Queen Elizabeth II Dies - End of an Era

[MJF]

The guy in the this article, Simon Charles Dorante-Day, has been trying to get Charles and Camilla to take DNA tests for a few years claiming that he is their son. He is apparently renewing his push since the death of the Queen and if he is proven correct through DNA testing, that will place him and his 13 children before William in the line of succession.

The evidence that he is relying on, and has apparently had favourable legal opinion on is:

• Dorante-Day was born on April 5, 1966, in Gosport, Portsmouth, in the UK.
• At the age of eight months, he was adopted by a local couple named Karen and David Day. His adoptive grandparents, Winifred and Ernest Bowlden, had both worked for the Queen and Prince Philip in one of their royal households. Ernest Bowlden also received an Imperial Service Award.
• Dorante-Day’s grandmother told him many times that he was Camilla and Charles’ child. “She didn’t just hint at it, she told me outright,” he said.
• Dorante-Day’s research has shown him that Charles and Camilla first became close in 1965. He claims months later, in the lead-up to when he was born, Camilla disappeared from Britain’s social scene for at least nine months, while Charles was sent to Australia.
• A historian has claimed the hospital where Dorante-Day was born - as listed on his birth certificate - didn’t deliver a single baby during the decade he was born. It’s further believed that the names the parents listed on his birth certificate were “fictitious”.
• Dorante-Day claims Camilla kept him until he was eight months old, using the royals and protection officers to help conceal him. He goes on to allege that when he was getting too old, it was arranged that one of the Queen’s former house staff - Dorante-Day’s adoptive grandmother - would have her daughter adopt him.
• Dorante-Day said he has recollections of being taken to houses around Portsmouth as a little boy. There he would spend time with the woman he believes was Camilla, while protection officers and his adoptive parents waited outside.
• Dorante-Day said his first and middle name - Simon Charles - were given to him by his biological parents. “My adoptive mother told me that it was a condition of the adoption that my name - Simon Charles - stay the same, my middle name stay the same,” he said. “Charles and Camilla had a close friend called Simon at the time.”

Dorante-Day’s legal advice is also that Charles and Camilla could be legally compelled to provide DNA samples.

The article provides some compelling photo comparisons between the royals and Dorante-Day and his children, but probably mean nothing without DNA proof. Even so, if they wanted to prevent Williams succession to the throne, they'd probably concoct something to get a a more controllable green horn into the hot seat.

This is certainly very interesting but you must remember that the illegitimate children of monarchs and princes cannot legally succeed to the throne, although some like the Duke of Monmouth have tried (see: Monmouth Rebellion - Wikipedia).

Moreover, the line of succession is determined as a matter of law and next in succession after Prince William is Prince George. If for any reason Prince William did not ascend the throne on King Charles's death, then George would succeed and, if he was still a minor at the time, this would lead to a regency. There was even talk of a regency when the young Queen took over from her father and she was 25.​

 

[dennis]

From above
"Sign of struggle out of sequence with pre-ordained activities of Royal Blood Lines" that the C's spoke of

Seems to be very mathematical. So you have ordained priests and church cardinals/ ordinal and cardinal numbers, who gets to 'set' on the throne/ set theory. Counts and succession. 'Prime' ministers. Numbered kings and popes.

sheesh

 

[Joe]

Immediately I heard she was under medical supervision suddenly after having just seen footage of her meeting with Liz Truss, I felt absolutely, someone has intentionally 'interfered' with her health, (aside from the Covid jabs) whether it was very recent or over a period of time more recently; it feels to me 'they' had an 'expiry date' set for her.

She had been in increasingly poor health for at least a few weeks. She met Truss at 1pm on Tues. 6th and died 2 days later on the 8th in the evening, at least that's when it was announced. Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be any video of the meeting with Truss, just a couple of photographs. Given her role in forming a new govt. I'd say it's possible that she 'held on' to fulfill that duty and then decided to 'let go'.

 

[MJF]

The guy in the this article, Simon Charles Dorante-Day, has been trying to get Charles and Camilla to take DNA tests for a few years claiming that he is their son. He is apparently renewing his push since the death of the Queen and if he is proven correct through DNA testing, that will place him and his 13 children before William in the line of succession.

