Posted on 09/11/2022 2:32:17 PM PDT by Morgana
The Countess of Wessex was pictured comforting Princess Anne today as members of the royal family watched Queen Elizabeth II's coffin arrive in Edinburgh to lie in rest at the Palace of Holyroodhouse overnight.
Sophie, 57, the wife of the Queen's youngest son Prince Edward, 58, was seen placing her hand on the Princess Royal's back in a supportive gesture after the coffin made the journey from Balmoral to the Scottish city.
The Queen's children and their spouses - Princess Royal and Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence, Duke of York and the Earl and Countess of Wessex - watched as soldiers from the Royal Regiment of Scotland carried the coffin into the Palace.
In a touching moment, deference to the monarch was still observed, with the royal women curtseying and the men bowing their heads.
Her Majesty did not travel alone during her 180-mile journey, Anne and her husband were in a limousine as part of a procession directly behind her.
The Queen will stay at the palace overnight before being moved to St Giles' Cathedral tomorrow afternoon - where earlier a large crowd had gathered to witness the midday proclamation of King Charles as head of state.
Yesterday, both Princess Anne and Sophie appeared teary-eyed as they looked at floral tributes to the Queen left at Balmoral, alongside other members of the royal family.
Meanwhile, Scottish mourners paid tribute to Her Majesty by lining the route of her coffin procession in their thousands as she left Balmoral for the last time.
Silent, sombre and respectful, well-wishers gathered beside country roads, bridges and in village and city centres to say goodbye to the woman who was never more at home than when in Scotland.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
“There is a FR member, an Australian who is a friend of Charles. Went to school with him & served in the military with him. He had a different view of Charles.”
That would be naturalman1975.
He posted a good thread when the Queen passed and caught some flack from the usual Monarchy haters.
He was also a Protocol Officer and knows the ins and outs of the English Monarchy. What can and can’t be done and who can or can’t do it.
He was a confidant when Charles was at school in Australia. Imagine being a Prince of the Realm and knowing everyone you came in contact with wanted something, even if it was the fame of being a friend of a Prince. Then you meet someone who keeps his mouth shut and just wants to be a friend.
Must be priceless to a guy like Charles.
I thought the name was naturalman75, but the system isn’t recognizing the handle. I must have it a bit wrong. However, I remember his comments about Prince Charles.
Personally, I expect Charles to step up and be a solid figurehead.
Ah, that’s it. I left off the 19.
Agree!
Agree!
I really like Sophie’s dress. I often sing at funerals, and I would look great in that.
I’m sure they read the DM down under. All that rag does is talk about ME-again and Harry. They want rid of her and we don’t want her back. No deposit no return.
I guess. I’d be surprised if he talked about her.
Funny you should talk about being a Gentleman, Britians on the DM are not polite.
Often in the past I’d ask questions like “why does this Queen do this?” or “Why does the Queen do that” and I’d explain being an American we have not had Royality for over 200 years so we don’t know and just want to understand. They would rip my head off for just asking.
I doubt Charles will last long. The pictures of his hands and feet going around look like advanced lymphedema, which points to congestive heart failure. I’d give him 3-5 years max.
Charles was NOT a good husband toDiana, therefore, I cannot imagine him being a good king….may God place His hand inTo the affairs of England.
Why don’t you get back to us, after you have lived such an unusual life, and had to deal with such unnatural strictures?
I think you would probably resent moralistic busybodies who know absolutely nothing about what really took place - nothing but what they read in magazines and commercial tell-all books.
Elizabeth could not have bypassed Charles. There are succession rules and you would need an act of parliament to circumvent them.
For the record, yes, I did go to school with His Majesty - in 1966 he was sent to attend school in Australia, and I happened to be attending the same school, but our contact at that time was limited - we did speak, but he was one of the oldest boys in the school and I was one of the youngest so we didn't exactly move in the same circles. But later on, after I was commissioned into the Royal Australian Navy, because senior officers knew I had a slight acquaintance with him, when he visited us as a Royal Navy officer, we were put in contact together, and he did me the great courtesy of helping convince my superiors we were much better acquainted than we were - which may have been a little career enhancing, whether it should have been or not. Later in my career, I found myself shifting into protocol related and diplomatic postings in London, and found myself in contact with the Duke of York who was still a serving officer at the time, and he reintroduced me to his older brother and we have developed a friendship. While the King only served a few years in the Navy, I think he enjoyed a life where being a Prince meant less than being a Lieutenant and he values those types of relationships where he can have closer to a normal life. And while I won't say that being a military officer is a lot like being a Prince, you do learn how to navigate friendships within a heirarchy so I think we also act a little more normally around him than he might be used to.
I hope I will still be able to call the new King my friend, but his life has changed immensely and he will put his duty ahead of things like any personal life and I'm just not sure what time he will have for all of his old friends and while I have called him a friend, he has closer ones than myself. We'll see. I'll remain his friend regardless.
But he is also now my liege lord - that may sound old fashioned, but I'm a conservative type of man and a constitutional monarchist. His mother was my sovereign lady - I was lucky enough to meet her a few times through him and his brother and she was a charming lady, but also a force I can't really describe. It's odd to think of him in that way now.
