In all honesty: she was 96. Was anyone truly "surprised"? She had her life handed to her. She lived in a fish bowl. She wanted for nothing, except maybe in private: a real life. She travelled the world. Ate the finest foods. Wore expensive clothing and jewelry. And lived again: NINETY SIX YEARS. The only crappy thing about this is: Camilla gets to live in Buckingham palace now. And is called "queen consort" and no, I won't capitalize that.... ;) She lived a full life. A long life. A very privileged life. People shouldn't be surprised or even sad. She had a good life, something most of us really don't even get a smidgen of what she had.

I think the surprise was the day before she looked lovely in a sweater and skirt smiling broadly at the new PM. Her mother lived to 101 and this was so sudden although she had been declining. It was so apparent as the family had to rush back at breakneck speed to get to her bedside.

It certainly wasn't a surprise, she has been looking very fragile and there have been reports of her poor health. It's just that it seems she's been queen forever and it's hard to imagine that she is gone and that Charles will now be on the throne. These are interesting times and I wish him well. But I must honestly admit that it will be difficult to watch Charles and Camilla fulfilling the royal duties.

Over the years I've come to appreciate her gentle sense of humor and whenever I see a clip of her in a light-hearted mood I always have to check to make sure that it is really her and not a parody.

The one of her with Paddington was so touching. Here's a montage of a few more videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-mO7rbYtgk

Here's one from tiktok where she spins an ornate crown to get a better view of a ruby.

https://www.tiktok.com/@brittoker/video/7133705380349168902?is_from_webapp=v1&item_id=7133705380349168902

"I believe most countries with parliamentary democracies do just fine without having a monarch so it's not as if it were a vital element of the governmental structure."

The " vital element" shared by the most successful democracies is the "apolitical head of state."  It so happens that, of the 21 countries considered by the EIU's annual Global Democracy Index as being full democracies, 9 happen to be constitutional monarchies.  

Is having a monarch essential to democracy? No, of course not. And I fully expect that several of those successful constitutional monarchies on the EIU list will become republics in due course, Canada, Australia and NZ being foremost on the list.  But I for one would only support a form of republic in which power lies with the PM, and the President has a strictly limited constitutional role, comparable to that of the King or Governor General, because that is a structure that works.

Interesting post, Deb. I find it very odd that you think that people shouldn’t be sad. Is there an age limit on a sense of loss?

And why do you hate Camilla? I don’t bear Camilla any ill-will. I blame the monarchy customs and requirememnts that made Charles marry poor Diana whom he didn’t love. It was a fabricated marriage.

Charles and Camilla were already in love and longed to be together but they weren’t allowed to be.

I don’t support putting blame on Camilla and I wish her well as Queen Consort (yes, I capitalised it).

"of the 21 countries considered by the EIU's annual Global Democracy Index as being full democracies, 9 happen to be constitutional monarchies."

I'm gratified that your instant knowledge derived from an internet search confirms my speculative comment, that the majority of countries ranked on whatever list that was you found do not have monarchs. And for many I suspect on that list that do, of which I am familiar, the monarchs have near zero influence on their nation's policies and politics. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are hardly monarchies anyway. I'd be interested to hear if anyone believes the British (really the English) king or queen have any real influence. Their affiliation through the Commonwealth, a historical vestige that remains without real consequence in today's world, parallels the monarchy in that way,

I loved seeing unguarded, impromptu photos of her naturally smiling and laughing. e.g. with her corgis, her beloved horses etc. She definitely had a sense of humour and was warm, although not publicly shown it much.

If Camilla and Charles were so in love why did she marry someone else when Charles went away for eight months? Poor young sweet Diana never had a chance. She did produce two lovely boys though and Charles should be ever grateful for that.

Lily, because ththe monarmonarchy wouldn’t allow it They needed someone young and innocent to fit the ideal and bear some heirs.

But Camilla was young and maybe not so beautiful and had links to the royal family.

She wasn't a virgin, which at the time seems to have been a requirement.

As I recall, poor Dianna was required to be checked that she was still a virgin before marriage. I think they've since dropped that silly requirement.

Presumably her family background lacked sufficient aristocratic links. Heirs were supposed to marry royals but with royals thin on the ground concessions had to be made which Charles getting old-hence he married the daughter of an Earl just as Elizabeth's father had but her father was not supposed to become king. Now a days it is all moot.

https://apple.news/AKjPh9X83RWKLhYDGylYaVA

The Queen was a quiet diplomat who could melt the steeliest leaders - very interesting and impressive read.

