On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 11:39:10 +0000, Jenny M Benson
<NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>On 10/02/2024 10:11, Vicky wrote:
>> Camilla is not queen for me, QE2 said Queen Consort, not Queen.
>
>It is my understanding that QE2 specifically said that Camilla WAS to be
>Queen, rather than Queen Consort.
>
>But you are the second person I've heard/read say that in 2 days, so I
>could be wrong.
>
>Personally I think the new Queen is wonderful - as is the King, and I'm
>delighted that they have each other.

Oh, and this
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/queen-elizabeth-says-camilla-queen-consort-charles-becomes-king-rcna15045

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 23:11:36 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <kjvcsipdl0prschi5sg21gm7mlltgehtc5@4ax.com> at Fri, 9 Feb
>2024 19:38:01, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> writes
>>On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 18:35:22 +0000, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 18:21:20 +0000, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 08-Feb-24 23:34, Nick Odell wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 12:09:12 +0000, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>[]
>>>>>> Quite often in TA I can't tell who is speaking to who. Last night I
>
>Me too, especially the younger characters (not so much that they're
>young, just that I haven't been listening to them for as many decades).
>
>>>>>> thought it was Adam in one scene, then it seemed to be Pat and Tony,
>>>>>> or was it Brian...
>>>>>
>>>>> <LW>
>>>>
>>>>There seems to be a need for an 'overdub' voice which interposes:
>>>>
>>>>"Said Brian."
>>>>or
>>>>"Pat enters the room and says..."
>>>>
>>>>As & when appropriate.
>
>Indeed - AD for radio! They could perhaps do it on FreeView 704.
>>>
>>>Yes! YES! YES!!!
>
>Makes me think of Tom Lehrer's imitation of Gilbert and Sullivan in
>"Clementine".
>>
>>I have always felt that subtitles on the radio would be a good thing
>>and I can't see why it can't be done in conjunction with the scrolling
>>information banner on a DAB radio screen
>
>Interesting idea! I don't think there's any technical reason why not; it
>(and anything on FreeView) won't happen, of course, for money reasons.
>>
Back in 2020 I floated the idea in uk.media.radio.bbc-r4 and the
conversation rapidly swerved into one about where one might obtain
drama scripts to read alongside the broadcasts. Not a very useful
approach for TA I fear.

Nick

Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:32:23 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
> <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 09/02/2024 23:07, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <uq5q6q$2ierr$2@dont-email.me> at Fri, 9 Feb 2024 18:16:58,
>>> Serena Blanchflower <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> writes
>>>> On 09/02/2024 12:28, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>>>>> Which follows on rather nicely with the question I posed to my sister
>>>>> yesterday.  IF - heaven forbid - the King should pass away in the
>>>>> near future, what will Queen Camilla become?  She will not be Queen
>>>>> Mother and I can't imagine Queen Stepmother being adopted.
>>>>
>>>> She'll be the Queen Dowager and Queen Camilla.  The Queen mother only
>>>> took that name because, at the time of QEII's accession, there were
>>>> two Queen Dowagers (Queen Mary and the QM), as well as two Queen
>>>> Elizabeths (QEII and QM), so she needed a name to use to disambiguate
>>>> her from both her mother in law and her daughter.
>>>>
>>> The reversal always struck me as odd: Queen Camilla is fine, but the
>>> others would surely sound less odd as dowager queen and mother queen (or
>>> queen's mother, with the "'s").
>>
>>I assume that it's intended to keep the emphasis on the fact that
>>they're all queens, just slightly different varieties of queen.
>
> Camilla is not queen for me, QE2 said Queen Consort, not Queen. She's
> the gf who took Diana's place and now her children are taking Harry's.
> One newspaper said 6/1 Harry will come back now to take up senior
> royal duties. I do hope so. What kind of father removes security from
> his son? Not keen on His Maj. And William and Kate are too smugly
> perfect. OK, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is a bit brash but American tv
> people can be like that, can't they?

'Queen Consort' is her job, not her title. QE2 was Queen Regnant but
nobody ever called her that. Granny Bowes-Lyon was Queen Consort but
never called that. Great Granny Mary of Teck was Queen Consort but she
was always Queen Mary. Crewe Alexandra was also Queen Consort. Victoria
wasn't, she was Queen Regnant.

Never was a fan of the manipulative baggage Diana, who caused more
problems than Meghan (whose only crime seems to have been being a
Southern Californian of mixed race) ever could.

