I’m sure all of the ribbon-cutting and personal appearances seem meaningless. But having the monarch or another royal attend an opening of, say, a new hospital building or museum means this is something to be valued. And if one of them is willing to attend some event, others will be willing to pay fees to attend, which may be important to the fundraising. Also these appearances are opportunities to recognize the regular people doing thankless work at these hospitals, museums, schools and so forth.
Not to mention she was so popular in her later years that people would refer to her as “the Queen Mum.”
ETA: “Noted for her humour and easygoing nature, the ‘Queen Mum,’ as she became affectionately known, was one of the most popular and admired members of the royal family.”
Apparently, she was the one most insistent on Charles’s wife being a virgin.
Nope, that goes to Lady Jane Grey. or Edward VIII.
Fair point although I’ll point out Eddie V’s reign was less than half the length of VIII’s.
Gnat then. No alliteration but they live a week.
Edward V never ruled, never reigned and was never crowned. The only reason why his is listed is due to Tudor propaganda, the same propaganda that doesnt like Lady Jane Grey.
Edward V was the elder son of the late King Edward IV. He was the heir apparent and his youth did not prevent him from becoming king, anymore than Henry III, Richard II, and Henry VI. There was no-one in the line of succession between him and his father. Coronation was not necessary, and at his age he wouldn’t be expected to reign.
Lady Jane was not the child of a monarch. She was the great-granddaughter of Henry VII in the female line. Neither her grandmother nor her mother had been Queen.
When King Edward VI died, there were four people between him and Lady Jane: Princess Mary, elder daughter of Henry VIII; Princess Elizabeth, younger daughter of Henry VIII; Mary, Queen of Scots, great-granddaughter of Henry VII by his elder daughter, Margaret Tudor; and Lady Jane’s own mother, Frances Brandon, granddaughter of Henry VII by his younger daughter, Mary Tudor. She could only be queen by skipping over four people with clearer hereditary claims.
Not comparable cases at all.
Well, at least we won’t have to spend as much time rehearsing for William’s coronation.
Indeed, the King might want to check with Steve Jobs on how that goes. Oh, wait…
Dearest King of Canada and elsewhere: If you are 75 years old and you have cancer somewhere in or around your Royal Nutsack, go to a doctor. Doctors can treat cancer! The other ideas you believe in… well if you want to give your life proving that doesn’t work I guess you’ll be setting an example in a particular way.
He did go to doctors. Who do you think diagnosed cancer?
If this came from someone actually in the know about the current situation, I would read this as spin on saying that chemo wouldn’t be worth it, for quality of life reasons.
But this appears to be some expert just opining based on previous remarks. You’d be surprised how much actually being there can change your mind.
But, still, we don’t know if this is a situation where chemo would actually prolong his life or that he wouldn’t just be sick longer. We knew with Jobs that he had a type of cancer that could have been dealt with. But we don’t know about Charles.
Also, just to add to what @Northern_Piper said, the monarch (or in Canada, their representative in the form of the Governor General or the provincial Lt-Govs) hold important reserve powers. The fact that they’re rarely used, or in some cases have never been used, doesn’t mean they aren’t important as effectively emergency powers that can be exercised by a non-political, non-partisan entity to prevent the government from doing something exceptionally stupid. The existence of such non-partisan entity as the Head of State is a fundamental cornerstone of a constitutional monarchy. In the American republican (small "r’) system of government, politics permeates the highest levels of government and has now even thoroughly infested the Supreme Court.
One example arises from situations where no party wins a parliamentary majority. The GG’s power, as representative of the Crown, to invite a party leader to form a government and even to dismiss a recalcitrant Prime Minister who refuses to resign can become important in the functioning of the parliamentary system of government. One instance that occurred in Canada some years ago was when, in the absence of a parliamentary majority by the party holding a plurality of seats, two lesser parties contrived to form a coalition and thus form the next government. The GG becomes the arbiter of such disputes, as well as such things as requests to prorogue parliament (end the current session).
Much more than just ribbon-cutting there.
Yes, in two recent cases at the provincial level, the Lieutenant Governors had to take steps when the voters returned a hung parliament. In 2016, the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick imposed a firm deadline on Premier Brian Gallant to demonstrate that he could put together a government with the confidence of the Assembly. When Gallant failed on a confidence vote, he had to resign.
In 2017 in British Columbia, after an indecisive election, the Premier advised the Lt Gov to call another election. The Lt Gov declined to do so, effectively forcing the Premier to resign and the leader of the other main party became premier.
Not ribbon cutting.
However, he was the child of an illegal and thus bastard marriage- per Parliament.
King Edward VI had named Lady Jane as his successor. And of course what with the weird marriages of H8, after all-Mary was declared illegitimate and barred from the line of succession following the annulment of her parents’ marriage. Same with Elizabeth. Mind you they were restored in 1543, but only after Edward Vi and his heirs- and he named Jane as his heir. Mary came into the throne due to a large military force backing her. Mind you if Lady Jane had became Queen, we would not have gotten the brilliant QE1. But Lady Jane was the heir, and she was Queen, but Mary deposed her- by right of arms. (IMHO Mary was a horrible Queen, but at least she didnt execute Elizabeth.)
So if Eddie5 is listed, so should Jane.
PLEEEASE don’t quote GB News. It’s the right-wing conspiracy competitor for woke Fox News.
Indeed, he read the Queen’s speech at the opening of Parliament in her final year, with her crown sat on a cushion next to him.
most conjecture seems to be around bladder cancer. number 4 cancer for men, and high up in his age group.
If the monarch has to sign or assent and has no ability to change or affect the legislation then the assent is ceremonial. Just because the country feels the need to keep the ceremony doesn’t make it less or more than a ceremony.
In the US we call that a “ministerial act”:
A ministerial act is an act performed in a prescribed manner and in obedience to a legal authority, without regard to one’s own judgment or discretion.
A prime example is the certification of election results.
Still “the Queen Mother.” If it was the other way, it would be “the Queen’s (or King’s) mother.”
I don’t know if that term was actually used before her - e.g. was Queen Mary ever called that in the short period between her husband’s death and her own?
Note that Camilla would not be called Queen Mother if Charles dies before she does, as she would not be the biological mother of King William (assuming he takes that name); I think her title would become “Dowager Queen Camilla.”