Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I see America isn't the only country battling people who don't understand the basic concept of land ownership (namely that when you own land, you continue to own it until someone else does). Godspeed Ketara. May you have more luck in explaining it than we are. At least no one's seized the Royal's barn and asserted their right to shoot anyone who tries to make them leave

If Wikipedia is to be believed, the shilling coin took on its final size and shape in 1816. That coin survived decimalisation in 1966, and was only replaced in 1990. So, a coin could in theory (but in practise, almost certainly wouldn't; it would have been hoarded for the silver value alone, if nothing else) still have been legal tender 174 years and nine monarchs later. I don't think we'll be replacing anything when Brenda passes away.

New coins will be produced with the new king's head on them, and gradually replace the old ones as they are lost or withdrawn from circulation.

Bank notes will change over more quickly, owing to their shorter life, and postage stamps will be replaced quickest of all.

Personally I think we should take the opportunity to revise the money a bit. I find £1 too lumpy now they are worth so much less. I would like a thinner £1, a smaller £2 and a £5 coin the size of the current £2 to replace the £5 note. Fivers are usually a disgrace to carry as they are so manked up. I would drop the 2p coin.

The £10 and £20 notes could be made slightly smaller, perhaps revise the £10 to the size of the current fiver and the £20 to the size of the current tenner.

Nonsense, keep the nugget chunky!

It's due a change soon anyway, it's going two-tone and dodecagon shaped.

I'd say notes are more likely to change to iPhone sized than anything else. Just the way the world seems to be turning.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
New coins will be produced with the new king's head on them, and gradually replace the old ones as they are lost or withdrawn from circulation.

Bank notes will change over more quickly, owing to their shorter life, and postage stamps will be replaced quickest of all.

Personally I think we should take the opportunity to revise the money a bit. I find £1 too lumpy now they are worth so much less. I would like a thinner £1, a smaller £2 and a £5 coin the size of the current £2 to replace the £5 note. Fivers are usually a disgrace to carry as they are so manked up. I would drop the 2p coin.

The £10 and £20 notes could be made slightly smaller, perhaps revise the £10 to the size of the current fiver and the £20 to the size of the current tenner.

But you'll have to change all of the vending machines! Won't someone think of the vendors!

 notprop wrote:
I'd say notes are more likely to change to iPhone sized than anything else. Just the way the world seems to be turning.

Which iPhone? The 6 plus is getting on for the size of the old pound notes.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
New coins will be produced with the new king's head on them, and gradually replace the old ones as they are lost or withdrawn from circulation.

Bank notes will change over more quickly, owing to their shorter life, and postage stamps will be replaced quickest of all.

Personally I think we should take the opportunity to revise the money a bit. I find £1 too lumpy now they are worth so much less. I would like a thinner £1, a smaller £2 and a £5 coin the size of the current £2 to replace the £5 note. Fivers are usually a disgrace to carry as they are so manked up. I would drop the 2p coin.

The £10 and £20 notes could be made slightly smaller, perhaps revise the £10 to the size of the current fiver and the £20 to the size of the current tenner.

A £5 coin would be handy, since the noted version is incredibly rare for such a useful denomination. That said, my local bank's cash machine was once restocked with crisp, fresh fives, and I can't begin to describe how ecstatic I was about it.

Personally, I'd love it if they brought back pound notes. Maybe we should lobby for a commemorative memorial pound note when Lizzy kicks it.
Just the thing to cheer up the nation, a wallet bulging with fat stacks.

Without our trusty $1 notes out strippers would be pretty bruised.

 r_squared wrote:
Personally, I'd love it if they brought back pound notes. Maybe we should lobby for a commemorative memorial pound note when Lizzy kicks it.
Just the thing to cheer up the nation, a wallet bulging with fat stacks.

Some of us remember 10 shilling notes, and half-crowns, and thrupenny bits.