Rosie

On 10/02/2024 09:08, john ashby wrote:
> On 09/02/2024 18:21, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 08-Feb-24 23:34, Nick Odell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 12:09:12 +0000, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 10:32:05 +0000, Kate B <elvira@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 08/02/2024 09:28, kosmo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But then, although television had been around for a long time, the
>>>>>> skills needed for the new medium had not been developed, the
>>>>>> actors and
>>>>>> the backroom teams were all learning as Dr Who was one of the first
>>>>>> continuing dramas - The Groves had aired for 3 years from 1954 - but
>>>>>> only as 15 minute episodes initially and other continuing dramas -
>>>>>> Emergency Ward 10 / Coronation St had started by this time.  So
>>>>>> the only
>>>>>> source of trained actors was the stage.  I think re-watching these
>>>>>> older
>>>>>> programmes to see the developments (as you have mentioned) will be
>>>>>> relevant - perhaps there is a thesis in using Dr Who as a
>>>>>> demonstration
>>>>>> of how making television programmes has developed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <grump grump> Conversely, the only source of trained actors now is tv
>>>>> and films. Mumblers all. I am appalled that everyone needs now to be
>>>>> amplified whatever the size of show or stage. So far, the opera stage
>>>>> has resisted this though one wonders for how long, given the
>>>>> insistence
>>>>> on looks over voice quality. </grump grump>
>>>>
>>>> Quite often in TA I can't tell who is speaking to who. Last night I
>>>> thought it was Adam in one scene, then it seemed to be Pat and Tony,
>>>> or was it Brian...
>>>
>>> <LW>
>>
>> There seems to be a need for an 'overdub' voice which interposes:
>>
>> "Said Brian."
>> or
>> "Pat enters the room and says..."
>>
>> As & when appropriate.
>>
>
> Audio Description for radio drama. Or with DAB they could put it on the
> scrolling information stream so you could watch the radio.
>
> john

Maybe they could have pictures to go along with the audio. Perhaps a
little booklet you could flick through whilst listening, or something
similar. Or an online slide show.

--
Ric

Joe Kerr wrote:

> On 09/02/2024 12:28, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>> On 07/02/2024 15:30, Chris wrote:
>>>   It was good enough for Queenie.  (I feel weird writing that.
>>> Stepgrandmother was Queenie - definitely didn’t have a royal bearing.
>>
>> Which follows on rather nicely with the question I posed to my sister
>> yesterday.  IF - heaven forbid - the King should pass away in the near
>> future, what will Queen Camilla become?  She will not be Queen Mother
>> and I can't imagine Queen Stepmother being adopted.
>>
> And what was your sister's reply? Enquiring minds and all that.

> The question (probably) applies even if he doesn't pass away in the near
> future.

> A widow.
> Upset.
> Homeless?
> Dowager?
> "Auntie"?
> Queen Camilla? The "the Queen Mother" bit was only needed to
> differentiate her from Queen Elizabeth the Queen. Cf Queen Mary the
> Queen Grandmother.

What did they call Queen Adelaide after W4*R died?

Surely not "Thhe Queen Aunt"? Maybe just "Queen Adelaide".

*or W3R in Scotland

On 10/02/2024 14:21, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
> Never was a fan of the manipulative baggage Diana, who caused more
> problems than Meghan (whose only crime seems to have been being a
> Southern Californian of mixed race) ever could.

With you there, Rosie!
--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK

Jenny M Benson <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 10/02/2024 10:11, Vicky wrote:
>> Camilla is not queen for me, QE2 said Queen Consort, not Queen.
>
> It is my understanding that QE2 specifically said that Camilla WAS to be
> Queen, rather than Queen Consort.
>
> But you are the second person I've heard/read say that in 2 days, so I
> could be wrong.
>
> Personally I think the new Queen is wonderful - as is the King, and I'm
> delighted that they have each other.
>

Yes, I was about to say the same thing. It was QE2's specific wish. Harry
doesn't look well when I see photos of him and I don't think he would be
welcome back. The expression, you've made your bed, now lie in it, comes to
mind.

--
Sally in Shropshire, UK

In message <l2p5ivFjhqqU2@mid.individual.net> at Sat, 10 Feb 2024
11:39:10, Jenny M Benson <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> writes
[]
>Personally I think the new Queen is wonderful - as is the King, and I'm
>delighted that they have each other.
>
I think they are well suited, and certainly good for each other. See
previous post.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you carry on hating, you're the one who's damaged.
- Sir Harold Atcherley, sent to the Burma/Siam railway in April 1943

In message <2kiesi5q7073e7s0gsvrntq6n7frmlflme@4ax.com> at Sat, 10 Feb
2024 10:11:28, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
[]
>Camilla is not queen for me, QE2 said Queen Consort, not Queen. She's

Like another here, I was fairly certain of the opposite - that QE2,
close to the end of her life, said that Camilla was to be Queen. (I
think she'd been Queen Consort from the marriage.)