The evidence that he is relying on, and has apparently had favourable legal opinion on is:

• Dorante-Day was born on April 5, 1966, in Gosport, Portsmouth, in the UK.
• At the age of eight months, he was adopted by a local couple named Karen and David Day. His adoptive grandparents, Winifred and Ernest Bowlden, had both worked for the Queen and Prince Philip in one of their royal households. Ernest Bowlden also received an Imperial Service Award.
• Dorante-Day’s grandmother told him many times that he was Camilla and Charles’ child. “She didn’t just hint at it, she told me outright,” he said.
• Dorante-Day’s research has shown him that Charles and Camilla first became close in 1965. He claims months later, in the lead-up to when he was born, Camilla disappeared from Britain’s social scene for at least nine months, while Charles was sent to Australia.
• A historian has claimed the hospital where Dorante-Day was born - as listed on his birth certificate - didn’t deliver a single baby during the decade he was born. It’s further believed that the names the parents listed on his birth certificate were “fictitious”.
• Dorante-Day claims Camilla kept him until he was eight months old, using the royals and protection officers to help conceal him. He goes on to allege that when he was getting too old, it was arranged that one of the Queen’s former house staff - Dorante-Day’s adoptive grandmother - would have her daughter adopt him.
• Dorante-Day said he has recollections of being taken to houses around Portsmouth as a little boy. There he would spend time with the woman he believes was Camilla, while protection officers and his adoptive parents waited outside.
• Dorante-Day said his first and middle name - Simon Charles - were given to him by his biological parents. “My adoptive mother told me that it was a condition of the adoption that my name - Simon Charles - stay the same, my middle name stay the same,” he said. “Charles and Camilla had a close friend called Simon at the time.”

Dorante-Day’s legal advice is also that Charles and Camilla could be legally compelled to provide DNA samples.

The article provides some compelling photo comparisons between the royals and Dorante-Day and his children, but probably mean nothing without DNA proof. Even so, if they wanted to prevent Williams succession to the throne, they'd probably concoct something to get a a more controllable green horn into the hot seat.

One further thought on this possible dalliance between Charles and Camilla that produced an illegitimate child who was then adopted through loyal royal servants is that such an occurrence would in fact be nothing new in the annals of British history. Here is another example, one that was mentioned in the transcripts and may even have a possible link to Laura:​

Session 12 September 1998:

Q: (L) I once asked you if Isabel the Fair and Roger de Mortimer had a child while in France and you replied, ‘no.’ I have recently been researching this period and it seems that, during the year in question, they were both in residence in the Tower of London... he as a prisoner, and she was ostensibly recovering from the birth of her fourth and last child. She was in residence for over a year and declined her husband’s invitations to move to any of their other residences. In fact, I don’t think they even saw each other for over a year. Now, I am wondering if a child was born as a result of their interactions while in the Tower?

A: That could be the case, if you research tryst catacomb.

Q: (L) Well, it just happens to be that this was 1325, the year of the birth of my mysterious ‘Knyght’ ancestor.

Isabel the Fair was the daughter of King Philip IV or Philip the Fair of France, the man who destroyed the Knights Templar. Her husband was King Edward II of England who had homosexual proclivities. With Roger de Mortimer's assistance, Isabel deposed Edward, becoming regent on behalf of her young son, Edward III between 1327 and 1330. Some historians believe that Isabel then arranged the murder of Edward II. Isabel and Mortimer's regime began to crumble, partly because of her lavish spending, but also because the Queen successfully, but unpopularly, resolved long-running problems such as the wars with Scotland. In 1330, aged 18, Edward III forcibly asserted his authority. As a result, Mortimer was executed and Isabella's regency was ended. She was imprisoned but released two years later. She remained a wealthy and influential member of the English court, albeit never returning directly to active politics.

See: Isabella of France - Wikipedia

Well you have to admit that this story certainly beats The Crown hands down for sheer outrageousness any day of the week and puts Charles and Camilla's purported dalliance in the shade.

But who was this mysterious love child of Isabel the Fair and Roger de Mortimer? He may have been Willielmo Knyght de Bradley or William Alfred Knight. Apparently, the love child was smuggled out of the Tower of London after his birth by the Bishop of Worcester, an ally of Isabel. He was then fostered by a family in Worcester and perhaps never told of his parentage. Although most mainstream historians dismiss this tale as fanciful nonsense, the Cassiopaeans do seem to give it credence in the transcripts. Laura herself has speculated that the family name of 'Knight' may be linked to the Knights Templar in some way.