I hope that Charlie would take the throne, and instead of sitting for the Corronation, would wave over to his eldest.
Having a very public switcheroo would cheer up so many people, it'd be too good to pass up. He'd be caretaker-king for a year, and would give his successor time to get ready. He would be of more use a 'King-Father' than king. I heard the Queen-Mother did such a good job of getting Liz up to speed.

 d-usa wrote:
Without our trusty $1 notes out strippers would be pretty bruised.

Nah. In Canada the strippers don't have more than the usual number of bruises, and we don't have $1 bills.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
New coins will be produced with the new king's head on them, and gradually replace the old ones as they are lost or withdrawn from circulation.

Bank notes will change over more quickly, owing to their shorter life, and postage stamps will be replaced quickest of all.

Personally I think we should take the opportunity to revise the money a bit. I find £1 too lumpy now they are worth so much less. I would like a thinner £1, a smaller £2 and a £5 coin the size of the current £2 to replace the £5 note. Fivers are usually a disgrace to carry as they are so manked up. I would drop the 2p coin.

The £10 and £20 notes could be made slightly smaller, perhaps revise the £10 to the size of the current fiver and the £20 to the size of the current tenner.

When I visited the UK, I can tell you that the two things that impressed me most was how awesome the old castles are, and how the 1 pound coin just felt... right.

Kilkrazy wrote:Bank notes will change over more quickly, owing to their shorter life, and postage stamps will be replaced quickest of all.

The ones up here don't have her madge's head on them anyway.

r_squared wrote:Personally, I'd love it if they brought back pound notes. Maybe we should lobby for a commemorative memorial pound note when Lizzy kicks it.
Just the thing to cheer up the nation, a wallet bulging with fat stacks.

You can still get 'em up here, I think. I've got a couple of RBS £1 notes kicking about.

 sing your life wrote:
I throw a party when the Queen dies.

I'm not a royalist but I strongly object to that sentiment. Queen Elizabeth has been a public figure for over 64 years now, and in that time she has conducted herself with incredible grace and dignity. Where are our elected representatives now? Where is John Major, or Tony Blair, or Gordon Brown? They're all retired somewhere, and couldn't give a gak. The Queen may have lived a very advantaged life, but she has also performed her duty as Queen with the utmost diligence and commitment. You might not like what she stands for, but I don't think you can fault her character. I think she is entitled to a little more respect than that.

Having said that, this is a woman who has never had to wash a cup in her life, or stress about where her next meal is coming from, and I bet she has an amazing health provider. If she lived to 120, it wouldn't surprise me (though I might not even be around to see it).

 Kilkrazy wrote:
About 20 years ago I had a dream that the Queen had died, and for some reason I woke up believing it was true and this false idea lasted until mid-morning. I wondered why it wasn't on the news.

Totally off topic, but you're not the only one, I've heard this referenced as an example of the Mandela Effect. But now I can't find it referenced anywhere, which may in itself, be an example of the Mandela Effect.

I do believe most instances of the phenomenon are due to how human brain chemistry and memory function occurs rather than alternate realities, but interesting nonetheless.

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
About 20 years ago I had a dream that the Queen had died, and for some reason I woke up believing it was true and this false idea lasted until mid-morning. I wondered why it wasn't on the news.

Totally off topic, but you're not the only one, I've heard this referenced as an example of the Mandela Effect. But now I can't find it referenced anywhere, which may in itself, be an example of the Mandela Effect.

I do believe most instances of the phenomenon are due to how human brain chemistry and memory function occurs rather than alternate realities, but interesting nonetheless.

It's also called Confabulation. I once had a dream I crashed my car, woke up all bummed out, and was super freaked out when I looked outside and my car was fine

There will be a National Outpouring of Grief. On the BBC, at least, 24 hours a day, for weeks. Queues of the bereaved, massive piles of flowers, "She was the heart of our nation", its so terrible!"

