On Sat, 27 May 2023 00:51:45 -0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> (Unless King Charles, his son William, and *his* son George all
>>> die before then, in which case Charlotte (currently age 8) becomes
>>> queen. Or, more likely, unless the UK votes to abolish the monarchy.)
>
>> I thought that under the new inheritance law, Charlotte, being second
>> born, would be second in line, before George.
>
>Huh? Charlotte is second born *because* George is first born. Who
>did you think was William's first-born child?
>
>So if King Charles dies, his first-born child William becomes king,
>and if William dies -- before or after Charles -- William's first-born
>child George becomes king. Only if all three are dead does Charlotte
>become queen.
>
>It still feels weird that all these people, except Charles, are
>younger than me. I remember reading a newspaper article announcing
>the birth of William, and saying that people in the county neighboring
>mine -- Prince William County -- were thrilled, even though it was
>named for a different British prince of that name -- in 1731. Fairfax
>County, where I live, split off from it in 1742. My reading that
>article feels very recent, though he's in his 40s now.

Sorry, I was thinking of Louis. And I forgot about William

So it's William > George > Charlotte > Louis > Harry > Archie >
Lilibet, unless I missed someone.
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> I also recommend "Born to Rule," the "All New Monarch Song," "Sweet
>> King Richard III," and "The Wives of Henry VIII." All of those are
>> are mostly early modern.

> The only unfortunate thing is that some of them are designated
> "kids' videos," which means I can't save them to a list for future
> reference. This is somehow supposed to protect children.

Whatever app you're using, if it doesn't let you save whatever you
want to a list, why don't you bury it at a crossroads at midnight and
salt the earth.

Those videos aren't just for children. For instance the Wives of
Henry VIII song ends with a snippet of Greensleeves. I'm sure very
few children would recognize that tune, and even fewer would know that
the authorship of that song is traditionally (albeit wrongly) credited
to Henry VIII.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 5/27/2023 11:46 AM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>> I also recommend "Born to Rule," the "All New Monarch Song," "Sweet
>>> King Richard III," and "The Wives of Henry VIII." All of those are
>>> are mostly early modern.
>
>> The only unfortunate thing is that some of them are designated
>> "kids' videos," which means I can't save them to a list for future
>> reference. This is somehow supposed to protect children.
>
> Whatever app you're using, if it doesn't let you save whatever you
> want to a list, why don't you bury it at a crossroads at midnight and
> salt the earth.
>
> Those videos aren't just for children. For instance the Wives of
> Henry VIII song ends with a snippet of Greensleeves. I'm sure very
> few children would recognize that tune, and even fewer would know that
> the authorship of that song is traditionally (albeit wrongly) credited
> to Henry VIII.

Youtube won't let you save it to your Youtube list.

In article <u4ot6d$1sg$1@reader2.panix.com>, kfl@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.
Lynch) wrote:

> > The US fought not only the Revolution but the War of 1812 against
> > him.
>
> Right, technically speaking. But that was during the Regency period,
> so it was actually the future George IV who was prosecuting the war.

Although by George III's time, the monarch had little say in government
policy and it was Lord North and his cabinet who were actually
prosecuting the war. Indeed, I've seen it said that Americans made
George III the villain because Lord North wasn't so well known.

Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
> kfl@KeithLynch.net (Keith F. Lynch) wrote:
>> Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>>> The US fought not only the Revolution but the War of 1812 against him.

>> Right, technically speaking. But that was during the Regency period,
>> so it was actually the future George IV who was prosecuting the war.

> Although by George III's time, the monarch had little say in
> government policy and it was Lord North and his cabinet who were
> actually prosecuting the war. Indeed, I've seen it said that
> Americans made George III the villain because Lord North wasn't
> so well known.

According to Wikipedia, the PM during the War of 1812 was no longer
Frederick North, but Robert Jenkinson. And there were nine other PMs
between them.

One good thing about monarchs is that there are fewer of them per
century, so they're easier to remember.

Why was England's Edward I called Edward I rather than Edward IV?
He was preceded by three previous English kings named Edward:
Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr, and Edward the Confessor.

As such, Edward is in the lead for regnal names, with eleven of them
ruling England or Britain, starting in the 9th century and ending with
two in the 20th.

And why does the adjective "Edwardian" refer only the reign of the
penultimate one, Ed VII? Why not instead honor the one who was killed
by a red-hot poker shoved where the sun don't shine?

ObFandom: Fan Writers of America elects past presidents of the club,
but never current presidents. I suggest that the US choose former
figurehead monarchs of the US, based on what's the smallest set of US
citizens such that at least one was alive at every moment from 1776
until just before the present. For instance perhaps there's someone
born in 1770 who lived until 1880, and another who was born in 1870
and lived until 1980, and another born in 1970 who died yesterday.
That third monarch will be retroactively replaced tomorrow by someone
who dies today. This will make it easy to learn the list of all
(except the one most recent) US monarchs.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 6/4/23 1:11 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Why was England's Edward I called Edward I rather than Edward IV?
> He was preceded by three previous English kings named Edward:
> Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr, and Edward the Confessor.

The current nominal King of Canada is called Charles III, even though
there was no King Charles I or II of Canada. However, Charles IX, a
French king, ruled over an area called Canada, part of what is now
Quebec, in the 16th century.

