please empty your brain below

Earl of Strathmore, surely?

dg writes: Surely. Fixed, thanks.

After their marriage in 1947 the Queen and Prince Philip lived at Clarence House on The Mall for 5 years.
Guessing not many Royalists read the blog. Or it is early. Either way - God Save The Queen!
Would never wish anyone ill but I'm afraid this dysfunctional family and their antics just fill me with disinterest. I would wish the queen the same happiness on this day as any other 90 year old deserves.
I like to think I would wish any 90 year old a happy birthday.
I think that the job Liz Windsor has been doing, she has done very well but would ask the question is it a job that should be done in the 21st century?
I bear her and hers no malice but like to think, should we ever meet I wouldn't bow.
"should we ever meet I wouldn't bow. "
As she's not very tall, most people meeting her face to face find they do so, whether they intended to or not.
As a slight aside I always find it amusing that anyone that criticises the monarchy in any way are told by monarchist zealots "if they don't like the monarchy they should go and live in North Korea". That's right, the other place that has an imposed head of state who is unelectable and unaccountable.
Like Tom, above I'm just filled with disinterest by it all and wish the news, for example, would rein back on all their gushing sycophancy and report a bit more objectively.
DG I love your introductory paragraph, had me chuckling
I bear the Queen no ill will, in fact I think she's done her job pretty well. And I don't think her family is that much more or less dysfunctional than most of the rest of us.
But the waves of gushing sycophancy pouring out of my TV right at this moment is stomach churning - well at least I can be thankful I've got the "off" button
I share the views of many who've posted previously - mainly I find the birthday of someone I've never met of little interest. My attention is drawn by the wall-to-wall media coverage - which appears so 1970s-style and fawning whenever there is a significant royal birthday, anniversary or notable event.

I truly wish there was a way to feedback - especially to the TV executives, schedulers and producers - that very many of us no longer want to be fed this diet of royal sycophancy in the 21st century. Any ideas?
[Referring to TV coverage] Succinct, inciteful moderately respectful tv coverage I can deal with but wall to wall tributes, news dominated by this minor (in news terms) story, even the satellite and cable channels digging up every old documentary... enough! Nice (we can only presume) lady reaches 90. Big deal. Lovely for her family but irrelevant for the rest of us. Like Frank, I would like to send a message back to the TV execs but I somehow think the establishment is orchestrating the level of interest so that all us plebs understand the level of devotion we are expected to exhibit. Rather like, as someone else has said, they are expected to do in North Korea...
Β£12.8 for a bowl of pak choi (white-stemmed veggie)? Even for Β£1.28 I'd feel expensive!
re feeding back to TV execs, surely their viewing figures (more specifically the lack of viewing figures) might tell them something
@ Jordan D this one does. Given low and declining trust in politicians of all parties, I find it hard to see that Great Britain and Northern Ireland would work better as a republic.

Thank you DG for a characteristically thoughtful and thought provoking post.
Whether we like it or not, we live in a constitutional monarchy, and the personality of the reigning monarch does have an influence on political life. How would history have been different from 1939 if Edward VIII had remained on the throne? Or, further back, if Princess Charlotte (George IV's daughter, not the new one) had lived? (Clues: South Kensington would have been very different, and so would traditional English Christmases, and we would not have a Victoria Line, or indeed a Victoria station, Victoria Park etc. More significantly, perhaps, nor would we have had Kaiser Wilhelm II).

So the personality, ability and longevity of the monarch does have an influence on all of us. I stress, whether we agree with the principle or not, it is the system we live under and therefore the royals are rightly in the public eye - which is where they went wrong in the Georgian era.

I suspect that if HM had only lived as long as her father, and King Charles had therefore come to the throne within a year of his marriage to Diana, (and about a week before the birth of Prince William) some things would be subtly different. Might we have been spared the likes of Duchy Originals and Poundbury if the King had been too busy to pursue such interests?

Anyway, what would you replace them with?
Senior politicians? (President Blair, anyone?)
Reality show presenters (President Sugar? - if the promoter of NBC's "Apprentice" can do it, why not the UK equivalent)

President Savile?
Or in 1945 President Attlee?
More likely President Churchill, I'd have thought. He had huge personal popularity and in a way transcended traditional political boundaries. He had, after all already "crossed the floor of the House" twice (in 1904 and 1924), and had been chosen as a unifying figure to lead an all-party coalition government for the five years leading up to the 1945 election.
It was reported that there was a widespread belief that Churchill could remain as prime minister whatever the composition of Parliament after the 1945 election. Constitutionally it is possible, but it would have required a majority of MPs to support him, and because labour won by such a landslide it would have required at least 73 Labour MPs (as well as all the minor parties) to vote against their own leader.

Had Labour been the largest party in a hung parliament, as predicted, Churchill could have been a unifying PM of a coalition of the rest, however poorly the Tories themselves had done.
Today is scoring very highly on the Comment Value Hierarchy.
Happy Birthday to Her Majesty! Proud of her and all the work she has done for this country. It's certainly not a job most could do,but she has always seen it as her duty. I doubt many of us would 'do their duty' these days. Long may she reign! πŸŽ‰πŸΎπŸŽ‰πŸΎ
"Today is scoring very highly on the Comment Value Hierarchy."

High, or low? There are many category 2s.

Where would Patrickov's comment on expensive pak choi fit? Perhaps you need another category 2 item for "Comment about a very, very tiny and insignificant part of the post". Either that or it's a 2e.

Yes, I know that this is a 4e!
There was a row of mansions on Piccadilly, from Apsley House to Hamilton Place.

Here is an exterior shot of 144-145 Piccadilly. 144-145 were like two halves of a semi, but 144 at least survived the war. 144 was occupied by the London Street Commune in the 1960s.

I think Apsley House is 149, so there would be 146, 147 and 148 (now all demolished). Various Rothschilds were in 142, 143 and 147-148. See here and here - so many it was called Rothschild Row.

All the houses from 145 to 147 and about half of 148 seem to have gone under the new Park Lane carriageway. See this debate in the House of Commons in 1957, when it seems there were still people living in 145 and 146, so it cannot have been entirely destroyed in the war. From all this, I doubt the Intercontinental footprint includes much (if anything) of 145 and the space where the Queen's nursery used to be is probably in mid-air, over the road.

There are some interesting newreels on Youtube - seach for 145 or 144 Piccadilly. Here is an example, and another.
That should help lower the Comment Value Hierarchy score.
And it does, thanks :)
Isn't there a contradiction between being invited to "empty your brain below" and the regular critique or categorisation of comments?
Even by DG's exacting standards, this posting must have required a lot of research. Good work!
The more I learn about HM, the more I admire her. Most people half her age would balk at her workload, and while her family may have had their moments in the past, I think they've all settled down into middle age well, and do an awful lot of good for the country behind the scenes.
I hope she is enjoying one of her rare days off today, and here's to the next 10 years! :)
When I think of the obscene amounts of corporate dollars behind the current US presidential election campaign, I am truly thankful that the UK has a constitutional monarchy.
@ Frank F

Indeed! ...conform or 1) you'll be 'told-off' 2) edited or 3) my fav ...and this will probably happen any moment: deleted! ;)

TridentScan | Privacy Policy