Yes, I know you think it’s an obsession of mine but that’s what chariots are for, innit? Jumping on board and driving dangerously around the arena, scattering the huddles of preconceptions and generalisations as we go? But the Firmly Entrenched should not read on…..
Next week I’m off to conduct my bi-annual tour of inspection of the Janus clan back home, timed to coincide with the celebration of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. I’ll be carrying eight shiny, new Jubilee coins, one for each grandchild; and a set of Coronation coins which I received when ERII acceded, exactly two generations ago, when I was nine, now the median age of my latest progeny.
Why do I bother, you ask, with all my cynical observations on the Windsors? Well, it’s because monarchy when practised well, is a Good Thing , to quote Winnie the Pooh. It creates continuity and perspective in a way denied to mere republics. Of course it is also an antidote to meritocracy – but if The People like the romance and familiarity of a Ruling Class, who should deny them? Which brings me to the nub. There are strong indications these days that The People still love the Windsors in general but not in particular in the case of the Heir to the throne. They want ERII to be succeeded by WV! No room for CIII, it seems.
But will The Firm, to borrow, Prince Philip’s phrase, be prepared to grant The People’s wish? It was 50 years before ERII experienced her ‘annus horribilis’. Will the next monarch start his reign with one or not?
Boadicea's Chariot 
You old fraud!
All those verbals and then you buy the lot of the a commemorative coin each!
Well you’ve blown that one out of the water for good’n all!
Poor old jug ears, all that calumny, woe and calamity , all for nought!
Despite being a founder member of the Firmly Entrenched on this particular subject, Janus, I couldn’t resist reading on.
I was pleasantly surprised. I agree with you to a point, it seems that The Heir will not perhaps be as successful a monarch as his mother, but I have do doubt that he will, according to tradition, become King on her death. He may just surprise us though, he’s has not had any experience in running the Firm.
Enjoy your trip back, and an excellent choice of gifts, in my opinion .:)
The ‘old fraud’ is heading to GB
not, of course for the royal party
He has gifts and wares
for his sons and heirs
His excuse? ‘I’m visiting family’
Delighted to read that even the most cynical can be caught up in the excitement and celebration of a particularly British event!
I’m not too sure that everyone dislikes Charles – those of us who were not Diana fans have learnt to keep fairly quiet about our feelings!
There is no way that Charles’ claim to the throne can be set aside without Parliamentary intervention or his renouncing his claim. The Crown isn’t something that one can leave in a will – even to Will V!
I shall acknowledge the presence of Her Majesty and the rest of the royal flotilla from a balcony over looking the Thames, in Battersea.
Like Boadicea, I do not dislike Prince Charles; in fact, I admire him.
I might point out to those who have problems with Camilla (I don’t – I think she has behaved impeccably and as a Royal Consort should) that the title ‘Queen’ is automatically conferred on on the wife of a ruling king.
I doubt that Camilla will use that title – unlike her predecessor who insisted on retaining a title to which she was no longer entitled – out of respect for those who have problems with her.
I also wonder whether Charles will become Charles III or whether he will choose one of his other names and become King Philip, King Arthur or King George IX. We don’t seem to have had too much luck with kings called Charles 🙂
I have always been a monarchist. Imagine having a head of stat like Barry Obama!
I am inclined to think that Charles would not be a very successful monarch, not because he is a bad person, but because he has not got the same sort of personality as either Good Queen Bess or Wills, and he does have some weird ideas. I would like to see the monarchy skip a generation.
Janus, is a Good Thing really from Winnie the Pooh? I always thought it was from “1066 and All That”.
Anyway, have a good trip home and if I see you waving a Union Jack, I won’t tell. The French are quite envious of our Jubilee celebrations.
Whilst being a monarchist on the principle of keeping out the real crap from the top job. There is no reason on earth to get me to the UK this summer, neither monarchy or olympics. Had I been in Wales I certainly would not have paid to cross the bridge.
Time to retreat, close the gates and apply a padlock!
CO, I wonder if a convent might be the best refuge for you? 🙂
Sipu, if you see my mob on the embankment (total 15 heads) give us a wave!
