Queen Elizabeth II Dies - End of an Era

[Benjamin]

While looking for a photo that I thought was the Queen's visit to Edmonton (which turned out to be Charles and Diana's visit at the World University Games in 1983), I found the right photo from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan in 1978. I was 4 at the time and didn't understand what all the hubbub was about, but I remember people lining the streets on both sides and a very festive atmosphere like those found at a parade, only in this case a parade that was 10 seconds long. My mom took the photo, and because they were moving fairly quickly, she only had time for one shot.





All those people smiling, waving and clapping. I vaguely remember cheers and whistles as they drove by. The atmosphere speaks for itself and her presence generated it.

Also, from the Kremlin addressed to King Charles III:

Condolences on passing of Queen Elizabeth II​

Vladimir Putin extended his condolences to King Charles III on the death of Queen Elizabeth II.

September 8, 2022
22:45

The message reads, in part:

“Her Majesty's name is inextricably linked with key events in the contemporary history of the United Kingdom. For many decades, Elizabeth II rightfully enjoyed the love and respect of her subjects, as well as high regard on the world stage.

I wish you courage and fortitude in the face of this difficult, irreparable loss. Please convey my sincere sympathy and support to the members of the royal family and all the people of the United Kingdom.”

 

[XPan]

Queen Elizabeth II and her analog cameras

A little side note, which I personally thought was fun, to see the Queen and her interest in photography with analog cameras. Apparently she was keen to ask other photographers about various models and ways to take photos, too.

Popphoto had an article and images

A closer look at some of Queen Elizabeth II's favorite cameras

The late Queen Elizabeth II was passionate about photography. These are some of the cameras she was spotted shooting with the most.

www.popphoto.com

Here with the classic Leica M3, which looks a bit bulky, because the light meter was external mounted on top of the camera body.




Here she stands with a Leica M6, and that one is truly a "modern" classic, when Leica developed it in the 80s - with integrated light meter, but the camera is shutter is not battery dependent. I got one myself since the year of 1989, and I can tell you, it is a work horse even today, going strong. Extremely discreet, and regarded to be a classic favorite for so called "street photography".

The fine mechanical rangefinder is the heart of a Leica M camera (even in the digital version today) in order to set the correct sharpness: where you with help of a "dual ghost image" align the subject in such a way, that it overlaps in the finder - then the correct point of sharpness is achieved. For this to work correct, the mechanical rangefinder must be by Leica tuned into being 100% aligned.

So, when you look through the Leica finder window, you are not looking though the lens, like you do with most other cameras !

When or if the Leica M needs a strong cleaning & rangefinder adjustment etc. - sending it to Leica can be very, very pricey. No problem for her Majesty, though. I've only got it done once in 2012, which cost a stomach strong 1100 € - not far off the price I once paid to buy the camera back in 1989 in Sweden). I don't even dare to think of what it would cost in 2023. Luckily the Leica M6 is a sturdy camera and it's rangefinder doesn't go that easily "out of alignment", compared to modern digital Leica M cameras, after you knocked them moderately.



Queen Elizabeth ll takes photographs with her gold Rollei camera during a visit to the Badminton Horse Trials with Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh on April 26, 1974 in Badminton, England. Anwar Hussein/Getty Images

Rollei 35. I wonder how many of her photos were sharp ? The camera is the smallest analog 35mm film camera - really tiny. But one thing it does not have: There is no way to to set the sharpness - You simply have to guess. Which works ok-ish as long you got good light and can stop down the lens to a moderate aperture... (I personally never got along with that thing).

Popphoto writes:
For those unfamiliar, this is one of the smallest 35mm film cameras ever made, and though it can be cumbersome to use (delicate fingers are a must), it’s capable of absolutely terrific results—truly a camera lover’s camera.

Queen Elizabeth II carrying a Rolleiflex camera at Badminton Horse Trials, United Kingdom, circa 1965. Stanley Bielecki/ASP/Getty Images

Rolleiflex TLR (standing for Twin-reflex lens camera). Another true classic, during the 50s and 60s, when many reportage photographers would work with a Rolleiflex camera. It creates big 6x6 cm negatives. I find this type of camera perhaps to be the most creative, fun and interesting way to achieve high quality, sharp images with analog film. (I use a Mamiya C330s camera since 1990, a modern Japanese equivalent to a Twin-reflex Rolleiflex you could say, but you can even change lenses). A true marvel. Those cameras were and still are true workhorses for 120 medium format film.