If Dorante-Day's story is true, it just goes to show how history keeps on repeating.

I myself speculated on the links between Willielmo Knyght and the Templars in an article I wrote last year. Quoting extracts from it:

"Although the Knights Templar were formally suppressed in 1314, it is interesting to note that in the 14th century, the Knights Templar of the preceptory of Herdwyke in Warwickshire, which had been founded by the local born English Templar knight Ralph de Sudeley (who became fabulously wealthy after his return from the Holy Land), would continue to remain in residence at the time of King Edward II’s purge of the English Templars. However, in 1322, when the Templars had refused to continue financing the king, he ordered them to be arrested and their property seized. In 1327, five years after they had been outlawed and thrown off their land by Edward II, the Herdewyke Templars then helped to depose the King by aiding his Queen, Isabel of France.

One wonders, therefore, if there may have been some connection between Willielmo Knyght and the Herdewyke Templars before the Black Death overwhelmed their community in the 1350's. Laura herself has speculated that the family name of 'Knight' may be linked to the Templars in some way. Speculating wildly here, if Willielmo Knyght had say become a member of, or at least formed a close connection with, the Herdewyke Templars' community at Burton Dassett - they had supported his mother after all and he was of royal blood - he may have learned of the sacred relics Ralph de Sudely had brought back from the Holy Land. The Herdewyke Templars may even have known of the whereabouts of the Holy Grail through de Sudeley, who could have been one of the Templar knights who had discovered the Grail. Indeed, if Queen Isabel truly was Willielmo Knyght's mother, she herself was known to have been very interested in the Arthurian grail legends. If Willielmo Knyght had been raised in Worcestershire, as alleged, then one should note that Warwickshire is the next door county directly to the east of Worcestershire, so there was a close geographic proximity at a time in England when many people lived their whole lives within their county boundaries."​

 

[Il Matto]

You are not quite correct about Charles I being the last Monarch to dissolve Parliament since his son James II did so also. James continuously prorogued Parliament for more than a year and a half until he finally dissolved it in July 1687.

Thank you for the correction! (should've checked that one first..)

The involvement can be behind the veils of the official façade as well such as through lobbying and influencing power positions. He's already a patron of the green agenda, the great reset, Shwabian transhumanism and everything nefarious with the current thing.

I absolutely agree, and I think that is what we can look forward to here in the UK.. supermarkets will no doubt be selling insects very soon for those stubborn few who refuse to swallow the vegan/vegetarian shtick. No more cows sadly.. they fart too much..

Charles' hero was also a repugnant pedophile.

Thank you for the link to the article - I really wish that I found that surprising / shocking in some way.. Charlie's brother is allegedly of the same persuasion after all..

From the article:
In 2019, an FBI dossier on Mountbatten revealed that the United States had deep reservations and distaste for the royal. The file states both he and his wife Edwina were "persons of extremely low morals" and that Mountbatten was a pedophile with "a perversion for young boys." The fallout was quick, and The London Times attempted to pass off Mountbatten's pedophilia as merely "Lust for Young Men."

A well-regarded rag such as The Times down-playing the activities of a predatory deviant?? Does that mean that the mainstream media has little regard for honesty and integrity in their reporting?? I shall stop attempting their daily crossword in protest..!

 

[Adobe]

Scots hold fresh anti-monarchy protest in capital Edinburgh​

"Scottish protesters have taken to the streets in the capital Edinburgh again, voicing their opposition to monarchical rule over the UK, and protesting the arrest of their fellow demonstrators."

"Anti-monarchy activists gathered on Tuesday in front of the Edinburgh cathedral, the latest port of call, where Queen Elizabeth II, who recently passed away, has lain in state, The Guardian reported."

Article below:

Scots hold fresh anti-monarchy protest in capital Edinburgh

Scottish protesters hold a fresh anti-monarchy rally in the capital Edinburgh.

www.presstv.ir

 

[forest_light]

She had been in increasingly poor health for at least a few weeks. She met Truss at 1pm on Tues. 6th and died 2 days later on the 8th in the evening, at least that's when it was announced. Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be any video of the meeting with Truss, just a couple of photographs. Given her role in forming a new govt. I'd say it's possible that she 'held on' to fulfill that duty and then decided to 'let go'.

Absolutely, she had been in poor health from what many people had observed and there is a possibility she passed 'naturally', but something just feels so 'off' about this whole situation, and I cannot explain why.