Nah, too much bloody religion! And all that bloody singing morning , noon and night!!!
Anywhere that is peaceful, quiet and empty will do me.
Prince Charles is doomed to be a pauper’s Edward VII, if luck is with him. His reign will almost certainly be overshadowed by his much more estimable mother and much more stable son. Some monarchs are better than others. Some monarchs are complete disasters. Yet monarchs come and go, not a one will last forever.
How true, Christopher.
CO, maybe a silent monastery then?
I feel Charles has had bad press and without that a lot of people would not be against him. He’s not a Bad Man (going along the AA Milne root my mind has now jumped to his poem
King John was not a good man…..)
King John’s Christmas
King John was not a good man –
He had his little ways.
And sometimes no one spoke to him
For days and days and days.
And men who came across him,
When walking in the town,
Gave him a supercilious stare,
Or passed with noses in the air –
And bad King John stood dumbly there,
Blushing beneath his crown.
King John was not a good man,
And no good friends had he.
He stayed in every afternoon…
But no one came to tea.
And, round about December,
The cards upon his shelf
Which wished him lots of Christmas cheer,
And fortune in the coming year,
Were never from his near and dear,
But only from himself.
King John was not a good man,
Yet had his hopes and fears.
They’d given him no present now
For years and years and years.
But every year at Christmas,
While minstrels stood about,
Collecting tribute from the young
For all the songs they might have sung,
He stole away upstairs and hung
A hopeful stocking out.
King John was not a good man,
He lived his live aloof;
Alone he thought a message out
While climbing up the roof.
He wrote it down and propped it
Against the chimney stack:
“TO ALL AND SUNDRY – NEAR AND FAR –
F. Christmas in particular.”
And signed it not “Johannes R.”
But very humbly, “Jack.”
“I want some crackers,
And I want some candy;
I think a box of chocolates
Would come in handy;
I don’t mind oranges,
I do like nuts!
And I SHOULD like a pocket-knife
That really cuts.
And, oh! Father Christmas, if you love me at all,
Bring me a big, red, india-rubber ball!”
King John was not a good man –
He wrote this message out,
And gat him to this room again,
Descending by the spout.
And all that night he lay there,
A prey to hopes and fears.
“I think that’s him a-coming now!”
(Anxiety bedewed his brow.)
“He’ll bring one present, anyhow –
The first I had for years.”
“Forget about the crackers,
And forget the candy;
I’m sure a box of chocolates
Would never come in handy;
I don’t like oranges,
I don’t want nuts,
And I HAVE got a pocket-knife
That almost cuts.
But, oh! Father Christmas, if you love me at all,
Bring me a big, red, india-rubber ball!”
King John was not a good man,
Next morning when the sun
Rose up to tell a waiting world
That Christmas had begun,
And people seized their stockings,
And opened them with glee,
And crackers, toys and games appeared,
And lips with sticky sweets were smeared,
King John said grimly: “As I feared,
Nothing again for me!”
“I did want crackers,
And I did want candy;
I know a box of chocolates
Would come in handy;
I do love oranges,
I did want nuts!
And, oh! if Father Christmas, had loved me at all,
He would have brought a big, red,
india-rubber ball!”
King John stood by the window,
And frowned to see below
The happy bands of boys and girls
All playing in the snow.
A while he stood there watching,
And envying them all …
When through the window big and red
There hurtled by his royal head,
And bounced and fell upon the bed,
An india-rubber ball!
AND, OH, FATHER CHRISTMAS,
MY BLESSINGS ON YOU FALL
FOR BRINGING HIM
A BIG, RED,
INDIA-RUBBER
BALL!
A. A. Milne
Thank you, Nym! 🙂
Share my delight that one of my 9-year-old granddaughters will be on the Sea Scouts’ boat in the river procession on Sunday. She’ll be able to tell her grandkids about that!!
Not to mention an overjoyed grandfather 😉
Does that mean that you’ll be buying the DVD?