When you take a photo, you look down into the camera viewfinder. Despite the size of the camera, it actually is very discreet and doesn't sound that much, when you press the shutter.

 

[XPan]

Btw, can King Charles actually do anything? If the position is symbolic, then won't he just kind of be in that position as a figurehead who occasionally makes some speech but actually can't do anything to change or influence events?

Behind the curtains, he can let do (influence) a lot of things (i imagine)...

 

[Adobe]

Oh oh, some people don't like the new king.

"Declaration of God Save the King met with boos in Edinburgh"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1568923296753762304

 

[Lone herbal witch]

With the accession of King Charles III there is likely to be a renewed campaign by republicans for the abolition of the monarchy in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and even the United Kingdom itself (which may soon fragment with the Scottish Nationalists pushing for a new independence referendum). However, I read the following article today by the writer and commentator A.N. Wilson, which makes a number of good points as to why a constitutional monarchy works for the UK and safeguards the country from possible dictatorship.​

A.N. WILSON: Queen's death is moment republicans have been waiting for

A.N. WILSON: Throughout the Queen's reign, there have been those who have said: 'This outmoded institution will last Queen Elizabeth's time.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Oh yes, i personally would be in favor of being a republic. I cannot agree to support a monarchy is is controlled by the Rothchilds and company.

This video clip is the one that creeped me out, glad you posted it.
I slowed it down and grabbed this facial expression he makes.
Facial expressions say a lot, at least, according to the research and material compiled by a large body of research into “micro expressions”.
In times of stress, overwhelm and confusion it becomes impossible to “mask” or fake a personality.
These genuine “facial clues” reveal a set of universal emotions, and are considered to be shared with humans as well as all sentient mammals on this planet, as per the findings of Dr. Paul Ekman, and his fellow researchers.
I see a vicious, primal “threat to bite”, a glare of loathing, and dismissal, once the offending pen case is removed, all coming from the inner primal nature of ol Chuckie.

What do you all see?

View attachment 63818

Pathetic, cowardly, ignorant, self-serving, selfish (as if the aide could read his mind: what is he, psychic???), demonic, horrible beast, impatient, condescending and (sorry guys for using it again) predatory as well. This reminds me of something i read somewhere about his usual drink that he has at a certain time of the day (late it would seem). The story went on that he would make his servant wait until (apparently, this guy never sleeps, he apparently works in his office until the wee hours of the night) he gets his drink and the aide could not leave nor go to sleep no matter how tired he was. Eventually, Camilla told him that the servant could go to bed as she would pour him his drink instead.
I thought that it was pretty pathetic reading that report. Not sure if that is true!

 

[Tauriel]

Oh oh, some people don't like the new king.

"Declaration of God Save the King met with boos in Edinburgh"

Now for the future this disharmonious concert sounds promising.

 

[Voyageur]

A very good message from Russel...

Notice Manley P. Hall on Russell's limited bookshelf.

A most interesting essay by John Carter which lays out what Elizabeth MIGHT have done had she been more - what, courageous?

Lament For the Hollow Crown

Elizabeth II’s empty legacy

barsoom.substack.com

Article:

All you had to do, my Queen, was say something. Had you but done that, had you once spoken up for us, it would all have been so very different. It might not have changed things, but we’d have known that you cared.

But it’s too late now.

Going to agree with Jefferson below, how can we know the reasons why?

However, it might be reasonable to say that an army managed her every words; from her small public utterances and large speech's, to her correspondence and who she met and what she was to say. QEI was managed - and wrote in secret. What QEII said publicly might have been governed by the dirt held over the Royal House or UK history itself (think of that image of de Rothchild with his finger on Charles), and it can't be known what she said privately other than a few on-dits.

Perhaps a greater consciousness will emerge from one of her offspring that speaks for her from beyond.