Weirdly, in my mind I am positive I saw live video footage of that meeting, not just photos. I have looked for video footage online several times since, because I wanted to watch it again, but cannot find a single version of it. I find that more than a bit bizarre to be honest, It is as if we are moving in and out of different 'timelines', I don't know how else to explain this. It's starting to make me feel a bit bonkers.

Did anybody else actually see actual video footage of the 'meeting' between the Queen and Truss? (not just photos, or am I just losing my freaking mind )

Yes it is possible the Queen did 'hold on' to fulfil a meeting with Truss and then 'let go' but to me personally, something feels very wrong and I wish I could understand it.

FWIW, it feels like it is linked with some kind of timeline issue / actions from external or hidden sources.

 

[Mr.Cyan]

Yes it is possible the Queen did 'hold on' to fulfil a meeting with Truss and then 'let go' but to me personally, something feels very wrong and I wish I could understand it.

Yeah, something does feel wrong about her death and the timing of it. Definitely a question for the C's. Maybe Ark's first instinct was right (as mentioned by Laura in her post) and there was some foul play involved.

On a separate note; Malaysia's former PM Mahathir comments on the Queen's passing:

Queen Elizabeth laughed at my 'Commonwealth' joke, recalls Dr M

PETALING JAYA: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad remembers an incident where the late Queen Elizabeth laughed at one of his jokes he made in his speech which was broadcast by the BBC on the occasion of her golden jubilee in 2002.

www.thestar.com.my

"Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad remembers an incident where the late Queen Elizabeth laughed at one of his jokes he made in his speech which was broadcast by the BBC on the occasion of her golden jubilee in 2002.

"In Zimbabwe, I made a speech in which I pointed out that what is said in English is not what is meant.

"Thus the presiding officer in Parliament is called Mr Speaker, but he may not speak.

The Malay sultans are called the rulers but they may not rule. The British adviser ruled.

"Then there is the British Commonwealth where the wealth is not common.

"The Queen laughed," Dr Mahathir wrote.

The former prime minister said she did not expect the Queen to pass away so suddenly.
"She was only one year younger than me," the 97-year-old said in a Facebook post on Tuesday. (Sept 13)

Dr Mahathir said he fondly recalled his interaction with the late Queen, especially during meetings of the British Commonwealth.

He also said that the Queen visited Malaysia twice when he was prime minister.

"Once when we hosted the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and once during the Commonwealth Games.

"The Queen was always gracious and hosting her was a pleasure," he added.

Dr Mahathir said he was saddened at the Queen's passing, noting that she was a good example of a constitutional monarch.

"Her passing away is a loss not just to the British but to people who believe in the rule of law.

"May she rest in peace," he added."

 

[Joe]

She had been in increasingly poor health for at least a few weeks. She met Truss at 1pm on Tues. 6th and died 2 days later on the 8th in the evening, at least that's when it was announced. Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be any video of the meeting with Truss, just a couple of photographs. Given her role in forming a new govt. I'd say it's possible that she 'held on' to fulfill that duty and then decided to 'let go'.

Then again, it's possible that there was some staging involved (not exactly unusual for the royals). Maybe Truss met her several days (or even weeks) before it is claimed she did (which would also expose a level of staging in the Conservative party 'leadership election'). There's also the issue of the lack of information of what she died of. "Old age" is not allowed as a cause of death on certificates, so she died of something specific, we're just not told. There's a precedent in her great uncle George V:

How Did King George V Really Die?

Sometimes the truth takes time to come out.

www.britannica.com

The one scandal of King George V’s reign would not be revealed publicly until 1986, in the diary of his physician, Lord Bertrand Dawson. Dawson had written about the night of January 20: “I therefore decided to determine the end and injected (myself) morphia gr. 3/4 and shortly afterwards cocaine gr. 1 into the [king’s] distended jugular vein.” The injection resulted in the king’s death, an act alternately referred to as “euthanasia,” medically assisted suicide, or murder. According to Dawson’s journal, he intended to both grant the king a painless death and to guarantee that his passing would be announced in the morning papers rather than the “less appropriate evening journals.”