>the gf who took Diana's place and now her children are taking Harry's.

To me, she's the gf Chas. should have married in the first place, but at
that point the establishment wouldn't let him.

>One newspaper said 6/1 Harry will come back now to take up senior
>royal duties. I do hope so. What kind of father removes security from

The sort who is aware that the cost thereof, for someone who had
relinquished all duties and gone to USA, was unpopular.

>his son? Not keen on His Maj. And William and Kate are too smugly

HM is not as loved as QE2 was, but I think is doing a fair job under the
circumstances. He may be iller than we thought, too - as well as the
cancer (as yet unidentified, publicly anyway), he may have had more of a
prostate problem than some: many of us have an enlarged one without
needing operation, just live with the inconveniences. (Of course it may
have just been decided that his busy life would run more smoothly if he
_did_ have it shaved.)

Can't really comment on Will and Kate, other than to say I'm not aware
of them having done anything major to make me think ill of them.

>perfect. OK, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is a bit brash but American tv
>people can be like that, can't they?

I didn't hear enough about Meghan to dislike her as much as the media
did (and still do). Problems with her family, but that was mainly them,
not her.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you carry on hating, you're the one who's damaged.
- Sir Harold Atcherley, sent to the Burma/Siam railway in April 1943

On 10/02/2024 09:45, Chris wrote:
>> There were dowagers long, long, before Victoria were a lass.
>> (The first reference in the OED dates to 1530.)
>>
>> P.S. The first reference to "Queen Mother" dates to 1570.)
>>
>>
> I know it is but it’s a word only used in a Royal sense now.

Or other branches of the aristocracy, such as "dowager duchesses"

--
Best wishes, Serena
I try to take one day at a time -- but sometimes several days attack me
at once.

In message <l2pltnFk5iiU2@mid.individual.net> at Sat, 10 Feb 2024
16:17:59, Jenny M Benson <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>On 10/02/2024 14:21, Rosie Mitchell wrote:
>> Never was a fan of the manipulative baggage Diana, who caused more
>> problems than Meghan (whose only crime seems to have been being a
>> Southern Californian of mixed race) ever could.
>
>With you there, Rosie!

Me too to _some_ extent. I didn't think Diana was that manipulative
until well after things had broken down irretrievably; initially I
thought she was a fairly nice person (genuinely liked children, for
example), perhaps not _too_ bright - I didn't think too good a match for
Charles, but that's all under the bridge now. I think she became damaged
- _some_ of the allegations of mistreatment by "the firm" may not have
helped, and that Panorama thing certainly didn't help.

I was amazed when Meghan's mixed race became such a thing: I would never
have known, and cared even less (if anything, I welcomed a bit of
"outsider", whether USness or mixed race: I thought it might inject a
bit of fresh air). The mixed-race bit seems, to me, to have been a
problem for the US rather than most Brits: I don't think most Brits were
at all bothered, but certain parts of US society seem to be far more
racist than even white South Africans.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you carry on hating, you're the one who's damaged.
- Sir Harold Atcherley, sent to the Burma/Siam railway in April 1943

On 10/02/2024 11:39, Jenny M Benson wrote:
> On 10/02/2024 10:11, Vicky wrote:
>> Camilla is not queen for me,  QE2 said Queen Consort, not Queen.
>
> It is my understanding that QE2 specifically said that Camilla WAS to be
> Queen, rather than Queen Consort.

I forget the exact words that QE2 used but it's really just semantics.
Camilla is the Queen Consort, to differentiate her from queens such as
QE2, who was a Queen Regnant. Regardless of the flavour of queendom,
all queens are generally just known as Queen Name. The only difference
is that a regnant queen may also have a regnal number, which queen
consorts don't have.

The current queen, whether consort or regnant, is the only one who is
referred to as "The Queen".