George III was the first British monarch to rule over lands called
Canada, if you count Upper Canada and Lower Canada. Victoria was the
first British monarch over a land called Canada without qualifying
adjectives.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:31:18 PM UTC-4, smw wrote:
> In <u4li7f$31fqi$1...@dont-email.me> Gary McGath <ga...@mcgath.com> writes:
>
> >I didn't follow the coronation, but during one bit which I happened to
> >catch, The middle part of "Jupiter" from Holst's "The Planets" was sung
> >as a hymn. Apparently the British have filked it.
> Yes, they have:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Vow_to_Thee,_My_Country
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6ZvylOSy5A
>
> One of the concert bands I play with [ https://306wingconcertband.ca ] has
> an arrangement of it in our repertoire.

They also played 'Jupiter' (without singing) while guests were filing in.

I've heard the hymn sung only once, about 35 years ago, and have assiduously.
avoided it ever since, since it destroys my enjoyment of the music as music..
I've pretty well managed to supress it, finally.

I have a similar problem with 'Lord of the Dance', and have been trying for a long
time to replace it in my head with 'Simple Things', the original and much better lyric.
I don't think I'll ever hear 'Appalachian Spring' without words in my head.

pt

On 6/6/23 2:41 PM, Peter Trei wrote:
> I have a similar problem with 'Lord of the Dance', and have been trying for a long
> time to replace it in my head with 'Simple Things', the original and much better lyric.
> I don't think I'll ever hear 'Appalachian Spring' without words in my head.

"Simple Gifts."

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> Why was England's Edward I called Edward I rather than Edward IV?
>> He was preceded by three previous English kings named Edward:
>> Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr, and Edward the Confessor.

> The current nominal King of Canada is called Charles III, even
> though there was no King Charles I or II of Canada.

Newfoundland, which is currently part of Canada, was already an
established English colony at the time of Charles I and Charles II.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 6/6/23 11:49 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>> Why was England's Edward I called Edward I rather than Edward IV?
>>> He was preceded by three previous English kings named Edward:
>>> Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr, and Edward the Confessor.
>
>> The current nominal King of Canada is called Charles III, even
>> though there was no King Charles I or II of Canada.
>
> Newfoundland, which is currently part of Canada, was already an
> established English colony at the time of Charles I and Charles II.

But no land under British rule was called Canada until the British took
Quebec from France, so Charles I and II weren't kings of Canada.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

In article <u5q456$15bfh$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>On 6/6/23 11:49 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>>> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>>> Why was England's Edward I called Edward I rather than Edward IV?
>>>> He was preceded by three previous English kings named Edward:
>>>> Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr, and Edward the Confessor.
>>
>>> The current nominal King of Canada is called Charles III, even
>>> though there was no King Charles I or II of Canada.
>>
>> Newfoundland, which is currently part of Canada, was already an
>> established English colony at the time of Charles I and Charles II.
>
>But no land under British rule was called Canada until the British took
>Quebec from France, so Charles I and II weren't kings of Canada.

A few years ago my nephew was asked in class if Canada had a president or
a king and he stood up and said "It's Mario Lemieux!"
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
> But no land under British rule was called Canada until the British
> took Quebec from France, so Charles I and II weren't kings of Canada.

I wish the British had fireproofed Quebec. I'm annoyed by all the
smoke from there this week. It shouldn't be possible to comfortably
stare directly at the sun, the air should be clean, the sky should
be blue, and the daily high temperature in June here in Virginia
shouldn't be in the 70s. I'm only comfortable when it's over 80
(27 C).
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 9:04:13 PM UTC-4, Gary McGath wrote:
> On 6/6/23 2:41 PM, Peter Trei wrote:
> > I have a similar problem with 'Lord of the Dance', and have been trying for a long
> > time to replace it in my head with 'Simple Things', the original and much better lyric.
> > I don't think I'll ever hear 'Appalachian Spring' without words in my head.
> "Simple Gifts."

Thankyou!

pt

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 5:37:18 PM UTC-4, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Gary McGath <ga...@mcgath.com> wrote:
> > But no land under British rule was called Canada until the British
> > took Quebec from France, so Charles I and II weren't kings of Canada.
> I wish the British had fireproofed Quebec. I'm annoyed by all the
> smoke from there this week. It shouldn't be possible to comfortably
> stare directly at the sun, the air should be clean, the sky should
> be blue, and the daily high temperature in June here in Virginia
> shouldn't be in the 70s. I'm only comfortable when it's over 80
> (27 C).

Wunderground.com has a map that shows live pollutant levels.
At the moment, here in northern MA, the air is fine, but that could
change quickly (its also 59F and showery). But the air gets rapidly
worse as you move south, and is especially bad in Keith's neck of the
woods. The pollution continues all the way down into Georgia.

pt

Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> I wish the British had fireproofed Quebec. I'm annoyed by all the
> smoke from there this week. It shouldn't be possible to comfortably
> stare directly at the sun, the air should be clean, the sky should
> be blue, and the daily high temperature in June here in Virginia
> shouldn't be in the 70s. I'm only comfortable when it's over 80
> (27 C).

It does have upsides. At about noon today I climbed on the roof of
my brother's house to clean the roof gutters, as I do every June and
December. Although it was sunny and there were no clouds in the sky,
the roof wasn't too hot to touch. In past years I've had to do this
early in the morning. And right now the sun is shining directly on my
computer screen, but I don't need to block the sun or even turn up the
screen's brightness.

If only my eyes weren't so itchy and my N95 masks weren't turning
visibly dirty in a matter of hours.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.