I am a monarchist, don't support the idea of a republic and agree that
the Coronation as a national event should be shown live on the BBC. I
plan to watch it on Saturday.
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC One and
BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can receive BBC One
and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible reason is there for simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC to antagonise a (not insignificant) proportion of licence fee payers?
On 30/04/2023 11:57, Scott wrote:
I am a monarchist, don't support the idea of a republic and agree that
the Coronation as a national event should be shown live on the BBC. I
plan to watch it on Saturday.
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC One and
BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can receive BBC One
and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible reason is there for
simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC to antagonise a (not
insignificant) proportion of licence fee payers?
The BBC2 version has signing.
I am a monarchist, don't support the idea of a republic and agree that
the Coronation as a national event should be shown live on the BBC. I
plan to watch it on Saturday.
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC One and
BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can receive BBC One
and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible reason is there for simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC to antagonise a (not insignificant) proportion of licence fee payers?
On 30/04/2023 11:57, Scott wrote:
I am a monarchist, don't support the idea of a republic and agree that
the Coronation as a national event should be shown live on the BBC. I
plan to watch it on Saturday.
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC One and
BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can receive BBC One
and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible reason is there for
simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC to antagonise a (not
insignificant) proportion of licence fee payers?
No idea. As for the coronation itself, I have some bellybutton fluff
that requires attention...
I am a monarchist, don't support the idea of a republic and agree that
the Coronation as a national event should be shown live on the BBC. I
plan to watch it on Saturday.
I am a monarchist, don't support the idea of a republic and agree that##
the Coronation as a national event should be shown live on the BBC. I
plan to watch it on Saturday.
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC One and
BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can receive BBC One
and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible reason is there for simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC to antagonise a (not insignificant) proportion of licence fee payers?
On 30/04/2023 in message <iuhs4iprddfkbuqm44ujc94kdo51j4te35@4ax.com>
Scott wrote:
I am a monarchist, don't support the idea of a republic and agree that
the Coronation as a national event should be shown live on the BBC. I
plan to watch it on Saturday.
Will it be regarded as treason if I don't take the public oath?
On 30/04/2023 11:57, Scott wrote:
I am a monarchist, don't support the idea of a republic and agree
that the Coronation as a national event should be shown live on
the BBC. I plan to watch it on Saturday.
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC##
One and BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can
receive BBC One and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible
reason is there for simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC
to antagonise a (not insignificant) proportion of licence fee
payers?
because the powers that be demand that you watch what's good for
you and you'll be grateful.
i'm afraid the royal tampax will have to do without me watching
him, let alone publicly proclaiming my loyalty to him which is
their latest comedy plan.
I am a monarchist, don't support the idea of a republic and agree that
the Coronation as a national event should be shown live on the BBC. I
plan to watch it on Saturday.
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC One and
BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can receive BBC One
and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible reason is there for simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC to antagonise a (not insignificant) proportion of licence fee payers?
I've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible, utter
plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom I had a
great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was going to be
queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in cloud cuckoo land.
In article <kpw3M.170772$m9Mb.89569@fx04.ams1>,
the dog from that film you saw <dsb@REMOVETHISbtinternet.com>
wrote:
On 30/04/2023 11:57, Scott wrote:
I am a monarchist, don't support the idea of a republic and agree##
that the Coronation as a national event should be shown live on
the BBC. I plan to watch it on Saturday.
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC
One and BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can
receive BBC One and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible
reason is there for simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC
to antagonise a (not insignificant) proportion of licence fee
payers?
because the powers that be demand that you watch what's good for
you and you'll be grateful.
i'm afraid the royal tampax will have to do without me watching
him, let alone publicly proclaiming my loyalty to him which is
their latest comedy plan.
I've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible, utter
plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom I had a
great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was going to be
queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in cloud cuckoo land.
On 30/04/2023 18:37, Bob Latham wrote:
I've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible, utter
plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom I had a
great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was going to be
queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in cloud cuckoo land.
Ditto, never liked Carlo and I do not like the way they are making his mistress queen, despite, I am sure, saying they would not do so.
On Sun 30/04/2023 20:17, MB wrote:
On 30/04/2023 18:37, Bob Latham wrote:
I've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible, utter
plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom I had a
great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was going to be
queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in cloud cuckoo land.
Ditto, never liked Carlo and I do not like the way they are making his
mistress queen, despite, I am sure, saying they would not do so.
And despite the late Queen also saying that she should be Queen Consort
and not Queen!
On 30/04/2023 14:59, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/04/2023 in message <iuhs4iprddfkbuqm44ujc94kdo51j4te35@4ax.com>
Scott wrote:
I am a monarchist, don't support the idea of a republic and agree that
the Coronation as a national event should be shown live on the BBC. I
plan to watch it on Saturday.
Will it be regarded as treason if I don't take the public oath?
i chuckled when i read that report.
in a change to tradition they are allowing us all to take part, our joy
will be unending i'm sure.
On 30/04/2023 11:38 pm, Woody wrote:
On Sun 30/04/2023 20:17, MB wrote:
On 30/04/2023 18:37, Bob Latham wrote:And despite the late Queen also saying that she should be Queen Consort
I've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible, utter
plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom I had a
great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was going to be
queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in cloud cuckoo land.