> But you are the second person I've heard/read say that in 2 days, so I
> could be wrong.
>
> Personally I think the new Queen is wonderful - as is the King, and I'm
> delighted that they have each other.
>

So am I. Even if Charles and Diana had managed to work out a modus
vivendi, I can't imagine Diana being happy with the role of consort.
Camilla understands that her main role is as Charles's support act,
rather than as a star in her own right. I don't think Diana would have
been comfortable with that.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Don't underestimate the value of Doing Nothing, of just going along,
listening to all the things you can't hear, and not bothering. (Winnie
the Pooh)

Jenny M Benson wrote:

<snipped>

> Personally I think the new Queen is wonderful - as is the King, and I'm
> delighted that they have each other.

+1

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> writes:

> In message <2kiesi5q7073e7s0gsvrntq6n7frmlflme@4ax.com> at Sat, 10 Feb
> 2024 10:11:28, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
> []
>>Camilla is not queen for me, QE2 said Queen Consort, not Queen. She's
>
> Like another here, I was fairly certain of the opposite - that QE2,
> close to the end of her life, said that Camilla was to be Queen. (I
> think she'd been Queen Consort from the marriage.)
>
>>the gf who took Diana's place and now her children are taking Harry's.
>
> To me, she's the gf Chas. should have married in the first place, but
> at that point the establishment wouldn't let him.

The establishment with, I might add, Granny Bowes-Lyon to the
fore. Granny was back-seat driver to the monarchy from 1936-2002. Am I
the only one who noticed that QE2 loosened up considerably after she
died?

Rosie

On 10/02/2024 19:35, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> I was amazed when Meghan's mixed race became such a thing: I would never
> have known, and cared even less (if anything, I welcomed a bit of
> "outsider", whether USness or mixed race: I thought it might inject a
> bit of fresh air). The mixed-race bit seems, to me, to have been a
> problem for the US rather than most Brits: I don't think most Brits were
> at all bothered, but certain parts of US society seem to be far more
> racist than even white South Africans.

Like you, I think most brits were either not bothered or mildly pleased
that Harry was marrying a mixed race woman. I'm sure she did suffer
some racism, if only because, if a racist wants to fling insults at her,
they're going to use her race as a weapon. I think the fact that she
was a very independent minded American was far more of an issue though.
I don't think it would have been any easier on her, had she been a
blonde Valley Girl
actress.

I was reminded strongly of the situation when Andrew married Fergie.
Before the wedding, the papers were gushing with enthusiasm for her,
because she was such a breath of fresh air, who would do the stuffy RF
no end of good. Within a few months, they were castigating her, right,
left and centre, for the very characteristics they'd been so keen on
before the marriage.
--
Best wishes, Serena
If nothing goes right, go left.

On 10/02/2024 19:25, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> HM is not as loved as QE2 was, but I think is doing a fair job under the
> circumstances. He may be iller than we thought, too - as well as the
> cancer (as yet unidentified, publicly anyway), he may have had more of a
> prostate problem than some: many of us have an enlarged one without
> needing operation, just live with the inconveniences. (Of course it may
> have just been decided that his busy life would run more smoothly if he
> _did_ have it shaved.)

I strongly suspect (can't remember if I've said this before) that his
prostate problems were pretty acute and he may well have had to be
catheterised. I thought it was notable that, when it was announced that
he was going to have to have surgery, it was also announced that he was
cancelling all his appointments until after surgery. I don't think that
would have happened if his symptoms were at the merely inconvenient level.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Q. What do you call a man with jelly in one ear and custard in the other?
A. A trifle deaf.

In message <uq8ke2$33kdl$2@dont-email.me> at Sat, 10 Feb 2024 19:56:49,
Serena Blanchflower <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> writes
[]
>Q. What do you call a man with jelly in one ear and custard in the other?
>A. A trifle deaf.
A2 You can call him whatever you like; he won't hear you.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

once described by Eccentrica Golumbits as the best bang since the big one ...
(first series, fit the second)

[I've just realised that the EG quote could be read as referring to me; that
wasn't the intention!]

In message <877cjcw1gr.fsf@golgonooza.co.uk> at Sat, 10 Feb 2024
19:42:12, Rosie Mitchell <rcmitchell@golgonooza.co.uk> writes
>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> writes:
[]
>> To me, she's the gf Chas. should have married in the first place, but
>> at that point the establishment wouldn't let him.
>
>The establishment with, I might add, Granny Bowes-Lyon to the
>fore. Granny was back-seat driver to the monarchy from 1936-2002. Am I
>the only one who noticed that QE2 loosened up considerably after she
>died?
>
>Rosie

No, you're not. On the whole, I liked QEQM, at least the beer-drinking
(was it?) down-to-earth persona that had been manufactured for her, but
yes, she does seem to have been an eminence grise, and/or the last of
the stuffy generation in things like who Chas. should marry.
(But we don't know.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

once described by Eccentrica Golumbits as the best bang since the big one ...
(first series, fit the second)

On 10/02/2024 19:25, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> many of us have an enlarged one without needing operation, just live
> with the inconveniences.