This essay makes some solid points as Elizabeth II could have intervened but she didn't - we just don't know the real reasons why she did not.

Niall looks at it this way:

Regarding the queen's failure to do anything to stop postmodernism, the removal of civil liberties, and the destabilization of society through mass immigration, etc., yes, that's tragic. She basically 'folded' to the dominant paradigm, the 'current thing', rather than stand up for the values that people projected onto her.

But the type of 'radical counter-intervention' required to prevent 'leftist radicalism' from taking over and permeating everything is the role of an absolutist monarch.

Was going to say of Carter's article (and I'm sympathetic too), is that she could not be a J.F.K and many other statesmen with words for the people, words that could set one branch against the other. Words that called a spade a spade (and she may have tried we don't know). Hers was a near impossible situation for a young woman never meant to be Queen, and she likely did not relish the responsibilities and did the best she could do with grace, even though here we are in such a mess. This mess is not her responsibility, people the world over must each look in the mirror.

So, while I'm sympathetic to Carter's overall lament, it's misplaced by two centuries. I'm afraid that 4DSTS was 'way ahead of the game' when it did away with (real) monarchy 2-300 years ago, robbing people of their best defensive 'armor' against ponerization.

Of note:

My mom took the photo, and because they were moving fairly quickly, she only had time for one shot.

Great photos!

QEII's War Effort:

What You Didn't Know About Queen Elizabeth's Time In World War II - The List

Before ascending the throne as queen, she was Princess Elizabeth, and she stepped out to help her country in its time of need during World War II.

www.thelist.com

Queen Elizabeth II is known for being many things: longest-reigning English monarch, mother, grandmother, head of state — and mechanic, per Tatler. That last accomplishment may surprise you since no one really thinks of a queen getting her hands dirty. But that is precisely what she did. Before ascending the throne as queen, she was Princess Elizabeth, and she stepped out to help her country in its time of need...

Read More: What You Didn't Know About Queen Elizabeth's Time In World War II - The List

Russia:
In her banquet with Putin, she had this to say:

https://www.royal.uk/state-banquet-president-russian-federation-24-june-2003

Those of my generation in Britain have special cause to remember the unimaginable sacrifice the Russian people made to defeat fascism in the Second World War.

Every nation should remember her words (here and now the western world is funding, arming, taring and simply fending fascism).



May her accent have been with the "wings of eagles."

 

[Ursus Minor]

Oh yes, i personally would be in favor of being a republic. I cannot agree to support a monarchy is is controlled by the Rothchilds and company.

Make no mistake, as it stands wouldn't any republic be controlled by the Rothschilds as well?

 

[loreta]

Behind the curtains, he can let do (influence) a lot of things (i imagine)...

I agree. They are important, that's why they are always protected during war. They are never in danger during war. Furthermore, they fly the country, go elsewhere, continue to represent their country while their country is at war. God protect them, surely. They are rich and have good contacts. Good friends, I mean...

I am speaking about Monarchs in general. Not about the Queen who, during the Second World war, worked, I think she drove an ambulance. She was active, gave hope to her subjects, put aside his crown and jewels and put on a uniform. That's why I imagine that older people, young people at the time, have this image of courage and kindness and of someone who put herself out there like everyone else, forgetting that she was a princess, saying that she was equal to others, at the same level as everyone. She was near people and near the sufferance of them. Living war as everyone. This remembrance is very important in the memory of people, and it stays there, generation after generation.

 

[Vulcan59]

The following article at State of the Nation argues that Queen Elizabeth was assassinated!

 

[MJF]

As I am writing this post, the late Queen Elizabeth II's body is currently en route to Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, where it will rest in state for a short period at Holyrood Palace before being taken to London. I crave your indulgence here to mention a bit of history about Holyrood Palace since it links together a lot of things including the Templar St. Clair (or Sinclair) family connected to the famous Rosslyn Chapel, Macbeth, St. Margaret of Scotland, ancient Nordic bloodlines, the Augustinians, the Stone of Destiny, even the Holy Grail. Laura has, as you know, spoken in the past about the 'Scottish Question':
​

Session 24 September 1995:

Q: (L) I am curious about what I call the "Scottish Question." Why is it that every time I start a paper trail on any issue of conspiracy, there always seems to be a link to Scotland and Scots?