Ditto, never liked Carlo and I do not like the way they are making his
mistress queen, despite, I am sure, saying they would not do so.
and not Queen!
The late queen did not say that.
"Queen Consort" was the correct title for the late queen's mother (Queen >Elizabeth the Queen Mother, as she was later known), as well as Queens
Mary and Alexandra earlier in the twentieth century. It is normal.
Some seem to believe that "Queen Consort" is some sort of second-best >consolation title. But it isn't. Every Queen is either a Queen Regnant
(the monarch), of which Victoria and Elizabeth II are good examples, or
a Queen Consort (ie, only a queen because married to the King).
Any queen who is not monarch in her own right (perhaps I should say
"their own right") is a Queen Consort. There are only those two categories.
Both are referred to as simply "Queen Nnnnnn".
On Mon, 1 May 2023 00:45:11 +0100, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 30/04/2023 11:38 pm, Woody wrote:Still leaves the question: why is there no King Consort?
On Sun 30/04/2023 20:17, MB wrote:
On 30/04/2023 18:37, Bob Latham wrote:And despite the late Queen also saying that she should be Queen Consort
I've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible, utter >>>>> plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom I had aDitto, never liked Carlo and I do not like the way they are making his >>>> mistress queen, despite, I am sure, saying they would not do so.
great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was going to be
queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in cloud cuckoo land. >>>>
and not Queen!
The late queen did not say that.
"Queen Consort" was the correct title for the late queen's mother (Queen
Elizabeth the Queen Mother, as she was later known), as well as Queens
Mary and Alexandra earlier in the twentieth century. It is normal.
Some seem to believe that "Queen Consort" is some sort of second-best
consolation title. But it isn't. Every Queen is either a Queen Regnant
(the monarch), of which Victoria and Elizabeth II are good examples, or
a Queen Consort (ie, only a queen because married to the King).
Any queen who is not monarch in her own right (perhaps I should say
"their own right") is a Queen Consort. There are only those two categories. >>
Both are referred to as simply "Queen Nnnnnn".
I am a monarchist, don't support the idea of a republic and agree that
the Coronation as a national event should be shown live on the BBC. I
plan to watch it on Saturday.
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC One and
BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can receive BBC One
and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible reason is there for simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC to antagonise a (not insignificant) proportion of licence fee payers?
On 30/04/2023 11:57, Scott wrote:
I am a monarchist, don't support the idea of a republic and agree that
the Coronation as a national event should be shown live on the BBC. I
plan to watch it on Saturday.
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC One and
BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can receive BBC One
and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible reason is there for
simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC to antagonise a (not
insignificant) proportion of licence fee payers?
The BBC2 version has signing.
--
Max Demian
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 12:27:12 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2023 11:57, Scott wrote:
I am a monarchist, don't support the idea of a republic and agree that
the Coronation as a national event should be shown live on the BBC. I
plan to watch it on Saturday.
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC One and
BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can receive BBC One
and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible reason is there for
simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC to antagonise a (not
insignificant) proportion of licence fee payers?
The BBC2 version has signing.
I have to admit I had not thought of that.
On 30/04/2023 11:57, Scott wrote:
I am a monarchist, don't support the idea of a republic and agree that
the Coronation as a national event should be shown live on the BBC. I
plan to watch it on Saturday.
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC One and
BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can receive BBC One
and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible reason is there for
simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC to antagonise a (not
insignificant) proportion of licence fee payers?
They are not the same, one in signed.
I am not a particularly enthusiastic monarchist but definitely not a republican (despite coming from Bolton).
I plan to go out somewhere for the day.
On 01/05/2023 09:04, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2023 00:45:11 +0100, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 30/04/2023 11:38 pm, Woody wrote:Still leaves the question: why is there no King Consort?
On Sun 30/04/2023 20:17, MB wrote:
On 30/04/2023 18:37, Bob Latham wrote:And despite the late Queen also saying that she should be Queen Consort >>>> and not Queen!
I've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible, utter >>>>>> plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom I had a >>>>>> great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was going to beDitto, never liked Carlo and I do not like the way they are making his >>>>> mistress queen, despite, I am sure, saying they would not do so.
queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in cloud cuckoo land. >>>>>
The late queen did not say that.
"Queen Consort" was the correct title for the late queen's mother (Queen >>> Elizabeth the Queen Mother, as she was later known), as well as Queens
Mary and Alexandra earlier in the twentieth century. It is normal.
Some seem to believe that "Queen Consort" is some sort of second-best
consolation title. But it isn't. Every Queen is either a Queen Regnant
(the monarch), of which Victoria and Elizabeth II are good examples, or
a Queen Consort (ie, only a queen because married to the King).
Any queen who is not monarch in her own right (perhaps I should say
"their own right") is a Queen Consort. There are only those two categories. >>>
Both are referred to as simply "Queen Nnnnnn".
Why are there any of them?
Saves money?
Really, though the BBC need its arse kicked over what its doing to bbc
local radio, while upholding programs that are inane and half the time not >even interesting. Leave them to the commercial stations, they seem to have a >glut of American crap just now, so let them fund the British crap instead.