The link goes to an article on the site of The Times behind a paywall.

I think most are aware of the charm and gracious dignity she brought to her role. But she neither formulated political strategy nor negotiated with foreign countries. Besides developing public goodwill in some places and not in others, what ends did the article say were achieved?

As I recall, poor Dianna was required to be checked that she was still a virgin before marriage. I think they've since dropped that silly requirement.

Virginity checks are not a British thing. The appearance of virginity, I would imagine would be all that mattered.

"I'm gratified that your instant knowledge derived from an internet search confirms my speculative comment, that the majority of countries ranked on whatever list that was you found do not have monarchs."

Just for your information, since you seem to be unfamiliar with it, the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index is a well-known and well-respected survey of the state of global democracy. It's worth reading. I've been following its annual report for five or six years now. So, no, not "instant knowledge" on my part.

"And for many I suspect on that list that do, of which I am familiar, the monarchs have near zero influence on their nation's policies and politics. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are hardly monarchies anyway."

I'm not sure what aspect of my statement that constitutional monarchs are "apolitical" you failed to grasp. Of course they have "near zero influence on their nation's policies and politics." That's the whole point of a constitutional monarchy: to have a head of state who stands apart from day- to-day politics or policy-making.

And, for what it's worth, you don't get to define whether Canada, Australia and New Zealand are constitutional monarchies. Canada, Australia and New Zealand define themselves as constitutional monarchies. Period.

JMM, I wouldn't want to speak for you of course but your points are what I would have said on your behalf should I think you needed someone to speak for you which you so very obviously don't. It is particularly offensive to assume that someone doesn't have facts and information at their fingertips. Something I know you do. This is a little too HT but is worth saying. I do believe you know what you are talking about and have information We the People can benefit from.

Zalco, she actually had to undergo a physical exam...at least according to news reports: https://www.today.com/popculture/will-kate-middleton-have-prove-shes-virgin-wbna42498560 "According to several reports written closer to the time of Charles' marriage to Di, the 20-year-old lady did have to undergo an exam by a gynecologist--a Mr. Pinker, to be exact--to ascertain the virginity of the future princess ..."

It was a test Camilla would not have passed. But for Kate, they did away with it as she too would not have passed having been with William for quite some time before marriage.

If a named "head" of government does nothing and has no influence, then there's no point in having the office or an office holder. Tell an English monarchist (don't waste time with a Scot or a Welch man or woman, you'll get a different answer) that the monarchy is pointless and needn't be continued and see what you get for a response.

That's why so many Commonwealth countries are disconnecting from the practice. For some that are less developed or impoverished, the Commonwealth affiliation is a reminder of the colonial, abusive conduct that was so common during the days of the Empire. No place for that in the modern world.

"....since you seem to be unfamiliar with it, the Economist Intelligence Unit...."

For the record, I've had an active subscription to The Economist since 1978. How about you?

When you find information from a search, say so. Same courtesy as when you're use a speaker mode on a phone, say so. People can otherwise be misled. It's a common courtesy.

Unfortunately, camilla was a ”spent” woman and not acceptable as a future queen. History would ne wuite different, had she remained a virgin…

How could you tell if a female was a "virgin"? A physical exam isn't going to tell you if the female in question leads a reasonably athletic life such as the one led by the now passed Queen who was an avid rider of horses both side saddle and astride. Why do people suppose women were supposed to ride side saddle?

As I recall, Charles and Camilla began to date well before he was ready to settle down, and so she married Parker Bowles.

Well, patricae, they are looking for an intact hymen. I suspect that's what the dr would find whether or not he actually found it or not.

"If a named "head" of government does nothing and has no influence, then there's no point in having the office or an office holder."

Forgive me if I give no weight whatsoever to your assessment of the value or otherwise of the role of the constitutional monarch, since, based on this and your previous comments, you seem entirely unfamiliar with what that role is or is intended to be.

The monarch in a constitutional monarchy is not/not the Head of Government. He or she is the Head of State. The US doesn't distinguish between those two functions but constitutional monarchies and many presidential democracies most definitely do keep the two roles separate. Sixteen of those 21 full democracies I mentioned have Prime Ministers or equivalent as Head of Government, while the President/King/Queen performs largely ceremonial and constitutional duties as Head of State. They are "apolitical," which was the point of my original comment. Are you telling me that all 16 of those countries have got it wrong?