A: "Celtic," what does it mean?

Q: (L) Well, the word "kilt" comes from "Celtic," but no one seems to know where they originated... they just sort of appeared on the landscape, so to speak.

A: Exactly!

Q: (L) Are you going to tell us?

A: No, not just as of yet.

Q: (L) So, there is some interesting connection! (RC) Does it mean "warrior race?"

A: If you prefer! We have close affiliation with the "Northern Peoples." Why? Because we were in regular, direct contact with them on Kantek, before they were "lifted" to Earth by Orion STS.

I have recently been reading a book by Andrew Sinclair (himself a member of the famous St. Clair family) called 'The Sword and the Grail'. As a descendant of the St. Clair nobles, the book is in part a family history which seeks to link the St. Clairs with the Knights Templar and the Grail. By way of background (and providing a possible link with what the C's said in the extract above about the "Northern Peoples"), the St. Clairs were descended from the Møre family who were Vikings and Normans (the Children of Odin). The Møre family controlled some of coastal Norway, the Orcadian or Orkney Islands and Caithness in Scotland. Its main founder in Viking legend was Earl Rognvald. One of his sons was Rolf the Ganger better known to the French as Rollo, who after being banished from Norway by the King, took a marauding expedition across the North Sea to conquer most of Brittany and Normandy. The Møre family who were members of Rollo's warrior band took on the name of St. Clair after the town of St. Clair-sur-Epte, which had been named after the Scottish martyr Saint Guillermus or William St. Clair who lived near the river Epte in the late 7th Century. Healing wells were linked with Saint Clair and his cult became widespread in Normandy. In Latin the name was written as 'Sanctus Clarus', which meant "Sainted" or "Holy" then "Clarity" or "Shining" or "Light". Thus, the name can St. Clair can be viewed as meaning "Holy Light". This in itself may have a special significance in the context of the Grail, given the role the St. Clair family would play in being the custodians of the Holy Rood (see below).

St. Margaret of Scotland

St. Margaret of Scotland was descended from the ancient Saxon and Cerdic Royal House of of Wessex and England that included King Alfred the Great. The last of the Cerdic Kings of England was Edward the Confessor who had a Norman mother. Margaret was the daughter of the English prince Edward the Exile and his wife Agatha, and also the granddaughter of Edmund Ironside, King of England. After the death of Ironside in 1016, King Canute (a Dane) sent the infant Edward and his brother to the court of the Swedish king, Olof Skötkonung, and they eventually made their way to Kiev. As an adult, he travelled to Hungary, where in 1046 he supported the successful bid of King Andrew for the Hungarian crown. Margaret was born in Hungary about 1045. Her brother Edgar the Atheling and sister Cristina were also born in Hungary around this time. Margaret grew up in a very Catholic religious environment in the Hungarian court. Edgar had a more legitimate claim to the English Crown than King Harold Godwinson who died at the Battle of Hastings and Duke William of Normandy, who would become William I of England.

Margaret came to England with the rest of her family when her father, Edward the Exile, was recalled in 1057 as a possible successor to her great-uncle, the childless Edward the Confessor. Whether from natural or sinister causes, her father died immediately after landing, and Margaret, still a child, continued to reside at the English court where her brother, Edgar Ætheling, was considered a possible successor to the English throne. When Edward the Confessor died in January 1066, Harold Godwinson was selected as king, possibly because Edgar was considered too young. After Harold's defeat at the Battle of Hastings later that year, Edgar was proclaimed King of England, but when the Normans advanced on London (including my own ancestor who had fought by the side of William at Hastings), the Witenagemot presented Edgar to William the Conqueror, who took him to Normandy before returning him to England in 1068, when Edgar, Margaret, Cristina, and their mother Agatha fled north to Northumbria in England. According to tradition, the widowed Agatha decided to leave Northumbria with her children and return to the continent. However, a storm drove their ship north to Scotland, where they were shipwrecked in 1068. There they were given refuge by King Malcom III of Scotland.