Brian
On Mon, 1 May 2023 09:32:11 +0100, "Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com>
wrote:
Saves money?
Really, though the BBC need its arse kicked over what its doing to bbc >>local radio, while upholding programs that are inane and half the time
not
even interesting. Leave them to the commercial stations, they seem to have >>a
glut of American crap just now, so let them fund the British crap instead. >>Brian
I very much agree with that (even though we do not have local radio as
such in Scotland).
On 30/04/2023 11:38 pm, Woody wrote:
On Sun 30/04/2023 20:17, MB wrote:
On 30/04/2023 18:37, Bob Latham wrote:
I've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible, utter
plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom I had a
great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was going to be
queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in cloud cuckoo land.
Ditto, never liked Carlo and I do not like the way they are making his
mistress queen, despite, I am sure, saying they would not do so.
And despite the late Queen also saying that she should be Queen ConsortThe late queen did not say that.
and not Queen!
"Queen Consort" was the correct title for the late queen's mother (Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, as she was later known), as well as Queens
Mary and Alexandra earlier in the twentieth century. It is normal.
Some seem to believe that "Queen Consort" is some sort of second-best consolation title. But it isn't. Every Queen is either a Queen Regnant
(the monarch), of which Victoria and Elizabeth II are good examples, or
a Queen Consort (ie, only a queen because married to the King).
Any queen who is not monarch in her own right (perhaps I should say
"their own right") is a Queen Consort. There are only those two categories.
Both are referred to as simply "Queen Nnnnnn".
On Monday, 1 May 2023 at 00:45:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 30/04/2023 11:38 pm, Woody wrote:
On Sun 30/04/2023 20:17, MB wrote:The late queen did not say that.
On 30/04/2023 18:37, Bob Latham wrote:
I've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible, utter >>>>> plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom I had a
great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was going to be
queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in cloud cuckoo land. >>>>
Ditto, never liked Carlo and I do not like the way they are making his >>>> mistress queen, despite, I am sure, saying they would not do so.
And despite the late Queen also saying that she should be Queen Consort
and not Queen!
"Queen Consort" was the correct title for the late queen's mother (Queen
Elizabeth the Queen Mother, as she was later known), as well as Queens
Mary and Alexandra earlier in the twentieth century. It is normal.
Some seem to believe that "Queen Consort" is some sort of second-best
consolation title. But it isn't. Every Queen is either a Queen Regnant
(the monarch), of which Victoria and Elizabeth II are good examples, or
a Queen Consort (ie, only a queen because married to the King).
Any queen who is not monarch in her own right (perhaps I should say
"their own right") is a Queen Consort. There are only those two categories. >>
Both are referred to as simply "Queen Nnnnnn".
The reason why Camilla will be "Queen Consort" until 6th May is because although Charles III became King at the moment of succession, Camilla will not become Queen until crowned.
Queens Mary and Alexandra were Dowager Queens once widowed.
Any queen who is not monarch in her own right (perhaps I should say
"their own right") is a Queen Consort. There are only those two categories.
Both are referred to as simply "Queen Nnnnnn".
Maybe it does, but what about Red Button which I bet will be showing it as well.
Brian
Such important matters!
More here:
https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/royal-news/why-camilla-exempt-from-curtsying
Makes you glad you live in a Tudor theme park.
Why are there any of them?
I very much agree with that (even though we do not have local radio as
such in Scotland).
In article <kpw3M.170772$m9Mb.89569@fx04.ams1>,
the dog from that film you saw <dsb@REMOVETHISbtinternet.com>
wrote:
On 30/04/2023 11:57, Scott wrote:
I am a monarchist, don't support the idea of a republic and agree
that the Coronation as a national event should be shown live on
the BBC. I plan to watch it on Saturday.
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC
One and BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can
receive BBC One and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible
reason is there for simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC
to antagonise a (not insignificant) proportion of licence fee
payers?
because the powers that be demand that you watch what's good for
you and you'll be grateful.
i'm afraid the royal tampax will have to do without me watching
him, let alone publicly proclaiming my loyalty to him which is
their latest comedy plan.
I've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible, utter
plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom I had a
great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was going to be
queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in cloud cuckoo land.
On Mon, 1 May 2023 00:45:11 +0100, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 30/04/2023 11:38 pm, Woody wrote:
On Sun 30/04/2023 20:17, MB wrote:
On 30/04/2023 18:37, Bob Latham wrote:
Still leaves the question: why is there no King Consort?And despite the late Queen also saying that she should be Queen ConsortI've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible, utter >>>>> plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom I had aDitto, never liked Carlo and I do not like the way they are making his >>>> mistress queen, despite, I am sure, saying they would not do so.
great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was going to be
queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in cloud cuckoo land. >>>>
and not Queen!
The late queen did not say that.
"Queen Consort" was the correct title for the late queen's mother (Queen
Elizabeth the Queen Mother, as she was later known), as well as Queens
Mary and Alexandra earlier in the twentieth century. It is normal.
