Queen Elizabeth II dies

Oh look, leaving aside his marriage to Diana, in the 80's the tabloids tore him apart as a tree-hugger- bet they're feeling a right bunch of Charlies today - i believe that in the past, he was a dork (and I don't mean by appearance as that's just mean), a quack, a bit of a cad and bounder, a playboy and out of touch and out of date- but I think today, in some really querky way, he fitted the role of King of England- he's certainly not perfect, and indeed, who wants to be compared to QE2, but I think for the foreseeable future, "he'll do"- until William and Kate take hold.

indeed I did mention that earlier in this thread too.

And that's why the British public, in the early 90's got pizzed off with the Royal family and all of their moaning - it woke them up to the fact that they were at risk of becoming redundant and it's good that happened as they were held to account - Diana's death was another time where the public made their mark, albeit it became all very embarrassing for everyone involved and i think the public would like to set that episode aside.

So yeah, tampon-gate- it really was a low point for Charles- phone recording underhandedly (not sure how illegal it was at that time) obtained by the tabloids - and then published- it has to be said- I thought it was unfair - you're entitled to a private life too even though you're so public- but it just shows what lack of respect people had at that point (including the public) after so many royal family gaffs. That's why the Queen endured- she was the reliable consistent thread in a less than perfect family- a very imperfect family actually.

Will the tabloids dish this up again in months to come? I dunno, I think as long as they get what they want, they'll refrain - but doesn't stop you or me talking about it or posting references to it etc- Ya REALLY don't want your future King to profess to wanting to be a tampon- but look, it happened. Can't go back- it is what it is.

For those not around in the 80's especially, where the Queens sons and daughter were reaching their early and established adulthood, this is essentially how they were portrayed in the media and in fairness, how most people thought of them- they were still far more remote and inaccessible than they were today so media portrayal played a major part, far more than maybe today, where people tend to make their own mind up based on a range of factors, but certainly the ability for form opinions via social media.

Charles: Outdated, old-fashioned, years beyond his age, lucky lucky bastard getting Diana, upstaged by Diana consistently, adrift...

Anne: Aloof, toffy nosed, horsey set, totally irrelevant to modern day but somewhat respected because of her extreme assertiveness - she has emerged as a photocopy of her mother in the 21st century and probably one of the most popular royals today

Andrew: Early 80's and falkland war, a hero- but quickly reduced to a clown- not much has changed since and has got a whole lot worse obviously

Edward- Gay and a wimp - a terrible time for him and completely unfair - history will treat him far better than it did in the 80s- his love of theatre and acting and his resignation from an Army (SAS I can't remember without googling it?) course after a few weeks, placed him as a "puff" . As I say, must have been "ghastly" as they say in the firm- I'd say the journalists who did those articles might be somewhat repentant today- at least I hope so. His subsequent marriage to Sofie, despite an episode of selling access to the RF, has helped him become a decent working royal, albeit with a relative low profile, and his wife outshines him

So yeah, the Queens children never inspired the public that the Royal family was worth keeping- it might help the younger ones here appreciate just how much the British public have lost today- those over 50 would likely have held similar views to those documented above, and some at least, probably hold those same views, today.

The hysteria reaches new heights. It’s actually completely ott and farcical.