Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36133695)

BBC One have canned Bargain Hunt and switched to their news channel.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36133699)

The photos of her meeting Liz on Tuesday (on the BBC news website now) seem to show her the back of her hand being very bruised as if there has been a line in it.

Very sad news.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36133708)

Huw Edwards has taken over presenting BBC News dressed all in black

Originally Posted by Halcyon (Post 36133719)

No news of her being taken to hospital.

End of life at home surrounded by her family?


I hope this isnt the end and she pulls through. All the best and thoughts are with her family.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36133732)

Worth noting that the Royal Standard was not flying at Balmoral earlier this afternoon. When the BBC zoomed in on the flagpole it was the Lion Rampant. This only flies at Balmoral (and at Holyrood) when the monarch is *not* in residence.

My theory … she’s already gone, and they’re waiting for all the family to assemble before announcing it.

(As there is always a monarch, the Royal Standard would be expected to be hoisted as soon as Charles arrived).

Originally Posted by Media Boy UK (Post 36133736)

BBC correspondent falsely reported Queen died, shocking Twitter

https://nypost.com/2022/09/08/bbc-co...ign=SocialFlow

Is BBC holding back news?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36133732)

Worth noting that the Royal Standard was not flying at Balmoral earlier this afternoon. When the BBC zoomed in on the flagpole it was the Lion Rampant. This only flies at Balmoral (and at Holyrood) when the monarch is *not* in residence.

My theory … she’s already gone, and they’re waiting for all the family to assemble before announcing it.

(As there is always a monarch, the Royal Standard would be expected to be hoisted as soon as Charles arrived).

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36133743)

I don’t know what the protocol is now, regarding the use of half-mast flags on Buckingham palace. They did it for Diana, after a lot of pressure, and then only because the Queen wasn’t there, so they could lower the union flag (the protocol around the standard is extremely rigid, which is why I don’t think the “wrong” flag at Balmoral is an accident).

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36133749)

We are in the early stages and new reign of King Charles III.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36133758)

RIP, Queen Elizabeth

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36133790)

I was just on the Southbank and the Royal Festival Hall was all in purple as well. I thought have thought red, white and blue would be what they go for?

Originally Posted by Halcyon (Post 36133823)

France are our closest neighbours and as a population do admire the queen a lot.

I have had lots of my french family express their sadness and thoughts about the queen this past 24 hours.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36133820)

That's the best tribute from a foreign country yet I think

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36133834)

Starmer and Boris have just had great speeches in the commons

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36133835)

Actually liked Mrs May's

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36133869)

Heard something interesting on the Channel 4 coverage today.

Apparently, when those in the armed forces pledge an allegiance to the Queen, this doesn't stop when they leave and is for life.

I wonder if this allegiance is carried forward to the new King or if they are now free to make their own choice

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 36133872)

I wonder if we'll be told what she passed away from or will we only find out in decades time. The rumours suggest she's been terminally ill for some time.

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 36133872)

I wonder if we'll be told what she passed away from or will we only find out in decades time. The rumours suggest she's been terminally ill for some time.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36133873)

The state apparatus pretended she was alive for hours, if not days. Us plebs should stay in our lanes.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36133871)

I doubt anyone else wonders.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36133874)

It's just idle curiosity as to how it all works really, though this could be important to ex service people who no longer supported the royal family in whole or in part.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36133873)

The state apparatus pretended she was alive for hours, if not days. Us plebs should stay in our lanes.

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 36133878)

apparently she died at 4:30pm and it was announced at 6:30pm...seems ridiculously long considering we're now in an era of superfast broadband...its not like its the 1950s anymore

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36133881)

She has a family. It's understandable to wait a few hours for them to arrive and do their own thing first.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36133869)

Heard something interesting on the Channel 4 coverage today.

Apparently, when those in the armed forces pledge an allegiance to the Queen, this doesn't stop when they leave and is for life.

I wonder if this allegiance is carried forward to the new King or if they are now free to make their own choice?

---------- Post added at 23:24 ---------- Previous post was at 23:21 ----------



Yes, I did too.

Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36133886)

Please,please let's not go looking for anomalies and secrets.It's simple.The Queen is dead,long live the King.