Some seem to believe that "Queen Consort" is some sort of second-best
consolation title. But it isn't. Every Queen is either a Queen Regnant
(the monarch), of which Victoria and Elizabeth II are good examples, or
a Queen Consort (ie, only a queen because married to the King).
Any queen who is not monarch in her own right (perhaps I should say
"their own right") is a Queen Consort. There are only those two categories. >>
Both are referred to as simply "Queen Nnnnnn".
On 30/04/2023 11:57, Scott wrote:
I am a monarchist, don't support the idea of a republic and agree that
the Coronation as a national event should be shown live on the BBC. I
plan to watch it on Saturday.
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC One and
BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can receive BBC One
and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible reason is there for
simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC to antagonise a (not
insignificant) proportion of licence fee payers?
They are not the same, one in signed.
I am not a particularly enthusiastic monarchist but definitely not a republican (despite coming from Bolton).
I plan to go out somewhere for the day.
On 01/05/2023 09:04, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2023 00:45:11 +0100, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 30/04/2023 11:38 pm, Woody wrote:
On Sun 30/04/2023 20:17, MB wrote:
On 30/04/2023 18:37, Bob Latham wrote:
Still leaves the question: why is there no King Consort?And despite the late Queen also saying that she should be Queen Consort >>>> and not Queen!I've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible, utter >>>>>> plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom I had a >>>>>> great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was going to beDitto, never liked Carlo and I do not like the way they are making his >>>>> mistress queen, despite, I am sure, saying they would not do so.
queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in cloud cuckoo land. >>>>>
The late queen did not say that.
"Queen Consort" was the correct title for the late queen's mother (Queen >>> Elizabeth the Queen Mother, as she was later known), as well as Queens
Mary and Alexandra earlier in the twentieth century. It is normal.
Some seem to believe that "Queen Consort" is some sort of second-best
consolation title. But it isn't. Every Queen is either a Queen Regnant
(the monarch), of which Victoria and Elizabeth II are good examples, or
a Queen Consort (ie, only a queen because married to the King).
Any queen who is not monarch in her own right (perhaps I should say
"their own right") is a Queen Consort. There are only those two categories. >>>
Both are referred to as simply "Queen Nnnnnn".
'Cos the husband of a queen regnant is prince consort.
On 30/04/2023 18:37, Bob Latham wrote:
I've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible,
utter plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom
I had a great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was
going to be queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in
cloud cuckoo land.
Apparently she was regarded as "hot" in her day (I'm not sure which
day).
On 01/05/2023 10:13, Scott wrote:
I very much agree with that (even though we do not have local radio as
such in Scotland).
Radio Scotland and Radio nan Gaidheal.
Where? To Hyde Park to watch it on the big screens?
On 01/05/2023 in message <vj0v4i9qat25s4b5dc8t8q66on0r3e606h@4ax.com>
Scott wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2023 09:32:11 +0100, "Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com>
wrote:
Saves money?
Really, though the BBC need its arse kicked over what its doing to bbc
local radio, while upholding programs that are inane and half the
time not
even interesting. Leave them to the commercial stations, they seem to
have a
glut of American crap just now, so let them fund the British crap
instead.
Brian
I very much agree with that (even though we do not have local radio as
such in Scotland).
With a population less than half of some of our counties any radio
station in Scotland is local surely?
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2023 11:38 pm, Woody wrote:
On Sun 30/04/2023 20:17, MB wrote:
On 30/04/2023 18:37, Bob Latham wrote:
Still leaves the question: why is there no King Consort?And despite the late Queen also saying that she should be Queen ConsortI've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible, utter >>>>> plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom I had aDitto, never liked Carlo and I do not like the way they are making his >>>> mistress queen, despite, I am sure, saying they would not do so.
great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was going to be
queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in cloud cuckoo land. >>>>
and not Queen!
The late queen did not say that.
"Queen Consort" was the correct title for the late queen's mother (Queen
Elizabeth the Queen Mother, as she was later known), as well as Queens
Mary and Alexandra earlier in the twentieth century. It is normal.
Some seem to believe that "Queen Consort" is some sort of second-best
consolation title. But it isn't. Every Queen is either a Queen Regnant
(the monarch), of which Victoria and Elizabeth II are good examples, or
a Queen Consort (ie, only a queen because married to the King).
Any queen who is not monarch in her own right (perhaps I should say
"their own right") is a Queen Consort. There are only those two categories. >>
Both are referred to as simply "Queen Nnnnnn".
On 01/05/2023 09:04 am, Scott wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2023 11:38 pm, Woody wrote:
Still leaves the question: why is there no King Consort?And despite the late Queen also saying that she should be Queen Consort >>>> and not Queen!
The late queen did not say that.
"Queen Consort" was the correct title for the late queen's mother (Queen >>> Elizabeth the Queen Mother, as she was later known), as well as Queens
Mary and Alexandra earlier in the twentieth century. It is normal.
Some seem to believe that "Queen Consort" is some sort of second-best
consolation title. But it isn't. Every Queen is either a Queen Regnant
(the monarch), of which Victoria and Elizabeth II are good examples, or
a Queen Consort (ie, only a queen because married to the King).
Any queen who is not monarch in her own right (perhaps I should say
"their own right") is a Queen Consort. There are only those two
categories.
