst other things, the sacrament of marriage and the supremacy of the pope as head of the Christian faith.

So to answer your question, Protestantism.

When Henry bailed on the pope, in a fit of pique about being refused a divorce, one of his ways of sticking a finger up at the Vatican was his refusal to give up the title 'Fidei Defensor'.

The whole thing is massively ironic. English monarchs have used 'FD' as a title ever since, despite being the heads of a major Protestant church. But THE faith (singular) to which the title refers is Roman Catholicism, a faith that the English Monarch is legally prohibited from holding.

Well, Charles III may close the gap, if he's serious about defending the faiths, not just the Faith, of Britain. Presumably that would include the Catholics. As I recall, that was the principal cause of upset within the ranks when he first made that statement. They were fine with Moslems - not the bogeymen of Europe yet in 1997 - but Catholics? Over the dead body of Francis Bacon!

From the same class of folk, indeed, who would take umbrage at your definition of the Roman church as "The Faith". Sola fide, motherfuckers. Tawheed. There can be no contradiction in faith, which is but one, and the English Kings are the defenders of it.

 

[bilby]

He has also, like all previous British Monarchs, taken as one of his royal titles "Defender of the Faith". Defense against what or whom, one might pause to consider?

Well, the history of the title might be illuminating: It was awarded to Henry VIII by the pope (Leo X), in 1521, in recognition of Henry's defending the Catholic Church against Martin Luther. Henry wrote a book Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, which defended, amongst other things, the sacrament of marriage and the supremacy of the pope as head of the Christian faith.

So to answer your question, Protestantism.

When Henry bailed on the pope, in a fit of pique about being refused a divorce, one of his ways of sticking a finger up at the Vatican was his refusal to give up the title 'Fidei Defensor'.

The whole thing is massively ironic. English monarchs have used 'FD' as a title ever since, despite being the heads of a major Protestant church. But THE faith (singular) to which the title refers is Roman Catholicism, a faith that the English Monarch is legally prohibited from holding.

Well, Charles III may close the gap, if he's serious about defending the faiths, not just the Faith, of Britain. Presumably that would include the Catholics. As I recall, that was the principal cause of upset within the ranks when he first made that statement. They were fine with Moslems - not the bogeymen of Europe yet in 1997 - but Catholics? Over the dead body of Francis Bacon!

From the same class of folk, indeed, who would take umbrage at your definition of the Roman church as "The Faith". Sola fide, motherfuckers. Tawheed. There can be no contradiction in faith, which is but one, and the English Kings are the defenders of it.

Hey, it's not MY definition of the Roman church. I'm just quoting Pope Leo X (presumably related to Malcom X?).

 

[Politesse]

He has also, like all previous British Monarchs, taken as one of his royal titles "Defender of the Faith". Defense against what or whom, one might pause to consider?

Well, the history of the title might be illuminating: It was awarded to Henry VIII by the pope (Leo X), in 1521, in recognition of Henry's defending the Catholic Church against Martin Luther. Henry wrote a book Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, which defended, amongst other things, the sacrament of marriage and the supremacy of the pope as head of the Christian faith.

So to answer your question, Protestantism.

When Henry bailed on the pope, in a fit of pique about being refused a divorce, one of his ways of sticking a finger up at the Vatican was his refusal to give up the title 'Fidei Defensor'.

The whole thing is massively ironic. English monarchs have used 'FD' as a title ever since, despite being the heads of a major Protestant church. But THE faith (singular) to which the title refers is Roman Catholicism, a faith that the English Monarch is legally prohibited from holding.

Well, Charles III may close the gap, if he's serious about defending the faiths, not just the Faith, of Britain. Presumably that would include the Catholics. As I recall, that was the principal cause of upset within the ranks when he first made that statement. They were fine with Moslems - not the bogeymen of Europe yet in 1997 - but Catholics? Over the dead body of Francis Bacon!

From the same class of folk, indeed, who would take umbrage at your definition of the Roman church as "The Faith". Sola fide, motherfuckers. Tawheed. There can be no contradiction in faith, which is but one, and the English Kings are the defenders of it.

Hey, it's not MY definition of the Roman church. I'm just quoting Pope Leo X (presumably related to Malcom X?).

And is this not the face of a Man who Knoweth most deeply the Joy of the Love of God?


That's the face he chose to wear, in order to have his portrait done.

 

[bilby]

He has also, like all previous British Monarchs, taken as one of his royal titles "Defender of the Faith". Defense against what or whom, one might pause to consider?

Well, the history of the title might be illuminating: It was awarded to Henry VIII by the pope (Leo X), in 1521, in recognition of Henry's defending the Catholic Church against Martin Luther. Henry wrote a book Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, which defended, amongst other things, the sacrament of marriage and the supremacy of the pope as head of the Christian faith.

So to answer your question, Protestantism.

When Henry bailed on the pope, in a fit of pique about being refused a divorce, one of his ways of sticking a finger up at the Vatican was his refusal to give up the title 'Fidei Defensor'.

The whole thing is massively ironic. English monarchs have used 'FD' as a title ever since, despite being the heads of a major Protestant church. But THE faith (singular) to which the title refers is Roman Catholicism, a faith that the English Monarch is legally prohibited from holding.

Well, Charles III may close the gap, if he's serious about defending the faiths, not just the Faith, of Britain. Presumably that would include the Catholics. As I recall, that was the principal cause of upset within the ranks when he first made that statement. They were fine with Moslems - not the bogeymen of Europe yet in 1997 - but Catholics? Over the dead body of Francis Bacon!

From the same class of folk, indeed, who would take umbrage at your definition of the Roman church as "The Faith". Sola fide, motherfuckers. Tawheed. There can be no contradiction in faith, which is but one, and the English Kings are the defenders of it.

Hey, it's not MY definition of the Roman church. I'm just quoting Pope Leo X (presumably related to Malcom X?).

And is this not the face of a Man who Knoweth most deeply the Joy of the Love of God?

View attachment 40347
That's the face he chose to wear, in order to have his portrait done.

He really doesn't look a lot like Malcolm. Must be a very distant relative

 

[TV and credit cards]

Did the media finally let this poor woman die? Or at least rest awhile until Ken Burns digs her ass back up?