 

[Voyageur]

The part of the speech David Scott highlights I think may reveal something of why so many still adored the Queen and felt she still offered something (even though this speech was made so long ago):

I am inclined to think it is a mix of both among other things, but is it a bit too much wishful thinking that people might just be remembering a little of the virtues mentioned in the Queens' 1957 Speech? A lot of this is probably just due to the sheer amount of articles doing the rounds reminding people of all sorts of her old speeches, but I found it interesting.

Thanks for the 1957 Christmas address. Here were her full words spoken:

Happy Christmas.

Twenty-five years ago my grandfather broadcast the first of these Christmas messages. Today is another landmark because television has made it possible for many of you to see me in your homes on Christmas Day. My own family often gather round to watch television as they are this moment, and that is how I imagine you now.

I very much hope that this new medium will make my Christmas message more personal and direct.

It is inevitable that I should seem a rather remote figure to many of you. A successor to the Kings and Queens of history; someone whose face may be familiar in newspapers and films but who never really touches your personal lives. But now at least for a few minutes I welcome you to the peace of my own home.

That it is possible for some of you to see me today is just another example of the speed at which things are changing all around us. Because of these changes I am not surprised that many people feel lost and unable to decide what to hold on to and what to discard. How to take advantage of the new life without losing the best of the old.

But it is not the new inventions which are the difficulty. The trouble is caused by unthinking people who carelessly throw away ageless ideals as if they were old and outworn machinery.

They would have religion thrown aside, morality in personal and public life made meaningless, honesty counted as foolishness and self-interest set up in place of self-restraint.

At this critical moment in our history we will certainly lose the trust and respect of the world if we just abandon those fundamental principles which guided the men and women who built the greatness of this country and Commonwealth.

Today we need a special kind of courage, not the kind needed in battle but a kind which makes us stand up for everything that we know is right, everything that is true and honest. We need the kind of courage that can withstand the subtle corruption of the cynics so that we can show the world that we are not afraid of the future.

It has always been easy to hate and destroy. To build and to cherish is much more difficult. That is why we can take a pride in the new Commonwealth we are building.

This year Ghana and Malaya joined our brotherhood. Both these countries are now entirely self-governing. Both achieved their new status amicably and peacefully.

This advance is a wonderful tribute to the efforts of men of goodwill who have worked together as friends, and I welcome these two countries with all my heart.

Last October I opened the new Canadian Parliament, and as you know this was the first time that any Sovereign had done so in Ottawa. Once again I was overwhelmed by the loyalty and enthusiasm of my Canadian people.

Also during 1957 my husband and I paid visits to Portugal, France, Denmark and the United States of America. In each case the arrangements and formalities were managed with great skill but no one could have 'managed' the welcome we received from the people.

In each country I was welcomed as Head of the Commonwealth and as your representative. These nations are our friends largely because we have always tried to do our best to be honest and kindly and because we have tried to stand up for what we believe to be right.

In the old days the monarch led his soldiers on the battlefield and his leadership at all times was close and personal.

Today things are very different. I cannot lead you into battle, I do not give you laws or administer justice but I can do something else, I can give you my heart and my devotion to these old islands and to all the peoples of our brotherhood of nations.

I believe in our qualities and in our strength, I believe that together we can set an example to the world which will encourage upright people everywhere.

I would like to read you a few lines from 'Pilgrim's Progress', because I am sure we can say with Mr Valiant for Truth, these words:

"Though with great difficulty I am got hither, yet now I do not repent me of all the trouble I have been at to arrive where I am. My sword I give to him that shall succeed me in my pilgrimage and my courage and skill to him that can get it. My marks and scars I carry with me, to be a witness for me that I have fought his battles who now will be my rewarder."

I hope that 1958 may bring you God's blessing and all the things you long for.

And so I wish you all, young and old, wherever you may be, all the fun and enjoyment, and the peace of a very happy Christmas.

Only speculating, as this was ten years after marriage to Philip (1947, wherein prior to that (and she strikes me as having been inquisitive in youth) she probably was somewhat politically insulated from empire backroom ideas/deals - provided only enough, yet her eyes and ears would have been open. After marriage she would have learned much from Philip, and together they might have hoped for a different outcome. As she said "I do not give you laws or administer justice," and she may well have been starkly reminded to be careful with here words...

Noel Coward also creates a link to Lord Louis Mountbatten. since he played a fictitious version of him in a British film called In which we Serve. See: In Which We Serve - Wikipedia

A link, yes many links indeed:

“There are probably greater painters than Noël, greater novelists than Noël, greater librettists, greater composers of music, greater singers, greater dancers, greater comedians, greater tragedians, greater stage producers, greater film directors, greater cabaret artists, greater TV stars. If there are, they are fourteen different people. Only one man combined all fourteen different labels – The Master.”