Both are referred to as simply "Queen Nnnnnn".
Does it?
The title used is "Prince Consort".
"King" would imply being the monarch.
On 01/05/2023 09:04 am, Scott wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2023 11:38 pm, Woody wrote:
On Sun 30/04/2023 20:17, MB wrote:
On 30/04/2023 18:37, Bob Latham wrote:
Still leaves the question: why is there no King Consort?And despite the late Queen also saying that she should be Queen Consort >>>> and not Queen!I've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible, utter >>>>>> plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom I had a >>>>>> great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was going to beDitto, never liked Carlo and I do not like the way they are making his >>>>> mistress queen, despite, I am sure, saying they would not do so.
queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in cloud cuckoo land. >>>>>
The late queen did not say that.
"Queen Consort" was the correct title for the late queen's mother (Queen >>> Elizabeth the Queen Mother, as she was later known), as well as Queens
Mary and Alexandra earlier in the twentieth century. It is normal.
Some seem to believe that "Queen Consort" is some sort of second-best
consolation title. But it isn't. Every Queen is either a Queen Regnant
(the monarch), of which Victoria and Elizabeth II are good examples, or
a Queen Consort (ie, only a queen because married to the King).
Any queen who is not monarch in her own right (perhaps I should say
"their own right") is a Queen Consort. There are only those two categories. >>>
Both are referred to as simply "Queen Nnnnnn".
Does it?
The title used is "Prince Consort".
"King" would imply being the monarch.
On 01/05/2023 16:22, JNugent wrote:
On 01/05/2023 09:04 am, Scott wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2023 11:38 pm, Woody wrote:
Still leaves the question: why is there no King Consort?And despite the late Queen also saying that she should be Queen
Consort
and not Queen!
The late queen did not say that.
"Queen Consort" was the correct title for the late queen's mother
(Queen
Elizabeth the Queen Mother, as she was later known), as well as Queens >>>> Mary and Alexandra earlier in the twentieth century. It is normal.
Some seem to believe that "Queen Consort" is some sort of second-best
consolation title. But it isn't. Every Queen is either a Queen Regnant >>>> (the monarch), of which Victoria and Elizabeth II are good examples, or >>>> a Queen Consort (ie, only a queen because married to the King).
Any queen who is not monarch in her own right (perhaps I should say
"their own right") is a Queen Consort. There are only those two
categories.
Both are referred to as simply "Queen Nnnnnn".
Does it?
The title used is "Prince Consort".
"King" would imply being the monarch.
...and riding on a horse to lead the army into battle!
On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:22:53 +0100, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 01/05/2023 09:04 am, Scott wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2023 11:38 pm, Woody wrote:
On Sun 30/04/2023 20:17, MB wrote:
On 30/04/2023 18:37, Bob Latham wrote:
Still leaves the question: why is there no King Consort?And despite the late Queen also saying that she should be Queen Consort >>>>> and not Queen!I've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible, utter >>>>>>> plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom I had a >>>>>>> great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was going to be >>>>>>> queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in cloud cuckoo land. >>>>>>Ditto, never liked Carlo and I do not like the way they are making his >>>>>> mistress queen, despite, I am sure, saying they would not do so.
The late queen did not say that.
"Queen Consort" was the correct title for the late queen's mother (Queen >>>> Elizabeth the Queen Mother, as she was later known), as well as Queens >>>> Mary and Alexandra earlier in the twentieth century. It is normal.
Some seem to believe that "Queen Consort" is some sort of second-best
consolation title. But it isn't. Every Queen is either a Queen Regnant >>>> (the monarch), of which Victoria and Elizabeth II are good examples, or >>>> a Queen Consort (ie, only a queen because married to the King).
Any queen who is not monarch in her own right (perhaps I should say
"their own right") is a Queen Consort. There are only those two categories.
Both are referred to as simply "Queen Nnnnnn".
Does it?
The title used is "Prince Consort".
Yes I know, that was the point of my question.
"King" would imply being the monarch.
In a way that 'Queen' would not???
On 01/05/2023 05:20 pm, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:22:53 +0100, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 01/05/2023 09:04 am, Scott wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2023 11:38 pm, Woody wrote:
On Sun 30/04/2023 20:17, MB wrote:
On 30/04/2023 18:37, Bob Latham wrote:
Still leaves the question: why is there no King Consort?And despite the late Queen also saying that she should be Queen Consort >>>>>> and not Queen!I've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible, utter >>>>>>>> plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom I had a >>>>>>>> great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was going to be >>>>>>>> queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in cloud cuckoo land. >>>>>>>Ditto, never liked Carlo and I do not like the way they are making his >>>>>>> mistress queen, despite, I am sure, saying they would not do so. >>>>>>>
The late queen did not say that.
"Queen Consort" was the correct title for the late queen's mother (Queen >>>>> Elizabeth the Queen Mother, as she was later known), as well as Queens >>>>> Mary and Alexandra earlier in the twentieth century. It is normal.
Some seem to believe that "Queen Consort" is some sort of second-best >>>>> consolation title. But it isn't. Every Queen is either a Queen Regnant >>>>> (the monarch), of which Victoria and Elizabeth II are good examples, or >>>>> a Queen Consort (ie, only a queen because married to the King).