Soutie, I’ll get all media coverage available! 🙂
I’m with Pseu about Charles – he has had an extremely bad press. It can’t be easy being brought up with the ‘duty’ to do a job that will only become vacant when one’s mother dies.
I’m not so sure about A.A.Milne’s view of King John. But, like Charles, King John’s reputation has also suffered from a ‘Bad Press’.
CO, I suppose being King has changed just a bit since John got the job. There were no unhelpful journalists or disobedient spouses to bother about. The Court Jester was the nearest John got to a paparazzo.
Wasn’t my comment but re 21 he had the barons that weren’t too impressed from the sound of it!
Janus – I am a little disappointed that such an erudite gentleman as yourself (albeit a republican) should repeat the Telegraph’s unresearched howler of ERII instead of the correct royal cipher EIIR as flown in formation by the RAF last week and seen pretty much everwhere else for the past 60 years.
As for names, David, Prince of Wales would have become Edward VIII and ‘Bertie’ (Albert) became George VI on his accession. There is therefore no certainty that Chuck will become Charles III any more than our own favourite search-and-rescue pilot will become William V.
OZ
Janus – what are you talking about in your #21!
Why has Richard II got such a wonderful reputation – despite being a blood-thirsty maniac who had so little regard for England that he is reputed to have been willing to sell London if he could find a buyer. He sold just about everything office he could, taxed his subjects beyond the pip-squeaking stage, and left England bankrupt. Answer: because the paparazzi of the time, that is the Church Chroniclers, thought he was wonderful because he did all those things in order to go off on Crusade.
Why has John got such a bad name? He was left a country on the point of bankruptcy, refused to go haring off on Crusades and was actually interested in seeing that England was efficiently administered. Of course he had problems with his Barons, because, unlike Richard John stayed in the country and tried to curb their power – but worst of all he tried to assert his control of Church appointments – no wonder the paparazzi Chroniclers deemed him one step up from the devil!
OZ and Boa, you can see I’ve been suffering from pre-Jubilee dementia! 🙂
See y’all next week sometime, ash-clouds permitting.
Exsqueeze me Boadicea! Richard II had a wonderful reputation and went off on Crusades? Surely you mean Richard I? 😉
Yesterday I started writing a long involved comment for Janus’s ‘Prejudice Post’ that involved the Plantagenets. It all got a bit complicated so I have not yet posted it and the moment to do so may have passed. However, I make mention of the new book ‘The Plantagenets’ by Dan Jones. I have not read it, but have seen a couple of reviews. One here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/historybookreviews/9274850/The-Plantagenets-by-Dan-Jones-review.html
Apparently Jones disagrees with you and is pretty harsh about King John and does not buy the ‘bad press’ story, but on the other hand is more forgiving about Richard I.
My purpose in mentioning the book, aside from the era’s relevance to Jewish persecution is that Jones seems to contradict a lot of people commonly believe.
Jones states his belief that Edward II was not murdered by having a read hot poker shoved up his rear-end as has been commonly accepted. Likewise he maintains that King John’s 16 year old nephew did not die in his uncle’s dungeon suffering from the shock of having been castrated, (something that Jones says was entirely possible) but instead was killed in a fit of drunken rage by the monarch.
Historians, hey. You just can’t believe a word they say!
Tee hee !! Yes, she did mean Dick the first, Sipu, and she has admitted her
errortypo, but she’s so busy playing with her new toy that she may not get around to apologising for quite some while! 😀My apologies, Sipu! You are, of course, quite right! I can only plead ‘early morning’ lack of concentration… 😳
A number of historians have doubted the story about Edward II’s death – and I’ve never heard the story about Arthur having been castrated – but I have heard about John being personally responsible for his death in a fit of rage – and plenty of arguments against that too.
The problem, of course, is that when such deaths occur in ‘secret’ rumours start, and no one really knows the truth!
Enjoy your toy.
I am off to the UK and Europe tomorrow for an extended tour. I will pop in from time to time.
xx
Have a good trip. 🙂
Boadicea: sew far, sew good?
Sipu are you meeting up with any Charioteers?