Meanwhile I, and everyone else I know, who won't actually give much of a monkeys, will look on with bafflement. We will wonder if these people are insane. Then, after it's been steadily beating over the airwaves for long enough, we'll start to wonder if WE'RE insane because apparently everyone else in the country is United In a National Outpouring of Grief, and we aren't.

Then will come the coronation, which will be the same, except in reverse. We still won't actually care, but apparently it will be a time of National Jubilation. And this will go on for MONTHS, until we start to question what kind of reality distorting filter the BBC has, or again wonder if we're the insane ones.

 Graphite wrote:
There will be a National Outpouring of Grief. On the BBC, at least, 24 hours a day, for weeks. Queues of the bereaved, massive piles of flowers, "She was the heart of our nation", its so terrible!"

Meanwhile I, and everyone else I know, who won't actually give much of a monkeys, will look on with bafflement. We will wonder if these people are insane. Then, after it's been steadily beating over the airwaves for long enough, we'll start to wonder if WE'RE insane because apparently everyone else in the country is United In a National Outpouring of Grief, and we aren't.

Then will come the coronation, which will be the same, except in reverse. We still won't actually care, but apparently it will be a time of National Jubilation. And this will go on for MONTHS, until we start to question what kind of reality distorting filter the BBC has, or again wonder if we're the insane ones.

Hey, at least it'll drown out Donald Trump.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think the idea behind that is so you don't have multiple Monarch's dying so close together.

Way back when the Monarchy was a little more integral to the country's wellbeing, a new monarch usually meant there was a period of economic and political turmoil, or even outright war if it was serious enough. So it is obviously in the best interest of everyone that all kings and queens be crowned young and die old, to give the longest stable period possible.

So by that logic, it would make more sense for a younger Royal to become the next ruler.

Not really, because most of that instability was caused by uncertainty over who the next monarch would be, as different people had claims they saw as the most valid. The issue was resolved with a formalised system of succession that clearly spelled out the hierarchy of claims to the throne.

And that system means that you don’t vary from that system because someone might be next in line, but a bit too old or anything like that. Because that re-introduces uncertainty, and then you’ll get your instability again.

Of course, this is all hypothetical because it’s a figurehead position, and has been for a long time now.

 Yodhrin wrote:


3. If Chuckles the Homeopathic Berk ever gets within range of taking the throne, I would seriously expect that republicans will shift from "Boo, slowly phase out the monarchy and replace them with an elected head of state!" to "Here, that Robespierre chappie had some good ideas eh. Davey, nip on the computer and google up plans for one of those guillotine things yeah?" fairly rapidly. Even people who like the monarchy surely have to admit that Prince Cretin would be a disaster.

Best thing ever posted on the internet...yes better then porn, yes better then anime...yes better then anime porn with tentacles.....better then anything says I!

Yes I'm Canadian, yes we still pay her lip service, yes 'technically' she's our head of state but we have a Governor General who really does her job because reasons....but still getting all of our money reprinted would suck :(

You lot can reprint the money if you want; I doubt we'll be doing it over here.

Charles is the legal heir to the throne. It would cause a constitutional crisis to try and pass over him directly to William.

There's a chance that Charles might die before the Queen, in which case the successoin would go naturally to William.

Personally I think the Queen could easily last until 100 but if she does, inevitably she will slow down with age and there might be a regency kind of arrangement with Charles taking on some of her public duties like opening Parliament.

In this scenario, Charles himself would not ascend the throne until his late 70s or early 80s, and might have a short reign, like Edward VII.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Charles is the legal heir to the throne. It would cause a constitutional crisis to try and pass over him directly to William.

I am not familiar with how the process works, but I thought the Queen could decide on who her heir would be. So she could bypass Charles if necessary, but I thought she was hoping to avoid the drama that might cause.

