Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A sad day – politicalbetting.com

2456712

Comments

  • Liz looks bloody shellshocked
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,112
    Aargh! Just heard the funeral likely to be on the 19th. The day of my daughter's 11+.
    It's going toget postponed, isn't it?
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,568
    Liz Truss still wearing her necklace.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    Well, this isn't a great speech by Truss, if I'm honest. Too many clichés and inaccuracies.

    But it's being well delivered and she looks appropriately sad and dignified.

    Thank you God that you didn't take Her Majesty 72 hours ago.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,112
    Just reflecting how nice it is to hear a PM with a northern accent. Hadn't really thought about that before.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 4,022
    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Selebian said:

    Charles III.

    But is he Charles...or George?
    He'll go for George, after the best Chancellor of this millenium.
    King Gordon?

    Now isn't the time, but Charles won't be a patch on his mother.
    I predict he will have a shorter reign.
    I suspect he will reign for as long as he can. He won't want William to be King while his children are young if he can avoid it.

    But I suspect 'as long as he can' won't be more than about seven years, for health reasons or by virtue of doing something silly.
    He's 73. I can easily see him setting a retirement date, in contrast to his mother.
    I doubt if he will king beyond 80.

    And I would say, having unlike his mother made no pledge of lifelong service, he would be wrong to try.
    Yes, I suspect either his 80th birthday or possibly after 10 years.
    I'm sure you all know that this country's kings and queens don't normally step down because theologically the divine right of kings does not entertain such a concept. It's not at the behest of a human being to choose not to be king of queen. It comes from God.

    QEII felt that particularly keenly of course because of what had befallen her father after the abdication of King Edward VIII.
    And Charles will not.

    Wow. You're cocksure.

    I shall leave you to self-assured pontification.

    Sorry to those of you unsettled by this. It really is the end of an era, and some.

    xx
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    biggles said:

    Heathener said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Selebian said:

    Charles III.

    But is he Charles...or George?
    He'll go for George, after the best Chancellor of this millenium.
    King Gordon?

    Now isn't the time, but Charles won't be a patch on his mother.
    I predict he will have a shorter reign.
    I suspect he will reign for as long as he can. He won't want William to be King while his children are young if he can avoid it.

    But I suspect 'as long as he can' won't be more than about seven years, for health reasons or by virtue of doing something silly.
    He's 73. I can easily see him setting a retirement date, in contrast to his mother.
    I doubt if he will king beyond 80.

    And I would say, having unlike his mother made no pledge of lifelong service, he would be wrong to try.
    Yes, I suspect either his 80th birthday or possibly after 10 years.
    I'm sure you all know that this country's kings and queens don't normally step down because theologically the divine right of kings does not entertain such a concept. It's not at the behest of a human being to choose not to be king or queen. It comes from God.

    QEII felt that particularly keenly of course because of what had befallen her father after the abdication of King Edward VIII.
    The Divine Right of Kings went in the 17th century…

    And was buried in the 18th by the Act of Settlement 1701

    Save it for someone who is interested if you think that 01 technically belongs to the 17th C
  • "King Charles III" confirmed
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,145

    RIP

    Why does nothing ever happen on your watch TSE?

    I think the funeral is going to be on or around my birthday.
    HMQ RIP.

    Is Mike on a short notice holiday?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    Cookie said:

    Aargh! Just heard the funeral likely to be on the 19th. The day of my daughter's 11+.
    It's going toget postponed, isn't it?

    Yes.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,041
    PM calls him "King Charles III".
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 595
    Is Charles III now official?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    Heathener said:

    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Selebian said:

    Charles III.

    But is he Charles...or George?
    He'll go for George, after the best Chancellor of this millenium.
    King Gordon?

    Now isn't the time, but Charles won't be a patch on his mother.
    I predict he will have a shorter reign.
    I suspect he will reign for as long as he can. He won't want William to be King while his children are young if he can avoid it.

    But I suspect 'as long as he can' won't be more than about seven years, for health reasons or by virtue of doing something silly.
    He's 73. I can easily see him setting a retirement date, in contrast to his mother.
    I doubt if he will king beyond 80.

    And I would say, having unlike his mother made no pledge of lifelong service, he would be wrong to try.
    Yes, I suspect either his 80th birthday or possibly after 10 years.
    I'm sure you all know that this country's kings and queens don't normally step down because theologically the divine right of kings does not entertain such a concept. It's not at the behest of a human being to choose not to be king of queen. It comes from God.