Any queen who is not monarch in her own right (perhaps I should say
"their own right") is a Queen Consort. There are only those two categories.
Both are referred to as simply "Queen Nnnnnn".
Does it?
The title used is "Prince Consort".
Yes I know, that was the point of my question.
"King" would imply being the monarch.
In a way that 'Queen' would not???
Primogeniture.
The rule favoured males.
It might have been changed now, for all the difference it might make
during the forseeable future.
On 01/05/2023 10:59 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 01/05/2023 in message <vj0v4i9qat25s4b5dc8t8q66on0r3e606h@4ax.com>
Scott wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2023 09:32:11 +0100, "Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com>
wrote:
Saves money?
Really, though the BBC need its arse kicked over what its doing to bbc >>>> local radio, while upholding programs that are inane and half the
time not
even interesting. Leave them to the commercial stations, they seem to
have a
glut of American crap just now, so let them fund the British crap
instead.
Brian
I very much agree with that (even though we do not have local radio as
such in Scotland).
With a population less than half of some of our counties any radio
station in Scotland is local surely?
Exactly.
On Mon, 1 May 2023 17:39:41 +0100, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 01/05/2023 05:20 pm, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:22:53 +0100, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 01/05/2023 09:04 am, Scott wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2023 11:38 pm, Woody wrote:
On Sun 30/04/2023 20:17, MB wrote:
On 30/04/2023 18:37, Bob Latham wrote:
Still leaves the question: why is there no King Consort?And despite the late Queen also saying that she should be Queen Consort >>>>>>> and not Queen!I've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible, utter >>>>>>>>> plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom I had a >>>>>>>>> great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was going to be >>>>>>>>> queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in cloud cuckoo land.
Ditto, never liked Carlo and I do not like the way they are making his >>>>>>>> mistress queen, despite, I am sure, saying they would not do so. >>>>>>>>
The late queen did not say that.
"Queen Consort" was the correct title for the late queen's mother (Queen >>>>>> Elizabeth the Queen Mother, as she was later known), as well as Queens >>>>>> Mary and Alexandra earlier in the twentieth century. It is normal. >>>>>>
Some seem to believe that "Queen Consort" is some sort of second-best >>>>>> consolation title. But it isn't. Every Queen is either a Queen Regnant >>>>>> (the monarch), of which Victoria and Elizabeth II are good examples, or >>>>>> a Queen Consort (ie, only a queen because married to the King).
Any queen who is not monarch in her own right (perhaps I should say >>>>>> "their own right") is a Queen Consort. There are only those two categories.
Both are referred to as simply "Queen Nnnnnn".
Does it?
The title used is "Prince Consort".
Yes I know, that was the point of my question.
"King" would imply being the monarch.
In a way that 'Queen' would not???
Primogeniture.
AIUI primogeniture is/was the first child rule.
The rule favoured males.
In what way?
It might have been changed now, for all the difference it might make
during the forseeable future.
On 01/05/2023 06:20 pm, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2023 17:39:41 +0100, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 01/05/2023 05:20 pm, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:22:53 +0100, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 01/05/2023 09:04 am, Scott wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2023 11:38 pm, Woody wrote:
On Sun 30/04/2023 20:17, MB wrote:
On 30/04/2023 18:37, Bob Latham wrote:
Still leaves the question: why is there no King Consort?And despite the late Queen also saying that she should be Queen ConsortI've never had any time for Charles he seems to be a gullible, utter >>>>>>>>>> plonker to me. Very different from the late queen for whom I had a >>>>>>>>>> great deal of respect. I just wish Princess Anne was going to be >>>>>>>>>> queen, she's the only one left of the royals not in cloud cuckoo land.
Ditto, never liked Carlo and I do not like the way they are making his
mistress queen, despite, I am sure, saying they would not do so. >>>>>>>>>
and not Queen!
The late queen did not say that.
"Queen Consort" was the correct title for the late queen's mother (Queen
Elizabeth the Queen Mother, as she was later known), as well as Queens >>>>>>> Mary and Alexandra earlier in the twentieth century. It is normal. >>>>>>>
Some seem to believe that "Queen Consort" is some sort of second-best >>>>>>> consolation title. But it isn't. Every Queen is either a Queen Regnant >>>>>>> (the monarch), of which Victoria and Elizabeth II are good examples, or >>>>>>> a Queen Consort (ie, only a queen because married to the King).
Any queen who is not monarch in her own right (perhaps I should say >>>>>>> "their own right") is a Queen Consort. There are only those two categories.
Both are referred to as simply "Queen Nnnnnn".
Does it?
The title used is "Prince Consort".
Yes I know, that was the point of my question.
"King" would imply being the monarch.
In a way that 'Queen' would not???
Primogeniture.
AIUI primogeniture is/was the first child rule.
The rule favoured males.
In what way?
By passing the inheritance on to the oldest *male* child.
On Mon, 1 May 2023 19:28:57 +0100, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
By passing the inheritance on to the oldest *male* child.
Okay, I'll concede this one. There seem to be different
definitions of primogeniture; some say the oldest child and some
say the oldest male child. I agree the practical outcome was
generally the latter.