Margaret then become the second wife of King Malcolm Canmore who had defeated Macbeth, the man who had killed his father King Duncan, as immortalised in William Shakespeare's famous play 'Macbeth' or the Scottish play as it is known (since among actors it is considered bad luck to mention the name Macbeth). His marriage to Margaret made him protector of the rightful king of England (her brother Edgar) with a claim on the throne through his children.

The Holy Rood

But where does the St. Clair family fit into the picture here? Well, although the St, Clair family played a significant role in the Battle of Hastings (nine knights bearing that name were recorded as having fought at the battle), William de St. Clair, a surviving son of Walderne St. Clair, the second son of the First Count de St. Clair who, with two of his brothers, had fatally opposed William the Conqueror's rise to the Dukedom of Normandy, was attached as a youth to the English household of Margaret. When Margaret went to Scotland she took with her one of the precious relics of Hungary, a piece of the True Cross of Christ enshrined in a silver and gold reliquary, which became known as the Holy or Black Rood. Its guardian was William de St. Clair who was also Margaret's cupbearer (a role Sargon the Great had also played in Akkad in ancient Mesopotamia before becoming king). By bringing the Holy Rood to Scotland, Margaret appeared to confirm the divine right of the wearers of the Scottish Crown, which was also derived from the Stone of Destiny, believed to have been carried to Scotland from Jerusalem by way of Ireland (although as I have stated elsewhere - the Irish strongly refute this). The ancient Scots (i.e., the Scoti or Scotti - a Latin name for the Gaels) were an Irish tribe from the kingdom of Dalriada (County Antrim) that came to the northern part of Britain that was then known as Caledonia around 500 A.D. from Northern Ireland. Indeed, in the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, signed by King Robert the Bruce, which was in effect a Scottish declaration of independence from England, it states quite clearly that the Scots were Scythian Celts who had originally been Indo-Europeans.

As Sinclair states, the Holy Rood symbolised the possession of the Holy Blood of Christ, while the Stone of Destiny represented the keystone of the Temple of Solomon and the bloodline of the Kings of Judah. According to legend, the sandstone slab that was known as the Stone of Destiny or Stone of Scone was used by the biblical figure Jacob as a pillow when he dreamed of a ladder reaching to heaven and then brought to Scotland by way of Egypt, Spain and Ireland. William de St. Clair, the cupbearer of Queen Margaret, now became the keeper of these precious relics. In return, his family were given as their symbol on their shield the Engrailed Cross. To Sinclair, besides representing the chalice or Grail of the Last Supper, it showed an enclosure or engrailing of the True Cross worn by its bearer as a Knight of the Grail and guardian of the precious relic. The St. Clairs of Roslin remained the staunch defenders of the Scottish Crown and William de St. Clair would eventually be killed bravely fighting during an English raid. The Third Lord of Roslin was one of the chief commanders of King David I, King Malcom's son. He continued the tradition of the St. Clairs as guardians of the holy relics of Scotland.

Holyrood Abbey

King David I would found Holyrood Abbey in 1128. The name derives either from Queen Margaret's relic of the True Cross, the Holy Rood, or from a legendary vision of the cross that was supposedly witnessed by King David when he saw it after being injured in the forest of Drumsheuch during a hunt. He held that its intervention saved him from death on the horns of a wounded stag deer. He thus began the building of the Holyrood Abbey and Holyrood House in order to house the precious relic his mother had brought from Hungary. In 1250, the year of Queen Margaret's canonisation as a saint, her body and that of her husband, King Malcolm, were exhumed and placed in a new shrine in the Abbey. The St. Clair family of the Holy Light thereafter became the protectors of the holy relics and would be the great benefactors of the Augustinian royal abbey at Holyrood.

Under King David, the Augustinian Black Canons and the Cistercian Monks (a 'White Brotherhood') founded monasteries and abbeys across Scotland. Indeed, the St. Clair Church of St. Matthew at Roslin would become the home of the Black Canons. King David would also encourage the Knights Templar, the sister order and military arm of the Cistercians (whose great Abbot, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, helped to establish and sponsor the Templars), by granting them some of the first of more than six hundred properties they came to acquire in Scotland. The Augustinians were mainly a teaching fraternity, taking tithes from agricultural lands, while the Cistercians were pioneers, farmers and builders, creating abbeys and plantations from the wilderness.