    QEII felt that particularly keenly of course because of what had befallen her father after the abdication of King Edward VIII.
    And Charles will not.

    Wow. You're cocksure.

    I shall leave you to self-assured pontification.

    Sorry to those of you unsettled by this. It really is the end of an era, and some.

    xx
    Also yes. Feel free to leave it there if you like.
  • pingping Posts: 3,282
    edited September 2022
    Unremarkable speech by Truss, but perfectly adequate. Slightly faltering delivery, but who cares.

    I kindof like her normalness.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651

    The King’s statement:

    https://twitter.com/royalfamily/status/1567936934290329608

    Unsigned - so no hint as to his Regnal name.

    That might possibly be a hint it won't be Charles.
  • Oops! Has Truss just announced “King Charles III”

    Not sure it’s her job?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,230
    23 minute call with my Mother.
    Very difficult to keep myself in check tbh.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    dodrade said:

    Is Charles III now official?

    She'll look a fool if it isn't, but Palace is apparently confirming it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433
    Charles III, says the PM.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,112
    Liz Truss not particularly clunky or awkward.
  • The King’s statement:

    https://twitter.com/royalfamily/status/1567936934290329608

    Unsigned - so no hint as to his Regnal name.

    Truss has called him King Charles III.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656

    "King Charles III" confirmed

    Yes I heard that and thought “God I hope they checked that and double checked with the King”.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,568
    Driver said:

    PM calls him "King Charles III".

    Lets hope he doesn't end up like King Charles I !
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,816
    Liz just said "Charles the Third"
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    Heathener said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Selebian said:

    Charles III.

    But is he Charles...or George?
    He'll go for George, after the best Chancellor of this millenium.
    King Gordon?

    Now isn't the time, but Charles won't be a patch on his mother.
    I predict he will have a shorter reign.
    I suspect he will reign for as long as he can. He won't want William to be King while his children are young if he can avoid it.

    But I suspect 'as long as he can' won't be more than about seven years, for health reasons or by virtue of doing something silly.
    He's 73. I can easily see him setting a retirement date, in contrast to his mother.
    And I would say, having unlike his mother made no pledge of lifelong service, he would be wrong to try.
    That fundamentally misunderstands the institution.

    He may try to re-write that institution, of course, but that's what it would take. They are not elected politicians. They are chosen by God, anointed by his representatives.

    Personally I think it's pretty ludicrous but that doesn't alter the fact.

    That's your interpretation, it isnt fact. Even popes chosen by God retire. The history of our own monarchy is far more messy than your interpretation.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 4,022
    The Queen definitely believed she was instituted to the office by God and she could no more step down than she could undo her birth.

    It's a dynastic and divine right.

    Charles may change it but it would require undoing the whole concept of anointedness.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,248
    So it's confirmed Charles either is or is not Charles.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,623
    ping said:

    Unremarkable speech by Truss, but perfectly adequate. Slightly faltering delivery, but who cares.

    I kindof like her normalness.

    Yes, it was a little wooden although there are benefits to that - certainly no sense of trying to capitalise.

    But Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May (yes May) and Johnson would all have given a better speech,
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,112
    CatMan said:

    Liz just said "Charles the Third"

    Just commenting on that on our house. View here is that if he doesn't reign as Charles III he will be laughed out of Buckingham Palace and it will be the end of the monarchy.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Told you so about regnal name bollocks

    Very, very adequate from Liz
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    Interesting that Edwards is still struggling with the change.

    'Charles goes on...' 'the former Prince of Wales...'

    It's entirely understandable, but it shows how hard the change will be for all of us if a man of his class can get it wrong.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    Heathener said:

    The Queen definitely believed she was instituted to the office by God and she could no more step down than she could undo her birth.

    It's a dynastic and divine right.

    Charles may change it but it would require undoing the whole concept of anointedness.

    No, she believed in and defended the actual constitutional settlement of this country.
  • Cookie said:

    Liz Truss not particularly clunky or awkward.

    She is certainly having a baptism by fire and adapting to the role quickly

    Thank goodness it was not Johnson
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491

    "King Charles III" confirmed

    "Damn it Liz, I was going to go with Arthur!"