I thought it was the conveniences that were rather important to chaps in
your situation.
--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 14:21:13 +0000, Rosie Mitchell
<rcmitchell@golgonooza.co.uk> wrote:

>Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:32:23 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
>> <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On 09/02/2024 23:07, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>> In message <uq5q6q$2ierr$2@dont-email.me> at Fri, 9 Feb 2024 18:16:58,
>>>> Serena Blanchflower <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> writes
>>>>> On 09/02/2024 12:28, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>>>>>> Which follows on rather nicely with the question I posed to my sister
>>>>>> yesterday.  IF - heaven forbid - the King should pass away in the
>>>>>> near future, what will Queen Camilla become?  She will not be Queen
>>>>>> Mother and I can't imagine Queen Stepmother being adopted.
>>>>>
>>>>> She'll be the Queen Dowager and Queen Camilla.  The Queen mother only
>>>>> took that name because, at the time of QEII's accession, there were
>>>>> two Queen Dowagers (Queen Mary and the QM), as well as two Queen
>>>>> Elizabeths (QEII and QM), so she needed a name to use to disambiguate
>>>>> her from both her mother in law and her daughter.
>>>>>
>>>> The reversal always struck me as odd: Queen Camilla is fine, but the
>>>> others would surely sound less odd as dowager queen and mother queen (or
>>>> queen's mother, with the "'s").
>>>
>>>I assume that it's intended to keep the emphasis on the fact that
>>>they're all queens, just slightly different varieties of queen.
>>
>> Camilla is not queen for me, QE2 said Queen Consort, not Queen. She's
>> the gf who took Diana's place and now her children are taking Harry's.
>> One newspaper said 6/1 Harry will come back now to take up senior
>> royal duties. I do hope so. What kind of father removes security from
>> his son? Not keen on His Maj. And William and Kate are too smugly
>> perfect. OK, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is a bit brash but American tv
>> people can be like that, can't they?
>
>'Queen Consort' is her job, not her title. QE2 was Queen Regnant but
>nobody ever called her that. Granny Bowes-Lyon was Queen Consort but
>never called that. Great Granny Mary of Teck was Queen Consort but she
>was always Queen Mary. Crewe Alexandra was also Queen Consort. Victoria
>wasn't, she was Queen Regnant.
>
>Never was a fan of the manipulative baggage Diana, who caused more
>problems than Meghan (whose only crime seems to have been being a
>Southern Californian of mixed race) ever could.
>
Methinks somebody sneaked a football team into that shopping list of
queens just to find out if anybody was paying attention...

Nick

On 10-Feb-24 19:53, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
> On 10/02/2024 19:35, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> I was amazed when Meghan's mixed race became such a thing: I would
>> never have known, and cared even less (if anything, I welcomed a bit
>> of "outsider", whether USness or mixed race: I thought it might inject
>> a bit of fresh air). The mixed-race bit seems, to me, to have been a
>> problem for the US rather than most Brits: I don't think most Brits
>> were at all bothered, but certain parts of US society seem to be far
>> more racist than even white South Africans.
>
>
> Like you, I think most brits were either not bothered or mildly pleased
> that Harry was marrying a mixed race woman.  I'm sure she did suffer
> some racism, if only because, if a racist wants to fling insults at her,
> they're going to use her race as a weapon.  I think the fact that she
> was a very independent minded American was far more of an issue though.
> I don't think it would have been any easier on her, had she been a
> blonde Valley Girl
> actress.
>
> I was reminded strongly of the situation when Andrew married Fergie.
> Before the wedding, the papers were gushing with enthusiasm for her,
> because she was such a breath of fresh air, who would do the stuffy RF
> no end of good.  Within a few months, they were castigating her, right,
> left and centre, for the very characteristics they'd been so keen on
> before the marriage.

The need to 'sell papers' (or the equivalent) is paramount.

Hence they will describe someone associated with the Royal Family as a
golden boy/girl - or a vile piece of...

Saying "Eh! They're OK I suppose." is not going to sell papers.

Opinions matter so much more than facts.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 10-Feb-24 21:53, Jenny M Benson wrote:
> On 10/02/2024 19:25, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> many of us have an enlarged one without needing operation, just live
>> with the inconveniences.
>
> I thought it was the conveniences that were rather important to chaps in
> your situation.