However, in Scotland the Augustinians were held to be English spies, reporting to the English court on all shipping in the Firth of Forth. Edward I of England, known as Edward Longshanks - the Hammer of the Scots - also asked the Augustinians in Scotland to provide him with the news of troop movements in the north. On the death of Scotland's King Alexander III, a struggle for succession started between John Baliol and Robert the Bruce, which would lead to William St. Clair choosing to support his Norman kinsman, Robert the Bruce. The previous William de St. Clair, mentioned above, had married his sister Agnes to Philip de Bruce who was also from Normandy and originally from Orkney, thus establishing the link between these two Norman families. King Edward would intervene by giving the Crown of Scotland to Baliol using him as an English vassal. In 1296, Edward also removed the holy relics of Scotland, the Holy Rood and what he thought was the Stone of Destiny, the symbols of the divine right of kings in Scotland. The Stone was subsequently used in the coronation of the monarchs of England as well as the monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom following the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland of 1707. Its size is 26 in (66 cm) by 16.7 in (42 cm) by 10.5 in (26.7 cm) and its weight is approximately 335 lb (152 kg). A roughly incised cross is on one surface, and an iron ring at each end aids with transport.

The Stone of Scone was last used in 1953 for the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. It did briefly return to Scotland when four University of Glasgow students broke into Westminster Abbey on Christmas Eve in 1950 and took it. The nearly 350-pound Stone of Scone split in two as the four Scottish nationalists dislodged it from the Coronation Chair and brought it back to Scotland in the trunk of a car. The student custodians left the stone on the altar of Arbroath Abbey on 11 April 1951, in the safekeeping of the Church of Scotland. Once the London police were informed of its whereabouts, the stone was returned to Westminster four months after it had been removed. Afterward, rumours circulated that copies had been made of the stone, and that the returned stone was not the original.

On 3 July 1996, in response to a growing discussion around Scottish cultural history, the British Government announced that the stone would return to Scotland, 700 years after it had been taken. On 15 November 1996, after a handover ceremony at the border between representatives of the Home Office and of the Scottish Office, the stone was transported to Edinburgh Castle. An official handover ceremony occurred in the Castle on 30 November 1996, St Andrew's Day, to mark the arrival of the stone. Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, representing Queen Elizabeth II, formally handed over the Royal Warrant transferring the stone into the safekeeping of the Commissioners for the Regalia. It currently remains alongside the crown jewels of Scotland, the Honours of Scotland, in the Crown Room of Edinburgh Castle. Hence, King Charles III will be the first British monarch not to be crowned on the Stone of Destiny in many centuries.

As to Holyrood Abbey, after the Scottish Reformation was formalised in 1560, the abbey buildings were neglected. The choir and transepts of the abbey church were pulled down in 1570. The nave was, however, retained as the parish church of the Canongate.



However, Holyrood House would survive to become Holyrood Palace where the late Queen is now lying in state.​

 

[Voyageur]

The following article at State of the Nation argues that Queen Elizabeth was assassinated!

From that article there is an internal link to this:

Lastly, we’re not saying that Queen Elizabeth was a saint, or that she was a sinner. No one, BUT NO ONE, ever knows the heart of another human being. And, for anyone to presume to know all of her supposed crimes of commission and omission is the absolute height of hubris and arrogance. However, “by their deeds ye shall know them”, and Elizabeth did a LOT of good deeds all the way around.

 

[MJF]

Behind the curtains, he can let do (influence) a lot of things (i imagine)...