    "Sorry, Your Majesty, but i have to look out for you"
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,041
    edited September 2022
    ping said:

    Unremarkable speech by Truss, but perfectly adequate. Slightly faltering delivery, but who cares.

    I kindof like her normalness.

    There would be something wrong if not, given the circumstances.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,248
    ydoethur said:

    Interesting that Edwards is still struggling with the change.

    'Charles goes on...' 'the former Prince of Wales...'

    It's entirely understandable, but it shows how hard the change will be for all of us if a man of his class can get it wrong.

    Since they have rehearsed it, I assume it is about keeping the typical viewer up to speed. And the typical viewer today is quite different to your average Thursday.
  • kle4 said:

    Heathener said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Selebian said:

    Charles III.

    But is he Charles...or George?
    He'll go for George, after the best Chancellor of this millenium.
    King Gordon?

    Now isn't the time, but Charles won't be a patch on his mother.
    I predict he will have a shorter reign.
    I suspect he will reign for as long as he can. He won't want William to be King while his children are young if he can avoid it.

    But I suspect 'as long as he can' won't be more than about seven years, for health reasons or by virtue of doing something silly.
    He's 73. I can easily see him setting a retirement date, in contrast to his mother.
    And I would say, having unlike his mother made no pledge of lifelong service, he would be wrong to try.
    That fundamentally misunderstands the institution.

    He may try to re-write that institution, of course, but that's what it would take. They are not elected politicians. They are chosen by God, anointed by his representatives.

    Personally I think it's pretty ludicrous but that doesn't alter the fact.

    That's your interpretation, it isnt fact. Even popes chosen by God retire. The history of our own monarchy is far more messy than your interpretation.
    Popes don't usually retire. There's a whole story about how Benedict did so because it was the only way to change the guard, and clear out what had become massive corruption in the Vatican. No idea how true it is.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    By the way, anything from Leon?
  • My wife has just described Truss's contribution as "robotic, without any sense of feeling or nuance - the content was passable, but delivered as if reading a script that meant little to her". I agreed.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992

    Liz looks bloody shellshocked

    She did just fine.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Heathener said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Selebian said:

    Charles III.

    But is he Charles...or George?
    He'll go for George, after the best Chancellor of this millenium.
    King Gordon?

    Now isn't the time, but Charles won't be a patch on his mother.
    I predict he will have a shorter reign.
    I suspect he will reign for as long as he can. He won't want William to be King while his children are young if he can avoid it.

    But I suspect 'as long as he can' won't be more than about seven years, for health reasons or by virtue of doing something silly.
    He's 73. I can easily see him setting a retirement date, in contrast to his mother.
    And I would say, having unlike his mother made no pledge of lifelong service, he would be wrong to try.
    That fundamentally misunderstands the institution.

    He may try to re-write that institution, of course, but that's what it would take. They are not elected politicians. They are chosen by God, anointed by his representatives.

    Personally I think it's pretty ludicrous but that doesn't alter the fact.

    Are you sure you are English? Curious misunderstanding of our history and institutions.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    Heathener said:

    The Queen definitely believed she was instituted to the office by God and she could no more step down than she could undo her birth.

    It's a dynastic and divine right.

    Charles may change it but it would require undoing the whole concept of anointedness.

    Oh dear what an impossibility, unless you count all the anointed monarchs who abdicate now.

    You know they even crowned the heir whilst the king was still alive sometimes too.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433
    ydoethur said:

    Interesting that Edwards is still struggling with the change.

    'Charles goes on...' 'the former Prince of Wales...'

    It's entirely understandable, but it shows how hard the change will be for all of us if a man of his class can get it wrong.

    He looks devastated. You can rehearse a day like this as much as you like, but can’t really prepare for when it actually happens.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,467
    edited September 2022

    Cookie said:

    Liz Truss not particularly clunky or awkward.

    She is certainly having a baptism by fire and adapting to the role quickly

    Thank goodness it was not Johnson
    Thought Truss was terrible. Cold.

    Johnno would have been better at this by a mile.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    GIN1138 said:

    Driver said:

    PM calls him "King Charles III".

    Lets hope he doesn't end up like King Charles I !
    Canonized?
  • Truss did a tough job well. No lines fluffed. More convinced than ever that the Queen held on to make sure it wasn’t Johnson.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,356
    Cookie said:

    Liz Truss not particularly clunky or awkward.