As for the Commonwealth, the majority (but not all) member states were once British colonies. The majority are now republics. They are, however, still members of the Commonwealth, so I suspect they continue to find some value in the institution, as do half a dozen newer members who were never part of the British Empire.

"When you find information from a search, say so..It's a common courtesy."

I did. Specifically, I said: "the 21 countries considered by the EIU's annual Global Democracy Index." It's also a common courtesy to apologize for needless insults.

Of course they were looking for an intact Hymen and yet athletic women often do not have them. Riding a horse astride being one way you very well might not have one.

Virginity tests are not a 20C European thing. What gives people the idea that they are? Maybe immigrant communities have such practices, but seriously, this does not sound remotely plausible. Europeans are not a prudish lot.

The Associated Press comforted the world last week when it announced, “UK royal bride’s virginity no longer an issue.” This was hardly the case 30 years ago, when Prince Charles wed Lady Diana Spencer and the bride’s virtue became something of a worldwide spectator sport.

In the U.K., there is no statute that mandates that a royal bride-to-be be a virgin. In fact, the only official marriage law is the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, which requires any descendant of George II to ask the reigning monarch for permission before he proposes because “marriages in the royal family are of the highest importance to the state.” This applied to both Prince Charles and William.

Reflecting a media preoccupation at the time of Charles’s engagement, Tina Brown’s biography The Diana Chronicles addresses Diana’s virginity in almost unsettling detail. Brown suggests that Queen Elizabeth chose—or heavily suggested—Diana for her son because the clock was ticking, and young Diana was irresistibly innocent: only 19, with no prior beaux to sell their steamy stories to the tabloids. Nevertheless, the public was fixated on her virginity, or possible lack thereof. Brown writes that the matter “developed a life of its own” after the so-called “Love Train” incident in November 1980, when tabloids reported that Diana had had two late-night meetings with Prince Charles on the Royal Train in Wiltshire.

Did the palace stage-manage the “leak” in an effort to thread the needle between medieval and modern moralities? Brown notes that six days before the Love Train story broke in the Mirror, Diana’s uncle Lord Fermoy said in an interview with the Daily Star: “Purity seems to be at a premium when it comes to discussing a possible bride for Prince Charles at the moment . . . Diana, I can assure you, has never had a lover.” Gee thanks, Uncle Fermoy, for setting us at ease with that very intimate knowledge of your niece’s boudoir.

Whatever the truth, the palace’s efforts were all about keeping up appearances. Writes Brown:

Shy Di, as the press knew her, was perhaps too young for such public scrutiny, and in the months before the July 1981 wedding, she became severely bulimic.

(bolding mine)

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/04/a-very-different-engagement-the-cult-of-dianas-virginity

how can anyone like Camilla? She helped hand pick what she thought was an easy target who would never speak out against her husband, a prince and future king. Camilla who made life hell for Diana. i dont give AF about her feelings. she couldn’t stay out of Charles pants after Diana married him . speaking as a woman who has been in Dianas shoes. Lucky for me: the world didnt see it

I am not a monarchist but it is hilarious to read such a lot of speculative nonsense in this thread, confidently expounded from positions of complete ignorance.

P.s. The spelling is ‘Welsh.’ And there are monarchists in all parts of the UK. Who do you think is laying all those flowers in Cardiff and Edinburgh? There also plenty of non-monarchists and millions who simply don’t care,

I feel Elmer has greatly understated the importance of the Commonwealth both to this nation (United Kingdom) and to the late Queen, on a personal level.

Founded in 1926 and the world's oldest political organisation, at the start of the Queen's reign there were about 6 member countries but this has increased to 56 with a total population of rough 2,418,965,000.

Yes undoubtedly, some of these countries are small and could be seen as insignificant but for eg Canada, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, Indian, Australia and New Zealand play an enormous role in world affairs and are far from 'a historical vestige that remains without real consequence in today's world' as Elmer's suggests.

A huge amount of work has gone on, and still will, 'behind the scenes' between the Monarchy and the various Heads of State of all these countries when a quiet word or a private dinner/luncheon can settle some little 'local difficulty' without all the usual bluster of politicians.

Just one eg might be the relationship between the late Queen and Nelson Mandela and the reintroduction of South Africa back into the Commonwealth fold after the years of apartheid.

There is always push and talk about getting rid of the monarchy, that its a waste of taxpayers money etc. In canada, some are saying Now is a good time to dissolve its ties. As a result, the monsrchs are paying closer attention to public opinion snd are making strides to be ’user friendly’, hence charity work etc..

They certainly are. But that doesn’t make misinformation OK.