You are right. However, the republican elements are just waiting for Charles to make an overtly political statement to move against him and the constitutional monarchy. That being said, Charles' record shows over the years that he has endorsed or accepted many of the things John Carter spoke of in the interesting article Laura posted. I haven't mentioned this up to now but Charles has been known to visit Bilderberger meetings. On one occasion he was photographed in the back of a limousine with Henry Kissinger (a Rockefeller agent who is sadly still with us) clandestinely entering a Bilderberger meeting. He was also heavily influenced by the South African-born philosopher, writer and anthropologist Laurence van der Post, a known sexual predator, who had a secret child after an illicit affair with a 14-year-old girl. They say you can judge a man by the friends that he associates with but whether that is fair or not, I don't know.
See: Prince Charles and Laurence van der Post – does it matter?​

 

[MJF]

I agree. They are important, that's why they are always protected during war. They are never in danger during war. Furthermore, they fly the country, go elsewhere, continue to represent their country while their country is at war. God protect them, surely. They are rich and have good contacts. Good friends, I mean...

I am speaking about Monarchs in general. Not about the Queen who, during the Second World war, worked, I think she drove an ambulance. She was active, gave hope to her subjects, put aside his crown and jewels and put on a uniform. That's why I imagine that older people, young people at the time, have this image of courage and kindness and of someone who put herself out there like everyone else, forgetting that she was a princess, saying that she was equal to others, at the same level as everyone. She was near people and near the sufferance of them. Living war as everyone. This remembrance is very important in the memory of people, and it stays there, generation after generation.

In fact she served as an 18 year old in the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS). She learned how to strip an engine and also how to drive. Although she drove throughout her adult life, I believe she never actually took a road test or driving examination but relied instead on the driving instruction she had received in the Army.

As an aside, there is a funny story told about her father King George VI. Princess Elizabeth was very proud of the mechanical skills she had learned in the ATS. One day she wished to show him how proficient she was at looking after vehicle engines. Unfortunately when she went to display her prowess to her father the king, the vehicle she had worked on would not start and she was unable to figure out why. Unbeknownst to her, her father had removed a distributor coil. He never let on and, as something of a practical joker, he ruefully enjoyed her embarrassment.

As to being protected in the war, as Princess Elizabeth she spent much of the time during the London Blitz at Buckingham Palace, the monarch's London residence. The palace was bombed and badly damaged on three occasions. The government wanted the King and his family to move to Windsor for their safety but the royal family refused and stayed in London to boost moral. Hence, the future Queen endured the Blitz down shelters just like millions of other Londoners such as my mother and her family. This is one of the reasons she so identified with people of her generation who had gone through the War. You can see that with the way she spoke so avidly to the D-Day veterans at the last major celebration of the Landings, which she attended in Normandy, France. Do not forget that not all the royals survived the War. She was very upset at the death of her beloved uncle, the King's brother, the Duke of Kent when his RAF plane crashed in Scotland (N.B. probably a deliberate assassination on the part of the oligarchy, since he was supposedly on a secret mission to Iceland - although more likely neutral Sweden - with the real Rudolf Hess also on board).​

 

[MJF]

Oh yes, i personally would be in favor of being a republic. I cannot agree to support a monarchy is is controlled by the Rothchilds and company.

Pathetic, cowardly, ignorant, self-serving, selfish (as if the aide could read his mind: what is he, psychic???), demonic, horrible beast, impatient, condescending and (sorry guys for using it again) predatory as well. This reminds me of something i read somewhere about his usual drink that he has at a certain time of the day (late it would seem). The story went on that he would make his servant wait until (apparently, this guy never sleeps, he apparently works in his office until the wee hours of the night) he gets his drink and the aide could not leave nor go to sleep no matter how tired he was. Eventually, Camilla told him that the servant could go to bed as she would pour him his drink instead.
I thought that it was pretty pathetic reading that report. Not sure if that is true!

As a Canadian citizen, you are fully entitled to express this view. However, as I have said earlier, careful what you wish for. Moreover, as per Ursus Minor's comments above, who is to say that Trudeau is not more of a Rothschild glove puppet than King Charles is. In effect, whether as a republic or a constitutional monarchy, you will probably lose both ways as things currently stand.

As for King Charles tetchiness at St. James's Palace, yes I suspect he is a functioning alcoholic, which might explain things. I know that an Australian friend of mine, whose family is very establishment (his brother was the chief of the Australian Navy), had to take a bottle of whisky away from Charles once, as he was getting very drunk. His aide quietly thanked my friend for taking this action.​