CuriousByNature

I would disagree with that, but I do understand what you are getting at. I believe she is more than a feel-good symbol. While her position is largely symbolic and ceremonial, she does represent historic continuity and has offered a source of stability in difficult times. Perhaps there has not been the same degree of threat recently as there was in WWII, but she was there and lived through the turmoil and the post-war recovery. No other head of state has the degree of experience that she does, nor I image, the amount of political wisdom that can only be acquired over decades in a position like her own.

It's a valid point for sure, and likely even a higher percentage feel that way in various Commonwealth countries. But I think the percentage in the UK who wanted to get rid of the monarchy was even higher 20 years ago. Since her Golden Jubilee I think many Britons have grown to appreciate the Queen and the monarchy more. But there will always be those who believe that the monarchy is not worth the cost. The value the monarchy brings isn't easy to quantify, so I think the argument will always exist about whether or not it should be continued.

The link doesn't take me to any profile, just the London listings. So perhaps they were TGTBT?

I thought this post was going to be about a rubber hose, like a nasal-gastric tube.

I wonder if there has been too much societal change throughout her reign for it to be considered a new Elizabethan Era. The Victorian period - whether in 1837 or 1901 - was pretty consistent in its conservative societal norms, from clothing to architecture, design to family life. But I don't think that can be said for the current monarch's reign. Changes have accelerated so much that it would be very difficult to define what a new Elizabethan Era represents. Is it the post-war boom? The greater secularization of society? The Cold War and the fight against communism? The women's liberation movement? The race to the Moon? The rise of social media? The threat of terrorism? None of these things are closely linked to the monarchy, and the present Queen has not had the same level of influence over society's path as monarchs of earlier times once had. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, and I am pretty sure history will remember her reign fondly and with admiration even if it is not the basis for defining an era.

My best experience so far left me relaxed and limber, and reached places I didn't even realize needed any attention. I was on a business trip to Halifax, and staying in a hotel much posher than I was used to. But it quickly became worth the splurge. My legs were spread slightly, and I could feel this firm, lengthy hardness against the small of my back. I braced my arms and rocked myself against the hardness as it slowly moved from just above my butt to the middle of my back, and up to between my shoulder blades. Drips of sweat ran down my chest as my breathing deepened, and as I ground against that blessed hardness until I was utterly spent. Again, and again, and again until my quads were quivering and my entire body released. Never before and never since have I found such a perfect door frame to massage myself against.

With all due respect, I think you may be exaggerating her health difficulties. She can speak, she can stand, and she can sit. But she is evidently experiencing enough discomfort at this time to limit her engagements. As a figurehead I think she is likely aware that the way she presents herself is important. If she were to be seen wincing in pain as she walked, or struggling to get in and out of a carriage, it would be upsetting to many people. I don't think she would want that - not because of pride, but because she has never sought the nation's pity.

Yes, you are correct that no previous British monarch has made it to their 90s. But the Queen Mother, who was consort to George VI, was almost 102 when she died. In her late 90s she curtailed a lot of her activities due to her age, She had both hips replaced, and by most accounts continued to live a fulfilling life for a number of years. Her daughter, the present Queen, is at least as robust as her mother was at 96, so I would not be surprised if she could easily pull through hip replacements if that happens to be her mobility issue. I understand though that at such an advanced age things can decline very quickly, as they did for her husband last year.

I think we'll need to wait and see whether or not things improve - let's not give her the boot quite yet. She has faced significant challenges during the past year, but I am hopeful that she will get whatever treatment is necessary to deal with the mobility issues and go on reigning for a number of years - with increasing support from members of the family, of course. I don't think her like will be seen again.

I agree - I think she very much sees it as a religious calling and an obligation to the people of the Commonwealth.

Thank you for this. And regarding the Netherlands, I believe the last several monarchs chose to abdicate so that their successor could reign. I think Juliana abdicated for Beatrix, and Wilhelmina for Juliana some decades earlier. But the last abdication in the UK was Edward VIII, and the fallout from that may also be part of the reason why the Queen intends to continue her reign.

It isn't about what God wants or doesn't want. She is known to be a person of great faith, and it's about her personal integrity and the desire to remain true to the pledge she made during her coronation. In fact, she made another pledge on her 21st birthday a few years before to serve for her entire life, whether it would be short or long. Unlike many people today she has somehow been able to maintain that level of commitment for more than 70 years. I think that is something worthy of admiration and not likely to be repeated.

From what I have read, the issue is one of mobility. She is apparently a very devout person who took her coronation vows very seriously. I highly doubt she will ever abdicate, because she would consider that breaking the vows she made before God. I imagine she is having some sort of joint issues given her age - her mother had joint replacements in her mid-90s, so perhaps the same will be done for the Queen. I can't remember if it was the hips or knees, but the surgery gave the Queen Mother a few more years of mobility anyway. I'm hoping she can see her 75th anniversary as Queen... she would be 100 at that time, and her mother made it to almost 102 herself.

I agree that Charles does not have the support that the Queen currently enjoys. In the 90s when it was clear he was cheating on Diana (and she was also cheating on him) I think a lot of people hoped he would be bypassed for William. But those who said that did not understand how succession works. Now that he is in his 70s, happily married to the woman he always loved, and supporting the Queen in many of her duties, I think there is a fondness that is growing towards him. Had he ascended the throne 20 years ago I think that there would have been greater backlash, but now that he is a senior citizen himself, I think the reaction will be more measured. I also think he will not shake things up as much as he once would have. He likely doesn't have the energy to do so. And if he were to ascend today, he would most likely only be king for 20 to 30 years at most before William ascends after him. I'm curious whether he will style himself as King Charles III, or perhaps in homage to his father who was never more than a prince, choose to be the UK's first King Phillip.

I guess not everyone wants to be Touched by an Angel.

Also, wanting an Easy-Bake Oven. Though it was eating the cakes that attracted me, not baking with a lightbulb.

Playing hopscotch, double-dutch skipping, gymnastics, crossing your legs tightly...

Perhaps this is not such a black and white, clear-cut issue. There are a number of factors that would need to be known before a judgement against either party should be made, IMHO. Foremost, did the individual demonstrate intent to infect others? Did he knowingly assure people that he was healthy and discourage safer sex practices despite knowing he was infectious? Or did he think or assume he was undetectable? Or perhaps had he been undetectable and then become detectable again for whatever reason? The individual who contracted HIV is ultimately responsible for their own sexual health, but accurately assessing the level of risk in any given situation requires knowing the facts, and trusting that the person giving you the necessary information can be trusted. The provider in this case does not seem to be a very trustworthy person, particularly if he knew he was not undetectable. And the client was either too trusting of someone they hardly knew, or perhaps, was willing to assume a much higher level of risk than he should have. Thankfully these days, neither has to pay for this with their lives.

"The hamster I had when I was 5 years old however was more sensual." That's an interesting comparison... LOL

Kindness. That could explain why I'm still CuriousByNature and not ExperiencedByNature!

While the following is humour, it is about positions... Three women went to a fortune teller together because they wanted to know the genders of any future children they might have. The first came out and told the others that she would be having boys, because her favourite position was having the man on top. The second came out and said she would be having girls because she always preferred to be on top of the guy. At this point the third woman burst into tears and got up to leave. The others asked what the matter was, and she turned to them weeping, "I'm going to have puppies!"

I thought there was only one. Sitting in the seat, strapped securely, helmet on, and preparing for that big thrust that will send you into orbit. Ah... you meant gay sex positions, not SpaceX positions. My bad.

And driving

550 mph, as a passenger on a 747 🙃