Surly most of what we are told by all these Royal 'experts' is made up. Presumably most of what we think we know about historical Royals is just as suspect. I know about Leopold because he and Victoria exchanged letters so I have read original source on that but even that you cant believe as they obviously lied to each other.

The world loves the mostly exclusive British pomp and ceremony, and the nation profits handsomely from having a royal family to display IRL-- along with the inanimate relics of history.

"There is always push and talk about getting rid of the monarchy, that its a waste of taxpayers money etc. In canada, some are saying Now is a good time to dissolve its ties. As a result, the monsrchs are paying closer attention to public opinion snd are making strides to be ’user friendly’, hence charity work etc.. "

There's certainly some talk here in Australia of abandoning the monarchy, but realistically, the cost to the taxpayer is not one of the arguments being made. Neither Canadian nor Australian taxpayer funding goes towards the monarchy unless there is a royal visit.

The monarchy is of course concerned about British public opinion, which is why the Queen paid taxes herself and why accounts for expenditure related to her position as head of state were open to intense Parliamentary scrutiny. It's also why the Queen cut off Harry's income from the Sovereign Grant when he decided to walk away from royal duties. That's taxpayer money and has to be accounted for.

That said, I doubt Charles et al are concerned much at all about the future of the monarchy outside the UK: they realize the inevitability of the remaining countries becoming republics in due course. The Queen was apparently quite surprised that the referendum to end the monarchy in Australia in 1999 was rejected by the voters (though that was more because the pro-republic side couldn't agree on what model the new presidential system would follow, and the voters weren't willing to leave that up to politicians to decide after the fact). When Australia does become a republic, it won't change relationships with the UK or the Commonwealth, so I don't see the royals worrying about it at all.

Great to see the brothers together and greeting the crowds.

But it's being reported that they were together only because Prince William invited Harry and Meghan to join him. Is that the new hierarchy now? Harry and Meghan have to be invited to do things by William and Kate? Just wondering.

But yes, it was nice to see Harry and Meghan being welcomed by the crowd.

I doubt Harry and Meghan walked with Prince William and Kate as an "expectation," "I'm next in line to the throne and when I invite/ask you to do something, you have to." The brothers spent time together with the rest of the family after the queen died. Perhaps some amends were made between Harry and William. Just speculation.

Harry and Meghan seem fiery enough and don't appear to be the type to do something they don't want to do.

New monarch, new times. Maybe the brothers are attempting a reconciliation.

Edited to add: I just listened to BBC News as they were walking about and the person speaking did say Prince William invited Harry and Meghan to join he and Kate, and it was done as an olive branch.

Well, there is definitely a hierarchy in all this - rank matters when it comes to protocol, royal or otherwise. That's the main reason I think Harry and Meghan decided to break away from it all in the first place. But on this occasion, I suspect William just wanted to make it clear that they were both welcome to attend.

Does it not occur that much of what we think we know about the dynamic between the members of the Royal family comes from people who make a living telling us what they say to each other and what they mean by it. How do these people know what they are telling us?

Oh I agree. I take everything that I hear about the royal family with a grain of salt. My impression is that the royal family is pretty closed-mouthed about the inner workings and relationships between it's family members.

With any celebrity all we know is what we read or hear. No one really knows what's going on or the truth. It's easy to think we know, but unless it comes directly from the mouth of that person, we never really, truly know.

"but unless it comes directly from the mouth of that person, we never really, truly know."

We don't know even then. One person's version of an event can be very different from another's, even though both were there at the time.

There would be far fewer paparazzi and gossip writers if the overwhelming numbers of nosey, voyeuristic people clamoring for every last possible private detail or potential scandal, real or imagined, concerning people in the public eye. (edit to add) were fewer in number.

"We don't know even then. One person's version of an event can be very different from another's, even though both were there at the time."

I'm not talking about "events."

"I'm not talking about "events."'

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your point. I thought, when you said "horse's mouth," you were referring to what the celebrity him or herself says about something in their lives, which is not necessarily going to be objective truth.

sephia, do you think "we" (exclude me from that group) need to know such things?

^^^ Not at all. Not sure what your question means. Some people are more curious than others.

I have to agree with the OP on much of what is said on this thread after a quick glance through posts. WHO in the H E double hockey sticks do we Americans think we are!??? CNN has some talking idiot saying King Charles needs to end Imperialism, some idiot on The View is questioning the origin of the jewels in the Queens crown!!??? Honestly the arrogance and ignorance of many is on display!!!