    Thank goodness it wasn’t Johnson doing it, forgetting his lines, and comparing her to Peppa Pig.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    kle4 said:

    Heathener said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Selebian said:

    Charles III.

    But is he Charles...or George?
    He'll go for George, after the best Chancellor of this millenium.
    King Gordon?

    Now isn't the time, but Charles won't be a patch on his mother.
    I predict he will have a shorter reign.
    I suspect he will reign for as long as he can. He won't want William to be King while his children are young if he can avoid it.

    But I suspect 'as long as he can' won't be more than about seven years, for health reasons or by virtue of doing something silly.
    He's 73. I can easily see him setting a retirement date, in contrast to his mother.
    And I would say, having unlike his mother made no pledge of lifelong service, he would be wrong to try.
    That fundamentally misunderstands the institution.

    He may try to re-write that institution, of course, but that's what it would take. They are not elected politicians. They are chosen by God, anointed by his representatives.

    Personally I think it's pretty ludicrous but that doesn't alter the fact.

    That's your interpretation, it isnt fact. Even popes chosen by God retire. The history of our own monarchy is far more messy than your interpretation.
    Popes don't usually retire. There's a whole story about how Benedict did so because it was the only way to change the guard, and clear out what had become massive corruption in the Vatican. No idea how true it is.
    He never wanted to be Pope, he wasn't feeling well, and he felt he wasn't up to the demands of the job.

    The Vatican theory falls because Francis actually kept many of the same staff.

    It is of course a reasonable question as to how long Francis goes on. He's 85 now and isn't a well man.
  • My immediate reaction to Truss's speech was like it was delivered by an ISIS hostage with the gun pointed at her just off screen.

    Reading from a prepared statement, looking down at it every few words, zero heart or improvisation. I can't think of any prime minister before who would so fail to rise to the occasion.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,568
    ydoethur said:

    By the way, anything from Leon?

    Last I saw of him he was about to drink the blood of a German tourist.
  • ydoethur said:

    By the way, anything from Leon?

    Nothing, but welcome back Heathener!


    *innocent face*
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    kle4 said:

    Heathener said:

    The Queen definitely believed she was instituted to the office by God and she could no more step down than she could undo her birth.

    It's a dynastic and divine right.

    Charles may change it but it would require undoing the whole concept of anointedness.

    Oh dear what an impossibility, unless you count all the anointed monarchs who abdicate now.

    You know they even crowned the heir whilst the king was still alive sometimes too.
    Henry the Young King, in I want to say 1187?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    IshmaelZ said:

    Heathener said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Selebian said:

    Charles III.

    But is he Charles...or George?
    He'll go for George, after the best Chancellor of this millenium.
    King Gordon?

    Now isn't the time, but Charles won't be a patch on his mother.
    I predict he will have a shorter reign.
    I suspect he will reign for as long as he can. He won't want William to be King while his children are young if he can avoid it.

    But I suspect 'as long as he can' won't be more than about seven years, for health reasons or by virtue of doing something silly.
    He's 73. I can easily see him setting a retirement date, in contrast to his mother.
    And I would say, having unlike his mother made no pledge of lifelong service, he would be wrong to try.
    That fundamentally misunderstands the institution.

    He may try to re-write that institution, of course, but that's what it would take. They are not elected politicians. They are chosen by God, anointed by his representatives.

    Personally I think it's pretty ludicrous but that doesn't alter the fact.

    Are you sure you are English? Curious misunderstanding of our history and institutions.
    Wait till they find out what happened to some of those anointed monarchs, and how the succession was chosen.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484
    I’m still on the remote Portuguese coast. I just checked in to a new hotel. The old Portuguese lady who owns the place looked at me, with sad, pale-faced shock, and said “your queen is dead!
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,460
    Any statement from Sinn Fein yet?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,112
    TimS said:

    ping said:

    Unremarkable speech by Truss, but perfectly adequate. Slightly faltering delivery, but who cares.

    I kindof like her normalness.

    Yes, it was a little wooden although there are benefits to that - certainly no sense of trying to capitalise.

    But Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May (yes May) and Johnson would all have given a better speech,
    Blair would have put in lots of dramatic pauses and over emoted.
    I'm surprised how thrilled I am to hear Liz Truss speak. A PM who sounds, to my ears, normal. May, Thatcher and Johnson, and indeed Blair, all sounded a bit alien to me. I'd never really realised before.
  • pingping Posts: 3,282
    edited September 2022

    kle4 said:

    Heathener said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Selebian said:

    Charles III.

