This just absolutely amazes me…
It’s bad enough when they dance in the blood of those killed in ‘mass shootings’, or anything else that fosters their agendas, but really???
Even before Queen Elizabeth II was officially confirmed dead, her haters were dancing on her grave.
Full article, HERE from Town Hall.
Are people not even allowed to grieve? What about her family? Do they not deserve at least a day or two to cope with the loss they are facing?
Are people so desperate for clicks and/or views that they will stoop to this level? I guess so. But I just don’t understand the ‘necessity’ to crap all over a woman who literally dedicated her life to serving the Commonwealth to the best of her ability, and did that for over 70 years.
I guess the old saw we were taught no longer applies- “If you can’t say anything good, don’t say anything,” is apparently out the window.
May Elizabeth Regina rest in peace, and join Prince Phillip and her Corgis beyond the Rainbow Bridge.
King Charles gave a 9 minute speech yesterday, as required, talking about his mother and the transfer of power, link HERE.
Elizabeth was a remarkable woman, and we are unlikely to see her level of class again in our lifetimes.
The ugly sad reality these days is that vast numbers of people qualify as nothing more than oxygen thieves.
Well put!
King Charles III speech was excellent, and the following service moving — recommend going to BBC to look at them (I think they may still be up).
The late Queen was a shining beacon of everything good, bright and beautiful. As McChuck said, we are not likely to see her like again in our lives, but I think King Charles and Prince William will certainly give it their all.
As for the haters — they will roast in Hell.
God save the King.
I have more optimism about Prince William than I do King Charles III.
The choice of Charles as a reign name has so much baggage associated with it.
Ireland fared not well under either previous Charles. Let us hope that Charles III does better.
Ireland has nothing to do with the UK or the Commonwealth. It is merely a foreign country. It would be worth remembering however that King Charles’ mentor, Lord Mountbatten was murdered in Ireland by Irish citizens. Let us hope that Ireland does better.
These are the people who claim to be the tolerant careing ones. It still amazes me that after Thatcher and now the queen along with last century’s ocean of blood and tears that people still fall for their claims. I admired her service, humour and dignity.
I am surprised the number of people who think the modern English monarch has anything to do with that country’s foreign policy. QEII was a figurehead, that’s all. The prime minister, the cabinet and the majority party decide policy. Blaming the Queen for Northern Ireland, the loss of the Empire or the collapse of Rhodesia is irrational.
Classy lady. Pretty good looking when younger, and have you seen the pictures of her riding motorcycles, shooting guns, working on trucks? She was what a monarch should be. Beloved by the people and never lost her connection imo.
As a rule if someone in your family dies, especially if they are famous-ish, stay off social media and don’t watch the news. Someone will be hateful.
I was hoping he’d go for Philip II instead of Charles III. 🙂
Gerry, the monarch could have much more to do with politics if they chose, Elizabeth made the choice very early to not be involved.
Phillip II might be too closely associated with “Phillip II of Spain, enemy of Elizabeth I.” Arthur probably wouldn’t work, and his other given name is John . . . Charles, or taking a completely different reign name*, might have the only workable options.
*Not sure if English tradition allows that like Chinese and Japanese and a few others do/did.
Here’s a fun one. When William ascends he could be King William, King Philip, King Louis, or King Arthur.
Here’s where it gets fun. He’d be William IV, the first being William the Conqueror. Imagine the tabloids if he did something controversial. He’d be Philip II since Philip of Spain, husband of Mary (Queen of Scots, Bloody Mary), was king of England for a few years. He could be Louis II (although this would be an interesting argument since Louis I was proclaimed king of about half of England during the Baron’s War against King John). If he were to choose Arthur would he be I or II though? Technically there has never been a non-fictional King Arthur, but can you imagine the confusion if he were King Arthur I?
If I were the heir apparent I’d be bringing up these conversations around the dinner table because it could be an hysterical topic to debate.
Well, there as a warlord/local king named Arturius or something at the end of the Anglo-Roman period during the Saxon invasion, soooo…
But never an Arthur (or variation thereof) ruling over a greater Britain/England.
You can spot the snakes in society by their venom, Mr. Curtis.
All- Thanks for the comments and agree with all.
I will just add that these roaches have always been with us, it’s just that now they have a platform – the internet and social media – from which to spew their venom.
Mr Curtis, thank you for being a voice of decency among the howling mob.
Kurt Schlichter said it well: I have no affection for the concept of monarchy, or royalty, or any form of hereditary form of governmental leadership, but “Liz the Deuce” was a class act who saw her duty and did it, for 70 years.
Given the “special relationship” between the United states and the United Kingdom, their loss is our loss.
I thank my ancestors daily for leaving England and various parts of Europe, but I still value allies, and common decency dictates respect for the dead.
Roy- Good point!
Bad- Thanks!
Drang- Concur!!!
Hey Old NFO;
She was a class act and did her duty the best she could for 70 years. Nobody could ask better. The same haters that try to savage her memory are the same ones that tried to savage MS Thatchers memory when she passed, and the ones that are doing it are the “Tolerant ones” It is a sad state of affairs.
Bob- Exactly… Grrr…
She was remarkable. The people attacking her are beyond wicked.
What low minded wickedness.
LSP- Agreed!
“When Princess Elizabeth turned 18 in 1944, she insisted upon joining the Army, where she trained as a truck driver and mechanic. She remains the only female member of the royal family to have served in the Army.”
How can you not love her?
TXRed, Charles’ other name was George, not John. Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor. The generally accepted rule is “any of your given names”. Understand your thoughts on Philip but given the history of the Charles’, might not have been so bad. For the record I am not one of those who thinks that the history of your monarchical name has anything to do with how well you will do.
“Charles” does not have uniformly bad associations.
Charles II was one of the more popular monarchs, although that would in part be relief at the end of the Cromwellian republic. He was known to be in favour of religious tolerance despite Parliament being strongly anti-Catholic.
Charles was one of a number of English monarchs who found it expedient to compromise with people and Parliament in a centuries-long process which lead to England being one of the most free countries in the Western World.