I will say very clearly that the man I know bears only a very limited resemblance to the man depicted in the media. For the most part, I would say he would fit in quite well here, if that type of thing was possible for him. He's generally conservative on most issues - he's a devout Christian, he believes very strongly in traditional rights - including gun rights, but in a rather British context where they really are primarily things for things like hunting (which he is - a hunter, I mean). He believes very strongly in religious freedom - he's one of the few prominent public figures to have quite regularly made speeches about the plight of Christians facing oppression in the Middle East. He believes in traditional values, although he is the first to acknowledge that he didn't always live up to his beliefs as well as he could have - I say he's a devout Christian and he is today, but I'm not sure I would have said that thirty years ago. He's learned, he's changed, he's repented for his sins, and he is confident that God has forgiven him as he forgives all of us who trespass and seek forgiveness.
He is an environmentalist and that is the one area where I do think he diverges from the mainstream of conservatism. But that's also why people know that about him - because it's also the one area that the mainstream media agree with him about, and so, it's the area they highlight - they ignore him when he says things they don't like and publicise to the high heavens whenever he says something that promotes their favourite causes. So, this leaves people with a false impression of the man, in my view. I wish his speeches about the service of war veterans, I wish his speeches about the oppression of Christians... I wish they got the same attention. But that's never likely to happen. And, now, in his new role, he will have to be very careful about what he says on political issue. His position must always be that of His Majesty's Government.
Even up until now, there have been many times when he has had to speak or undertake duties at the request of the government that didn't necessarily fully align with his own positions. He had a degree of freedom to refuse but it really had to be a very extreme situation for him to do so. He was a Prince in a constitutional monarchy where Parliament - the elected government - is supreme. And he is now the Constitutional Monarch himself. In private, he can advise his ministers, he can encourage them, he can warn them. But he cannot overrule them as long as they stay within the bounds of the constitution, and he will do as the constitution requires. He hasn't yet sworn his coronation oaths, but he is already living them.
As Supreme Governor of the Church of England, he can, again, exercise some degree of influence in private - but the constitution says his duty is to support the Bishops and their right to set Church policy - not to set it himself. I used to be a member of that Church and moved to Catholicism because I felt the Anglican faith was losing its way. This is an option he really doesn't have. I have personal views that while he is a Christian, if he was truly free to choose, his denomination might be different. But I'm sailing close to the wind in saying that so let me be clear that is my speculation. I am not repeating anything he has said directly.
On Harry and Meghan... we - that is, people who might have some 'inside' knowledge (which I will not say if I do or not) to not talk too much about that. I will say, I hope that things can be resolved in a better fashion than perhaps they currently stand, but that is all I will say, and it's a personal hope.
Even if I hadn't been asked, I've always tried to be fairly circumspect in discussing the King (it really still feels very odd to call him that). But I am his liege man of life and limb and earthly worship and I stand ready to defend him against all manner of folk. I don't expect to have to live and die at his command - but I'll speak in defence of the man when I can. I consider that my duty as a friend, as well as my duty to my King.
I suspect I may find myself having to defend him a bit here. He's worth it. I haven't been doing as much of that as I might have liked over the last few days. But - well, honestly, I am in mourning. I did not know Her Majesty well, but I knew her well enough that there is a personal grief, as well as grieving for her as my Queen. I am grateful that she remained in at least reasonable health until the last day or do of her life - in good health until the last few months. To go quickly, after ninety six years... we should all be that lucky. But it doesn't completely ameliorate the sorrow.
I think he will be a good King. Not a perfect one, but a good one. I can understand people being skeptical of him, especially given the way he has often appeared in the media - but I hope people will give him the chance to show himself to be the man I firmly believe him to be.
God save the King. And Gold help him to be a good King.
Please, at any time, feel free to ask me. As well as having some personal knowledge of the family, and the King, I am also very well educated in British and Commonwealth history, and British and Commonwealth constitutional law and convention. And I'm happy to try and answer questions on this. Nobody can be expected to be an expert on every subject, and certainly, people outside of the UK and Commonwealth have no real reason to understand these complex systems (a great many people within the UK and Commonwealth don't) and nobody should be made to feel bad for asking honest questions. As I've said, there are some questions I might not answer in detail, because - well, some things cross the line into gossip, more than anything else - but I'll do my best.
Interesting.
May I ask a question?
More than 15+ years ago when I was assigned to Australia when the subject of the monarchy came up in general friendly conversation. My Australian colleagues would always say ‘Australia will become a republic after Elizabeth. It is still in commonwealth status out of respect to her.’.
My comment back to them was ‘That would be sad! There’s a history there that in my opinion would be sad to walk away from.’.
Thanks for your information. I don’t know if this crosses into “gossip” or not, but I do get the impression she was a very involved and loving grandmother and great-grandmother. The family’s grief is obvious.
I recall some of this detail that you have previously shared on the forum over the years. I met another fellow thirty years ago that had a minor acquaintanceship with Charles, then the Prince of Wales when his kids were toddlers and spoke highly of him as well. I have always been interested as we were born just days apart.
I always appreciate your insight into Australian matters that you have been so good to share with us.
Thank you for taking the time to post that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.