    But is he Charles...or George?
    He'll go for George, after the best Chancellor of this millenium.
    King Gordon?

    Now isn't the time, but Charles won't be a patch on his mother.
    I predict he will have a shorter reign.
    I suspect he will reign for as long as he can. He won't want William to be King while his children are young if he can avoid it.

    But I suspect 'as long as he can' won't be more than about seven years, for health reasons or by virtue of doing something silly.
    He's 73. I can easily see him setting a retirement date, in contrast to his mother.
    And I would say, having unlike his mother made no pledge of lifelong service, he would be wrong to try.
    That fundamentally misunderstands the institution.

    He may try to re-write that institution, of course, but that's what it would take. They are not elected politicians. They are chosen by God, anointed by his representatives.

    Personally I think it's pretty ludicrous but that doesn't alter the fact.

    That's your interpretation, it isnt fact. Even popes chosen by God retire. The history of our own monarchy is far more messy than your interpretation.
    Popes don't usually retire. There's a whole story about how Benedict did so because it was the only way to change the guard, and clear out what had become massive corruption in the Vatican. No idea how true it is.
    He went because of his handling of child abuse claims. Even his strongest supporters couldn’t defend his past decisions as he climbed the greasy pole to the top.

    Either he went, or the Catholic Church shrivelled.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,280
    In those pictures her hands are almost purple. Surprised that didn't get picked up on.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    My wife has just described Truss's contribution as "robotic, without any sense of feeling or nuance - the content was passable, but delivered as if reading a script that meant little to her". I agreed.

    Good. She is reading it as part of her job, not as a film audition. Anything, anything but the ghastly theatrics of Blair over Di.

    btw she said HMQ was the embodiment of Great Britain. Awks in the circs.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992
    carnforth said:

    Any statement from Sinn Fein yet?

    Yes from Michelle O' Neill
  • ydoethur said:

    By the way, anything from Leon?

    I have a book "Bare feet and tackety boots" about growing up on the Isle of Rum before the war. One of the anecdotes is about an islander who crossed the island from his croft to get supplies from the ferry, after several weeks of no ferries due to bad weather. His wife reported him missing the next morning, and he was found on a hill by a telegraph post, with bleeding knuckles and surrounded by bottles. He had settled down to drink the newly-acquired supplies of whisky, and had apparently picked an argument with the telegraph post before falling into a drunken stupor and dying of exposure.

    I hope there are no telegraph posts on Leon's route...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Heathener said:

    The Queen definitely believed she was instituted to the office by God and she could no more step down than she could undo her birth.

    It's a dynastic and divine right.

    Charles may change it but it would require undoing the whole concept of anointedness.

    Oh dear what an impossibility, unless you count all the anointed monarchs who abdicate now.

    You know they even crowned the heir whilst the king was still alive sometimes too.
    Henry the Young King, in I want to say 1187?
    I'm not going to guess the year.

    Think it was more of a french tradition.
  • Nathan Ruser
    @Nrg8000
    This map shows claimed advances by Ukrainain forces towards Kupiansk, in the Kharkiv countryside. Not all of these claims have been visually verified.

    A breakthrough in this area puts serious stress on Russian positions in Izyum and Lyman as Kupiansk is a key supply node.


    https://mobile.twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1567935220489273345
  • Truss did a tough job well. No lines fluffed. More convinced than ever that the Queen held on to make sure it wasn’t Johnson.

    He would have had a brilliant metaphor and some classic Greek/Roman lines but he would have ruined it by ending by making himself the most important part of it all.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,356
    ydoethur said:

    By the way, anything from Leon?

    Hopefully @Leon has realised that this is not the time for his self indulgent shite. Alternatively, he hasn’t yet awoken from his latest drunken stupor.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992

    Cookie said:

    Liz Truss not particularly clunky or awkward.

    She is certainly having a baptism by fire and adapting to the role quickly

    Thank goodness it was not Johnson
    Thought Truss was terrible. Cold.

    Johnno would have been better at this by a mile.
    He really wouldn't. She was perfectly adequate. Which 2 days in is good enough.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,280

    ydoethur said:

    By the way, anything from Leon?

