dead Queen Elizabeth II

[Insane 349]

4 minutes ago, TQR said:

Likely true. Let’s face it though, it’ll be written in the Unicorn/London Bridge plans that her death will not be announced until a specific news time near the time of death; so it was midday for the DoE, it’ll be the 6 o’clock news for the Queen. 

That’s what I was thinking I was going to post that but I decided against that

[openviews 334]

If its not imminent it will be interesting to see if/when BBC 1 decides to go back to normal programming or is it just going to be those gates for the next few days.

[marklv 41]

3 minutes ago, Seppuku said:

A serious stroke is plausible, especially since she was kind of ok a few days ago.

 

And in that scenario it is not impossible she will live on for some time, although she will probably be incapacitated since the situation is clearly grave. 

 

My grandfather lived on for almost two years after a debilitating stroke, although I wouldn't wish the way he was in on my worst enemy..

 

 

At that age it's almost certainly heart failure due to advanced old age.  I don't think it's a stroke or cancer.

[Joe Hudson 4]

 

[Voice of Reason 12]

3 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

HM has a runner in the 4.35 at Epsom, perhaps a win there will perk her up.

Beaten a short head, oh dear, that's it then.

[Lafaucheuse 4,045]

Damn

[the_engineer 1,415]

2 minutes ago, Spade_Cooley said:

Former Birmingham City winger David Cotterill, as usual, has the most measured take:

 

 

 

Even I don't believe in that shit.

[gcreptile 10,966]

I think I'm also starting to believe that she's already dead.

[Grim Up North 3,725]

4 minutes ago, Spade_Cooley said:

Former Birmingham City winger David Cotterill, as usual, has the most measured take:

 

 

I'm not making you personally responsiible for the maths on this one @Spade_Cooley but how does 9/4/2021 or 9/9/2022 = 666?

[QuebecCityOliver 26]

4 minutes ago, Spade_Cooley said:

Former Birmingham City winger David Cotterill, as usual, has the most measured take:

 

Unless I have a quote from David Icke - I am not taking this seriously. /sarc

[gcreptile 10,966]

Grim = jews

Up = did

North = 9/11

 

I knew it!

[QuebecCityOliver 26]

Also, it turns out that 666 is a misinterpretation of the bible. In the original Greek, it was 616 ( χιϛ or χιϲ).

 

I would also like the maths lesson.

[Toast 16,132]

3 hours ago, stonecold said:

AFAIK, Liz was one of the few to use her actual name... I heard years ago that Charlie would adopt the George VII moniker 

 

Actually it's the exception to reign under a different name.  Only Edward VII and George VI have chosen not to reign under their first given name. 

Oh - and Victoria, whose first name was Alexandrina but I think only her mother used it.

[markb4 892]

I feel the next update will be after the rest of the family (+ Harry) arrive at Balmoral.

[Toast 16,132]

I'm hoping it's all a big set up to prank Harry and Meghan. 

Either way, they've certainly been upstaged big time.

[openviews 334]

Like 1997 will their be a campaign in the press to get her back to Buckingham Palace so she can die amongst her people?

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

1 minute ago, Toast said:

Actually it's the exception to reign under a different name.  Only Edward VII and George VI have chosen not to reign under their first given name. 

Oh - and Victoria, whose first name was Alexandrina but I think only her mother used it.

 

Different time too. I suspect he'll have to use Charles III. The world knows him as Prince Charles, and has done for 75 years. To suddenly start calling himself King George will bemuse a large number of people both here and abroad.

[markb4 892]

1 minute ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

Different time too. I suspect he'll have to use Charles III. The world knows him as Prince Charles, and has done for 75 years. To suddenly start calling himself King George will bemuse a large number of people both here and abroad.

 

George VII just doesn't have that same oomph to it as Charles III does.

[Toast 16,132]

1 minute ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

Different time too. I suspect he'll have to use Charles III. The world knows him as Prince Charles, and has done for 75 years. To suddenly start calling himself King George will bemuse a large number of people both here and abroad.

 

There's no earthly reason why he should choose to be known as George. 

[marklv 41]

1 minute ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

Different time too. I suspect he'll have to use Charles III. The world knows him as Prince Charles, and has done for 75 years. To suddenly start calling himself King George will bemuse a large number of people both here and abroad.

 

Charles is the name used by Stuart monarchs and has no link with the House of Windsor.  This is why George VII is more likely.

[ladyfiona 2,577]

2 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

Different time too. I suspect he'll have to use Charles III. The world knows him as Prince Charles, and has done for 75 years. To suddenly start calling himself King George will bemuse a large number of people both here and abroad.

 

They do it fine when it comes to popes.

[Toast 16,132]

1 minute ago, marklv said:

Charles is the name used by Stuart monarchs and has no link with the House of Windsor.  This is why George VII is more likely.

 

So why did his parents choose it?

[QHov 5]

Most people haven't heard of the people who become pope before they become pope.

[roaming_comrade 471]

Well it cant end worse for him than it did for Charles II.

[Toast 16,132]

1 minute ago, ladyfiona said:

They do it fine when it comes to popes.

 

Not the same at all.  Incoming popes are not already world-famous.