Funnily enough the law was amended last year, Charles' marriage to Camilla might have disqualified him from becoming King in the not so distant past, as she is/was a catholic and a divorcee, not unlike Wallis Simpson, who Edward VIII was forced to abdicate over. Charles and Camilla's marriage was actually quite a delicate legal matter.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Charles is the legal heir to the throne. It would cause a constitutional crisis to try and pass over him directly to William.

I am not familiar with how the process works, but I thought the Queen could decide on who her heir would be. So she could bypass Charles if necessary, but I thought she was hoping to avoid the drama that might cause.

The succession of the English crown (and later the British crown) makes for marvellous history. After the Norman invasion the first big fight over succession started after the third king (Henry I) died. We've been fighting over it ever since. Stephen and Matilda, the Baron's revolt, Edwards II's rubbish reign, the war of the roses, the murder of the boys in the tower, the Tudor succession, the religious wars, the civil war, the glorious revolution (anything to keep a catholic off the throne), the Simpson affair. As a result of this heritage the power of the throne has been diminished to effectively nothing. But, the wheels that keep the country turning do so based upon a lot of tradition. We have never had a written constitution and a lot of our procedures and laws rely upon history and precedence for their basis. The last time a monarch got to decide their successor was Elizabeth I picking James VI (though later parliament did invite James II's successor to take the throne before the king had even finished with it). It is for these reasons that Charles would not be passed over for the throne - it would bowl over the whole framework that the unwritten constitution of the country resides on. Emotions and wants do not come into it. We have an heir and whether we like him or not, so long as he outlives the current monarch, he will be king - the Queen gets no say in this, and if she did try to stick her oar in she'd be told in no uncertain terms where she can shove it.

 Henry wrote:
The succession of the English crown (and later the British crown) makes for marvellous history. After the Norman invasion the first big fight over succession started after the third king (Henry I) died. We've been fighting over it ever since. Stephen and Matilda, the Baron's revolt, Edwards II's rubbish reign, the war of the roses, the murder of the boys in the tower, the Tudor succession, the religious wars, the civil war, the glorious revolution (anything to keep a catholic off the throne), the Simpson affair. As a result of this heritage the power of the throne has been diminished to effectively nothing. But, the wheels that keep the country turning do so based upon a lot of tradition. We have never had a written constitution and a lot of our procedures and laws rely upon history and precedence for their basis. The last time a monarch got to decide their successor was Elizabeth I picking James VI (though later parliament did invite James II's successor to take the throne before the king had even finished with it). It is for these reasons that Charles would not be passed over for the throne - it would bowl over the whole framework that the unwritten constitution of the country resides on. Emotions and wants do not come into it. We have an heir and whether we like him or not, so long as he outlives the current monarch, he will be king - the Queen gets no say in this, and if she did try to stick her oar in she'd be told in no uncertain terms where she can shove it.

But in the wake of the Glorious Revolution parliament passed laws formalising succession. So no-one would get to pick after that, and no-one could assert they had more of a right to the throne than the current king or heir - it was all there in black and white.

It took six centuries and a lot of dead bodies to get there, but it seems to be a working solution

 Smacks wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
I throw a party when the Queen dies.

I'm not a royalist but I strongly object to that sentiment. Queen Elizabeth has been a public figure for over 64 years now, and in that time she has conducted herself with incredible grace and dignity. Where are our elected representatives now? Where is John Major, or Tony Blair, or Gordon Brown? They're all retired somewhere, and couldn't give a gak. The Queen may have lived a very advantaged life, but she has also performed her duty as Queen with the utmost diligence and commitment. You might not like what she stands for, but I don't think you can fault her character. I think she is entitled to a little more respect than that.

Having said that, this is a woman who has never had to wash a cup in her life, or stress about where her next meal is coming from, and I bet she has an amazing health provider. If she lived to 120, it wouldn't surprise me (though I might not even be around to see it).

I'm not even British, and I've been known to drink a toast to her health. I think she is pretty cool and more than a little tough. Had to be to have to deal with the BS within the royal family, and the public hoopla surrounding said BS.