    Hopefully @Leon has realised that this is not the time for his self indulgent shite. Alternatively, he hasn’t yet awoken from his latest drunken stupor.
    Unlike everyone else he won't remember where he was when he heard the news.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,822
    edited September 2022

    My wife has just described Truss's contribution as "robotic, without any sense of feeling or nuance - the content was passable, but delivered as if reading a script that meant little to her". I agreed.

    I think that's harsh. Any normal person would be desperate to get through that without screwing up or falling to pieces.

    Boris might have been a bit less robotic, but we've hopefully moved on from theatre.


    It sounded fine to me on the radio.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    In those pictures her hands are almost purple. Surprised that didn't get picked up on.

    The ones 2 days ago? Done to death here and elsewhere. cannula for drugs prob.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992
    Statement from Boris!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    edited September 2022

    ydoethur said:

    By the way, anything from Leon?

    Hopefully @Leon has realised that this is not the time for his self indulgent shite. Alternatively, he hasn’t yet awoken from his latest drunken stupor.
    The former would be a dramatic break with tradition.

    The second is possible, I suppose.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,623
    Cookie said:

    TimS said:

    ping said:

    Unremarkable speech by Truss, but perfectly adequate. Slightly faltering delivery, but who cares.

    I kindof like her normalness.

    Yes, it was a little wooden although there are benefits to that - certainly no sense of trying to capitalise.

    But Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May (yes May) and Johnson would all have given a better speech,
    Blair would have put in lots of dramatic pauses and over emoted.
    I'm surprised how thrilled I am to hear Liz Truss speak. A PM who sounds, to my ears, normal. May, Thatcher and Johnson, and indeed Blair, all sounded a bit alien to me. I'd never really realised before.
    The best of those, I reckon, would have been Gordon Brown.
  • We’ll need to learn a new national anthem!
  • My wife has just described Truss's contribution as "robotic, without any sense of feeling or nuance - the content was passable, but delivered as if reading a script that meant little to her". I agreed.

    I think that's harsh. Any normal person would be desperate to get through that without screwing up or falling to pieces.

    Boris might have been a bit less robotic, but we've hopefully moved on from theatre.


    It sounded fine to me on the radio.
    I've had a couple of txts from mates saying she did fine.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,568

    In those pictures her hands are almost purple. Surprised that didn't get picked up on.

    People did notice on social media. To me it looked like she'd been on a cannula through her hand and was possibly on blood thinners but I think most people felt it was in bad taste to speculate publicly at the time.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484

    ydoethur said:

    By the way, anything from Leon?

    Hopefully @Leon has realised that this is not the time for his self indulgent shite. Alternatively, he hasn’t yet awoken from his latest drunken stupor.
    Unlike everyone else he won't remember where he was when he heard the news.
    Well you got that wrong, didn’t you. See above
  • ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Heathener said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Selebian said:

    Charles III.

    But is he Charles...or George?
    He'll go for George, after the best Chancellor of this millenium.
    King Gordon?

    Now isn't the time, but Charles won't be a patch on his mother.
    I predict he will have a shorter reign.
    I suspect he will reign for as long as he can. He won't want William to be King while his children are young if he can avoid it.

    But I suspect 'as long as he can' won't be more than about seven years, for health reasons or by virtue of doing something silly.
    He's 73. I can easily see him setting a retirement date, in contrast to his mother.
    And I would say, having unlike his mother made no pledge of lifelong service, he would be wrong to try.
    That fundamentally misunderstands the institution.

    He may try to re-write that institution, of course, but that's what it would take. They are not elected politicians. They are chosen by God, anointed by his representatives.

    Personally I think it's pretty ludicrous but that doesn't alter the fact.

    That's your interpretation, it isnt fact. Even popes chosen by God retire. The history of our own monarchy is far more messy than your interpretation.
    Popes don't usually retire. There's a whole story about how Benedict did so because it was the only way to change the guard, and clear out what had become massive corruption in the Vatican. No idea how true it is.
    He never wanted to be Pope, he wasn't feeling well, and he felt he wasn't up to the demands of the job.

    The Vatican theory falls because Francis actually kept many of the same staff.

    It is of course a reasonable question as to how long Francis goes on. He's 85 now and isn't a well man.
    It's not just the pope - his cardinals are almost all elderly men. He is surrounded by the old - not a healthy situation for an organisation that needs to attract the young.

    Many of his cardinals are in their 80s and 90s. The youngest is 48 (which to be fair is reasonable), but only a handful are below 60.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    We’ll need to learn a new national anthem!