There was a time when generals did that too.
I was using the BBC definition as the context was changes to local
radio in England (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are referred to
as 'Nations' in BBC parlance).
On 01/05/2023 19:22, Scott wrote:
I was using the BBC definition as the context was changes to local
radio in England (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are referred to
as 'Nations' in BBC parlance).
It used to be good fund, when speaking to someone from Queen Margaret
Drive, to refer to the BBC Scotland as a 'region'.
Who invented the term 'nations' anyway?
The BBC2 version has signing.
On 30/04/2023 12:27, Max Demian wrote:
The BBC2 version has signing.
Ah, thanks. That's one to avoid then, as I find the signing movements
very distracting.
Now that practically all TV sets can switch on subtitling if needed, I
find it hard to believe that there's significant number of people who
are deaf and able to understand sign language but not the rather simple
text that appears in subtitles.
Now that practically all TV sets can switch on subtitling if needed,
I find it hard to believe that there's significant number of people
who are deaf and able to understand sign language but not the
rather simple text that appears in subtitles.
On Mon, 1 May 2023 19:28:57 +0100, JNugent <jennin...@mail.com>
wrote:
The rule favoured males.
In what way?
By passing the inheritance on to the oldest *male* child.Okay, I'll concede this one. There seem to be different definitions
of primogeniture; some say the oldest child and some say the oldest
male child. I agree the practical outcome was generally the latter.
On 01/05/2023 09:04, Scott wrote:SNIP
On Mon, 1 May 2023 00:45:11 +0100, JNugent <jennin...@mail.com>
'Cos the husband of a queen regnant is prince consort.Still leaves the question: why is there no King Consort?
--
Max Demian
I find it hard to believe that nobody seems to have thought of
transmitting the programme on one channel and the signing person on
another, leaving it up to the viewer to choose how to deal with this.
On 30/04/2023 12:27, Max Demian wrote:
The BBC2 version has signing.
Ah, thanks. That's one to avoid then, as I find the signing movements
very distracting.
Now that practically all TV sets can switch on subtitling if needed, I
find it hard to believe that there's significant number of people who
are deaf and able to understand sign language but not the rather simple
text that appears in subtitles.
Some deaf people like to think of sign language as a different language rather than a version of English.
On 02/05/2023 12:27, Roderick Stewart wrote:
I find it hard to believe that nobody seems to have thought of
transmitting the programme on one channel and the signing person on
another, leaving it up to the viewer to choose how to deal with this.
I thought that was what they are doing?
I don't think so. As I understand it the BBC2 version of the
coronation will be the complete image *including" signing, as they
normally do, so the main image is effectively transmitted twice.
What I was suggesting is that a second channel could carry*only* the
image of the signing person, so that it could be inserted in the
receiving equipment. The main full bandwidth image need only be
transmitted once. Viewers could switch the signing person on or off,
much as we can do already with subtitles. It would be wasteful to cope
with subtitles by transmitting two versions of the entire image, one
with them and one without, as we have the technology to do better. We
also have the technology to do something similar with the image of the signing person, but we don't use it.
On 02/05/2023 21:36, Roderick Stewart wrote:
I don't think so. As I understand it the BBC2 version of the
coronation will be the complete image *including" signing, as they
normally do, so the main image is effectively transmitted twice.
What I was suggesting is that a second channel could carry*only* the
image of the signing person, so that it could be inserted in the
receiving equipment. The main full bandwidth image need only be
transmitted once. Viewers could switch the signing person on or off,
much as we can do already with subtitles. It would be wasteful to cope
with subtitles by transmitting two versions of the entire image, one
with them and one without, as we have the technology to do better. We
also have the technology to do something similar with the image of the
signing person, but we don't use it.
What is the point in starting a service which no one has the equipment
to use.
How much would be the cost of this service, it will not be free.
I very much agree with that (even though we do not have local radio
as such in Scotland).
With a population less than half of some of our counties any radio
station in Scotland is local surely?
Exactly.
I was using the BBC definition as the context was changes to local radio
in England (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are referred to as
'Nations' in BBC parlance).
On 02/05/2023 21:36, Roderick Stewart wrote:
I don't think so. As I understand it the BBC2 version of the
coronation will be the complete image *including" signing, as they
normally do, so the main image is effectively transmitted twice.
What I was suggesting is that a second channel could carry*only* the
image of the signing person, so that it could be inserted in the
receiving equipment. The main full bandwidth image need only be
transmitted once. Viewers could switch the signing person on or off,
much as we can do already with subtitles. It would be wasteful to cope
with subtitles by transmitting two versions of the entire image, one
with them and one without, as we have the technology to do better. We
also have the technology to do something similar with the image of the
signing person, but we don't use it.
What is the point in starting a service which no one has the equipment
to use.
How much would be the cost of this service, it will not be free.
It would cost exactly the same to produce the signing service as it
currently does. It would simply be transmitted in a different way.
They could start tomorrow.
Also, would it not be seen as discriminatory to expect people with a 'protected characteristic' to pay for additional equipment?
On 03/05/2023 10:11, Roderick Stewart wrote:
It would cost exactly the same to produce the signing service as it
currently does. It would simply be transmitted in a different way.