The article continues, "so said Lord Mountbatten’s eulogy for his dear friend Noel Coward."

Had completely forgotten that Coward was in the film The Italian Job (Mr. Bridger).

Regarding the Duke of Kent you mention, here is an article on The Forgotten Prince:

 

[loreta]

 

[zak]

A few days before learning of Queen Elizabeth's death, I can't remember how I came across this scene from the film The Queen:

And after her death the Spanish television had broadcast this film, and I came across it by changing the channel again in the vicinity of this same scene which was far from being deleted.

Yes it is possible the Queen did 'hold on' to fulfil a meeting with Truss and then 'let go' but to me personally, something feels very wrong and I wish I could understand it

If we stop for a moment before going to the end of this reasoning, we can say that the "very wrong" can also be for Liz Truss herself, because after a short time of her meeting with the Queen, the latter succumbs, which is not, but really not a good omen for her mandate as Prime Minister (...and as a result the rest of us.)
I don't know if there are any superstitious people in her entourage, but some of them may indeed wonder.

I really believe Charles will not reign for very long.

In France there is a proverb that says this: "Never two without three."
The new monarch Charles III could follow the same path as his predecessors Charles I and II, a shortened reign.

But it doesn't take much time to destroy, before cutting down any tree, I always take some time to think about it, because before another one takes its place it can take decades to centuries.

 

[MJF]

A few days before learning of Queen Elizabeth's death, I can't remember how I came across this scene from the film The Queen:

And after her death the Spanish television had broadcast this film, and I came across it by changing the channel again in the vicinity of this same scene which was far from being deleted.


If we stop for a moment before going to the end of this reasoning, we can say that the "very wrong" can also be for Liz Truss herself, because after a short time of her meeting with the Queen, the latter succumbs, which is not, but really not a good omen for her mandate as Prime Minister (...and as a result the rest of us.)
I don't know if there are any superstitious people in her entourage, but some of them may indeed wonder.


In France there is a proverb that says this: "Never two without three."
The new monarch Charles III could follow the same path as his predecessors Charles I and II, a shortened reign.

But it doesn't take much time to destroy, before cutting down any tree, I always take some time to think about it, because before another one takes its place it can take decades to centuries.

Actually, King Charles I reigned for nearly 24 years (27 March 1625 until 30 January 1649) and his reign was only cut short by his execution. His son, Charles II reigned for 15 years from 1660 to 1685. He should have come to the throne upon his father's death but was prevented from doing so when Oliver Cromwell proclaimed a republic in 1650. Charles II was, however, proclaimed King in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament in 1649 until 1651, when his defeat at the Battle of Worcestor on 3 September 1651 led to him fleeing to mainland Europe. Hence, from a Scottish point of view, he could be said to have been their king for 36 years.

However, I think Charles III's reign may be much shorter than this. I could be wrong but I do not think he enjoys good health. His mother and father took much better care of themselves, as borne out by their long lives. Even allowing for what the C's have hinted at as coming down the road for us, I cannot see Charles living anywhere near as long as his parents. Time will tell.

It will also be interesting to see how King Charles bears up to the pressures of being monarch. It is actually a far tougher role than it looks, especially with the tyranny of the 'red box'; a relentless stream of state papers that arrive in a locked red despatch box each day for the sovereign to peruse and sign. The Queen always took this aspect of her state role vey seriously and turned around these state papers with commendable speed. Many ministers of state, including prime ministers, who receive their own red boxes, dread this aspect of state duty, as it is relentless and they, generally speaking, are only in the job for a few years at most. I appreciate that Charles may already have been seeing state papers tacitly as the Prince of Wales but I imagine this will now be on a much greater scale than he has hitherto been used to and, let's face it, he is not getting any younger. Given how he reacted so tetchily to signing just one state paper, the proclamation of his kingship, it does not bode well.​

 

[Il Matto]

However, I think Charles III's reign may be much shorter than this. I could be wrong but I do not think he enjoys good health. His mother and father took much better care of themselves, as borne out by their long lives. Even allowing for what the C's have hinted at as coming down the road for us, I cannot see Charles living anywhere near as long as his parents. Time will tell.