    Just two words change, although one comes up fairly often.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,112
    TimS said:

    Cookie said:

    TimS said:

    ping said:

    Unremarkable speech by Truss, but perfectly adequate. Slightly faltering delivery, but who cares.

    I kindof like her normalness.

    Yes, it was a little wooden although there are benefits to that - certainly no sense of trying to capitalise.

    But Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May (yes May) and Johnson would all have given a better speech,
    Blair would have put in lots of dramatic pauses and over emoted.
    I'm surprised how thrilled I am to hear Liz Truss speak. A PM who sounds, to my ears, normal. May, Thatcher and Johnson, and indeed Blair, all sounded a bit alien to me. I'd never really realised before.
    The best of those, I reckon, would have been Gordon Brown.
    I agree.
    And I had no time for him as a politician. But yes, he'd have been the best at this. Son of the manse, amd all that.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,816
    BBC confirms, it's Charles III
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 1,589
    edited September 2022
    ydoethur said:

    Well, this isn't a great speech by Truss, if I'm honest. Too many clichés and inaccuracies.

    But it's being well delivered and she looks appropriately sad and dignified.

    Thank you God that you didn't take Her Majesty 72 hours ago.

    She hung in there I think with all her resolve. Did her duty to the very end. RIP HM The Queen. You were bloody brilliant.
  • We’ll need to learn a new national anthem!

    Have a thought for hundreds of churches round the country where the Parish Administrator will be spending the day tomorrow gluing the word "king" onto hymn #578.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    The good news for all of you comparing Truss to her predecessors is that they all get to have a go too.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,280
    Charles III it is.

    I always wondered if her might go with Arthur.
  • Decent speech by Liz.

    Interesting to see how the polls go in response
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    1. Liz has been very lucky. The last photo ever of hmq is of the 2 of them and will become iconic.

    2. Liz's stilted delivery is fine. It is an official statement. She did OK and buried any nonsense about republicanism

    3. IT WASN'T BORIS. REJOICE.

    4. There wasn't really a What were you doing when Kennedy was shot moment, it was too well trailed, EXCEPT for the happy few politics geeks who were watching HoC this morning and saw it kick off in real time.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484
    For those that missed it;


    I’m still on the remote Portuguese coast. I just checked in to a new hotel. The old Portuguese lady who owns the place looked at me, with sad, pale-faced shock, and said “your queen is dead!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    edited September 2022

    Charles III it is.

    I always wondered if her might go with Arthur.

    That would have been unwise. He would have been known as Arthur Chance.
  • It is officially King Charles III, according to ?Clarence House?

    I'm unsurprised. The Queen named him Charles knowing the precedents. Why would he change it?

    And as I haven't said it yet: RIP HMQ. I'm trying to do other things to avoid thinking about it.
  • BBC News saying Clarence House confirming Charles III
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,280
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    By the way, anything from Leon?

    Hopefully @Leon has realised that this is not the time for his self indulgent shite. Alternatively, he hasn’t yet awoken from his latest drunken stupor.
    Unlike everyone else he won't remember where he was when he heard the news.
    Well you got that wrong, didn’t you. See above
    We'll see how you are in the morning.
  • BBC reading what seems to be the speech that Boris had ready to go…
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,356

    Cookie said:

    Liz Truss not particularly clunky or awkward.

    She is certainly having a baptism by fire and adapting to the role quickly

    Thank goodness it was not Johnson
    Thought Truss was terrible. Cold.

    Johnno would have been better at this by a mile.
    He really wouldn't. She was perfectly adequate. Which 2 days in is good enough.
    Would any of us wanted to have to do that announcement, especially having been the recipient of her last official duty?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484
    Truss did that really quite well. Day 2 of the job. Dignified without simpering
  • Boris muscles his way in. Well written as usual.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 4,022
    AlistairM said:

    ydoethur said:

    Well, this isn't a great speech by Truss, if I'm honest. Too many clichés and inaccuracies.

    But it's being well delivered and she looks appropriately sad and dignified.

    Thank you God that you didn't take Her Majesty 72 hours ago.

    Did her duty to the very end. RIP HM The Queen. You were bloody brilliant.
    She wasn't entirely to be honest and much will come out in the wash. But that's one for another day.

    She served indefatigably and tirelessly. Brilliant? No.
This discussion has been closed.