They could start tomorrow.
Someone suggested a system which would somehow (by some undefined
method) transmit the image of the person signing separately from the
normal channel so there will have be new infrastructure and software etc >changed. All costs money.
In article <ga005idnt28tv537edn3ijherm3uh1fqbd@4ax.com>, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I was using the BBC definition as the context was changes to local radio
in England (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are referred to as
'Nations' in BBC parlance).
Yes, context matters for a term like "local". I recall there were various 'local' pirate radio stations on top of buildings in London and which only aimed at a 'local' audience.
Clearly, special equipment and/or software would refne the process,
but they could literally start tomorrow with no requirement for anyone
to use anything other than what we already have.
On 03/05/2023 11:19, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Clearly, special equipment and/or software would refne the process,
but they could literally start tomorrow with no requirement for anyone
to use anything other than what we already have.
I am sure some TV receivers can divide the screen up into multiple
screens but many (probably most) cannot and most people will not know if >their receiver can.
On 03/05/2023 09:00, Scott wrote:
Also, would it not be seen as discriminatory to expect people with a
'protected characteristic' to pay for additional equipment?
They already have access to subtitles and signing, just someone wants to
do it in a different way.
In article <ga005idnt28tv537edn3ijherm3uh1fqbd@4ax.com>, Scott ><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I very much agree with that (even though we do not have local radio
as such in Scotland).
With a population less than half of some of our counties any radio
station in Scotland is local surely?
Exactly.
I was using the BBC definition as the context was changes to local radio
in England (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are referred to as
'Nations' in BBC parlance).
Yes, context matters for a term like "local". I recall there were various >'local' pirate radio stations on top of buildings in London and which only >aimed at a 'local' audience. Whereas if someone goes to Mars they might >regard all Earth-based broadcasts as 'local' to Earth, and distinct from >'local' ones on Mars!
Maybe it's not ideal, but it would work, pending something better,
using equipment that many people probably already have.
On 03/05/2023 15:04, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Maybe it's not ideal, but it would work, pending something better,
using equipment that many people probably already have.
I suppose you could fasten the tablet to the TV in the right place using >Gaffer Tape.
At first no-one would have any special equipment, but that wouldn't
make it unusable. The simplest way to make use of it would be with a
second screen - a laptop or tablet, or even a phone - which many
people already have, so they could use it straight away. If it became popular, somebody would offer the various bits of more specialised
equipment - receivers, adaptors or whatever - that would make the
service neater and easier to use, and viewers could make their choice.
I am a monarchist, don't support the idea of a republic and agree that
the Coronation as a national event should be shown live on the BBC. I
plan to watch it on Saturday.
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC One and
BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can receive BBC One
and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible reason is there for simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC to antagonise a (not insignificant) proportion of licence fee payers?
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC One and
BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can receive BBC One
and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible reason is there for simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC to antagonise a (not insignificant) proportion of licence fee payers?
On 03/05/2023 21:50, Brian Gregory wrote:
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC One and
BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can receive BBC One
and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible reason is there for
simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC to antagonise a (not
insignificant) proportion of licence fee payers?
You could ask what is the point in ITV showing it because they know Because millions,(yes millions) actually prefer ITV's coverage of such events. I thought their coverage of the funeral was superior to the Beeb's.
most will watch BBC.
On 03/05/2023 23:43, MB wrote:
On 03/05/2023 21:50, Brian Gregory wrote:
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC One and
BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can receive BBC One
and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible reason is there for
simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC to antagonise a (not
insignificant) proportion of licence fee payers?
You could ask what is the point in ITV showing it because they know
most will watch BBC.
 Because millions,(yes millions) actually prefer ITV's coverage of such events. I thought their coverage of the funeral was superior to the Beeb's.
On 04/05/2023 08:51, Mark Carver wrote:
On 03/05/2023 23:43, MB wrote:
On 03/05/2023 21:50, Brian Gregory wrote:
However, what is the point of showing the same coverage on BBC One and >>>> BBC Two? There is no television in the land that can receive BBC One >>>> and not BBC Two or vice versa. What possible reason is there for
simulcasting other than an attempt by the BBC to antagonise a (not
insignificant) proportion of licence fee payers?
You could ask what is the point in ITV showing it because they know
most will watch BBC.
  Because millions,(yes millions) actually prefer ITV's coverage of
such events. I thought their coverage of the funeral was superior to
the Beeb's.
Did you really watch both?
On 04/05/2023 08:51, Mark Carver wrote:
  Because millions,(yes millions) actually prefer ITV's coverage of
such
events. I thought their coverage of the funeral was superior to the
Beeb's.
That is not what the viewing figures always indicate.
 Because millions,(yes millions) actually prefer ITV's coverage of such events. I thought their coverage of the funeral was superior to the Beeb's.
Yes, context matters for a term like "local". I recall there were
various 'local' pirate radio stations on top of buildings in London and >which only aimed at a 'local' audience. Whereas if someone goes to Mars >they might regard all Earth-based broadcasts as 'local' to Earth, and >distinct from 'local' ones on Mars!
Radio Caroline 648 kHz is local but I have heard it in Glasgow (weak reception though).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 06:04:18 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,021 |