I think that is fair speculation. Bizarrely, as well as speculations about his character / state of mind after the pen episode, there has also apparently been much speculation about the 'sausage fingers' of 'ole King Charlie. My unqualified opinion on this aspect of Charlie's appearance is that his swollen fingers are a result of having his fingers in too many putrid political pies, but for a more professional opinion, here is Dr Shawn Baker:

Kidney issues? Circulation? Who knows. Someone should suggest to him that eating insects is an excellent remedy for these issues..

 

[MJF]

Thanks for the 1957 Christmas address. Here were her full words spoken:



Only speculating, as this was ten years after marriage to Philip (1947, wherein prior to that (and she strikes me as having been inquisitive in youth) she probably was somewhat politically insulated from empire backroom ideas/deals - provided only enough, yet her eyes and ears would have been open. After marriage she would have learned much from Philip, and together they might have hoped for a different outcome. As she said "I do not give you laws or administer justice," and she may well have been starkly reminded to be careful with here words...



A link, yes many links indeed:



The article continues, "so said Lord Mountbatten’s eulogy for his dear friend Noel Coward."

Had completely forgotten that Coward was in the film The Italian Job (Mr. Bridger).

Regarding the Duke of Kent you mention, here is an article on The Forgotten Prince:

View attachment 63911

I think the real forgotten prince was the Duke of Kent's bother Prince John. He was born with epilepsy and died at the age of 13. He was kept completely out of public life and had a sad, lonely existence, hardly ever seeing his parents, the King and Queen.​

See: Prince John - House of Windsor

A documentary was made about Prince John's life a few years ago. See:

.
Be warned, it is a bit of a tearjerker.

I think some of the photographs in the article you kindly provided a link to were in fact of Prince George's son, the current Duke of Kent and his English wife, Katherine Worsley, the Duchess of Kent. I am glad to say they are both very much alive and were at Westminster Hall this afternoon to mourn the Queen, as her coffin was brought in to lie in state. In his youth, the young Duke did have a strong resemblance to his late father.
​

The Duchess of Kent


The Duke and Duchess of Kent's Marriage at York Minster on 8 June 1961
​

The Duchess of Kent was the first member of the royal family to convert publicly to Roman Catholicism since the passing of the Act of Settlement 1701. However, it did not affect the duke's right of succession to the throne as she had been an Anglican when they married.

Talking about strong family resemblances, the Duke of Kent's brother, Prince Michael of Kent, has been taken to look a lot like Czar Nicholas II of Russia.
​

Prince Michael of Kent​

​

Czar Nicholas II
​

Indeed, it transpires that Prince Michael speaks fluent Russian and has a strong interest in Russia, where he is a well-known figure (he is a former recipient of the Order of Friendship). Tsar Nicholas II was a first cousin of three of his grandparents: George V, Prince Nicholas of Greece and Denmark, and Grand Duchess Elena Vladimirovna of Russia. When the bodies of the Tsar and some of his family were recovered in 1991, the remains were later identified by DNA using, among others, a sample from Michael for recognition. He attended the 1998 burial of the Tsar and his family in St Petersburg. He is an honorary member of the Romanov Family Association. He is also the second cousin of Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia, who is a claimant to the headship of the Imperial Family of Russia. They share the same great-grandfather, Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich. Michael is the patron of organisations which have close ties with Russia, including the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce and the St Gregory's Foundation.

As to Sir Noel Coward, he was certainly a famous actor who appeared in numerous movies, but he was also famous as an entertainer singing cabaret songs that he composed himself. He wrote such ditties as 'Mad Dogs and Englishmen go out in the Midday Sun'. and 'London Pride'. He was also a playwright who wrote several successful plays, such as “Private Lives” or “Blithe Spirit" that were later turned into movies.

He evidently upset the Nazis as well, since he was one of the people named on their hit list should they have successfully invaded England. Had the Germans invaded Britain, Coward was scheduled to be arrested and killed, as he was in The Black Book along with other figures such as Virginia Woolf, Paul Robeson, Bertrand Russell, C. P. Snow and H. G. Wells. When this came to light after the war, Coward wrote: "If anyone had told me at that time, I was high up on the Nazi blacklist, I should have laughed ... I remember Rebecca West, who was one of the many who shared the honour with me, sent me a telegram which read: 'My dear – the people we should have been seen dead with'."​