RIP to the Queen,good luck and health to the King who has just lost his mother and has a lot to live up to.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36133891)

People are free to discuss what they like about this moment, their feelings Maggy. As long as it is not unpleasant, I say they can post it.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36133905)

Countess of Wessex, Sophie, a little earlier on, clearly moved by reading floral tributes outside Balmoral.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1662823336

Originally Posted by vincerooney (Post 36133878)

apparently she died at 4:30pm and it was announced at 6:30pm...seems ridiculously long considering we're now in an era of superfast broadband...its not like its the 1950s anymore

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36133906)

Thanks Hugh. So, if any former service personnel decided to do something like form a pressure group to make the UK a republic many years after leaving the forces, they would technically be breaking the allegiance thar they pledged.

I doubt if anything could/would be done about it, but it's an interesting fact nevertheless.

---------- Post added at 16:57 ---------- Previous post was at 16:48 ----------



Awww, it seems that she was well loved. I personally never got to meet her, but I know a few who did. Not one of them had anything bad to say about her. In fact, quite the opposite. She was always polite & pleasant, never behaved like she was anyone special and had a marvellous sense of humour.

I used to wonder why she didn't pass on the throne onto Charles and retired. I had wondered if she didn't think that he would make a good King (after some mild criticism about him).

Now, I believe that she knew that the role takes over a person's life and is hard work and didn't want her son to have to experience this for as long as possible.

For someone to carry on working until 96 for the sake of one of her children is a selfless and admiral act.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36133911)

The speed of broadband has nothing to do with it.
The press clearly knew already, and were obviously asked to wait.
Did it really matter that they gave the family two hours before making it public.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36133918)

No, because the Pledge only (legally) matters when you’re Serving - once you’ve left, you are no longer subject to Forces discipline.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36133924)

NEW: The Prime Minister will accompany the King to Scotland on Monday, Northern Ireland on Tuesday, and Wales on Wednesday.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36133937)

I've tried to find the definition of an allegiance and the best that I can find is that it is a formal promise.

As we all know, promises can be and are broken. If this is done whilst serving it could have serious consequences in moral and trust, so I can see that it would be punishable.

If the allegiance is broken after leaving the armed forces it isn't nearly as problematic, so that's probably why legislation has never been introduced to enable enforcement.

---------- Post added at 20:02 ---------- Previous post was at 20:00 ----------



Will the Queens sons & grandsons have to guard the coffin in shifts until the day of the funeral? I remember them doing this for the Queen Mother.

I do think it odd that Charles became King tje moment his mother died.

You'd think that there would be a period to allow him to mourn before being required to jump into her shoes.

I imagine that this is a hangover from the days before Parliament and they didn't want to create a power vacuum and for operational reasons by not having a King or Queen in place.

We've effectively had to manage without a Government for a while, so I don't see why this cannot be amended in the modern age.

Originally Posted by jfman

Not looking good. Truss got off her mark when Zahawi appeared with a note.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36133937)

I do think it odd that Charles became King tje moment his mother died.

You'd think that there would be a period to allow him to mourn before being required to jump into her shoes.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36133937)

We've effectively had to manage without a Government for a while, so I don't see why this cannot be amended in the modern age.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36133943)

There is nothing odd about it.
There is never a period when the country has no head of state.
As soon as the King (or Queen) dies, the power/title immediately passes to the next in line.

.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36133948)

Historically that is not true

Depending on how far you want to go back if you wish to go pre England then the royals in the various areas did not automatically pass on the crown to an heir but the new King had to be agreed upon through a Witton. So no head of state

Quite often in history the crown was taken by force the winner was not automatically crowned at the victory but later on

And then of course there was the period between 1653 and 1660 when we had no monarch at all and the head of state was elected after the victory

So saying there has "never" been a period is wrong :)

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36133950)

Perhaps go back as far as the act of Parliament Chris referred to.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36133948)

So saying there has "never" been a period is wrong :)

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36133958)

He never said there has never been a period … he said there never is. If you’re indulging in pedantry you have to get it right. ;) And for the sake of pedantry, it was the Act of Settlement (1701) which has dictated all future successions to the throne. The Georgian era itself kicked off in 1714, enabled by that Act.

Incidentally the witan was a Saxon tradition. The Last Kingdom is a great piece of TV, and remarkably accurate in its portrayal of the broad historical detail, but it is located a long way pre-Norman invasion, after which everything changed quite radically. There’s really nothing in pre-Norman traditions of kingship that carries forward to the modern era.