Whatever happened to that nice Mr Pullen?

--
Sam Plusnet

In message <BBTxN.14223$As1.4626@fx10.ams1> at Sat, 10 Feb 2024
23:25:21, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>On 10-Feb-24 21:53, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>> On 10/02/2024 19:25, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> many of us have an enlarged one without needing operation, just live
>>>with the inconveniences.
>> I thought it was the conveniences that were rather important to
>>chaps in your situation.

LOL! Yes, we're found in convenience. (Though not enough t'be arrested.)
>
>Whatever happened to that nice Mr Pullen?
>
I think he works for PlusNet; there's certainly a nice Mr. (Bob) Pullen
who does - often seems to be the only sensible person left there. Crops
up from time to time in the PlusNet newsgroup (the only one left not
moribund).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Everyone is entitled to an *informed* opinion." - Harlan Ellison

On 10/02/2024 22:04, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 14:21:13 +0000, Rosie Mitchell
> <rcmitchell@golgonooza.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:32:23 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
>>> <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/02/2024 23:07, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>> In message <uq5q6q$2ierr$2@dont-email.me> at Fri, 9 Feb 2024 18:16:58,
>>>>> Serena Blanchflower <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> writes
>>>>>> On 09/02/2024 12:28, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>>>>>>> Which follows on rather nicely with the question I posed to my sister
>>>>>>> yesterday.  IF - heaven forbid - the King should pass away in the
>>>>>>> near future, what will Queen Camilla become?  She will not be Queen
>>>>>>> Mother and I can't imagine Queen Stepmother being adopted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She'll be the Queen Dowager and Queen Camilla.  The Queen mother only
>>>>>> took that name because, at the time of QEII's accession, there were
>>>>>> two Queen Dowagers (Queen Mary and the QM), as well as two Queen
>>>>>> Elizabeths (QEII and QM), so she needed a name to use to disambiguate
>>>>>> her from both her mother in law and her daughter.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The reversal always struck me as odd: Queen Camilla is fine, but the
>>>>> others would surely sound less odd as dowager queen and mother queen (or
>>>>> queen's mother, with the "'s").
>>>>
>>>> I assume that it's intended to keep the emphasis on the fact that
>>>> they're all queens, just slightly different varieties of queen.
>>>
>>> Camilla is not queen for me, QE2 said Queen Consort, not Queen. She's
>>> the gf who took Diana's place and now her children are taking Harry's.
>>> One newspaper said 6/1 Harry will come back now to take up senior
>>> royal duties. I do hope so. What kind of father removes security from
>>> his son? Not keen on His Maj. And William and Kate are too smugly
>>> perfect. OK, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is a bit brash but American tv
>>> people can be like that, can't they?
>>
>> 'Queen Consort' is her job, not her title. QE2 was Queen Regnant but
>> nobody ever called her that. Granny Bowes-Lyon was Queen Consort but
>> never called that. Great Granny Mary of Teck was Queen Consort but she
>> was always Queen Mary. Crewe Alexandra was also Queen Consort. Victoria
>> wasn't, she was Queen Regnant.
>>
>> Never was a fan of the manipulative baggage Diana, who caused more
>> problems than Meghan (whose only crime seems to have been being a
>> Southern Californian of mixed race) ever could.
>>
> Methinks somebody sneaked a football team into that shopping list of
> queens just to find out if anybody was paying attention...
>
> Nick

I was paying attention but I believe the footie team takes its name from
the royal personage.

john

Serena Blanchflower <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
> On 10/02/2024 19:25, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> HM is not as loved as QE2 was, but I think is doing a fair job under the
>> circumstances. He may be iller than we thought, too - as well as the
>> cancer (as yet unidentified, publicly anyway), he may have had more of a
>> prostate problem than some: many of us have an enlarged one without
>> needing operation, just live with the inconveniences. (Of course it may
>> have just been decided that his busy life would run more smoothly if he
>> _did_ have it shaved.)
>
>
> I strongly suspect (can't remember if I've said this before) that his
> prostate problems were pretty acute and he may well have had to be
> catheterised. I thought it was notable that, when it was announced that
> he was going to have to have surgery, it was also announced that he was
> cancelling all his appointments until after surgery. I don't think that
> would have happened if his symptoms were at the merely inconvenient level.
>

Being in a role where one has to stand still for hours on end, a badly
behaved anything isn’t to be trifled with. The op seems exactly the right
thing to me.

Mrs McT