From: le@main.lekno.ws   
      
   radioacti...@gmail.com  wrote:   
   > The Queen [for 17 months now has been] dead!  Long live The King!   
   >   
   > Well, while I sure am glad I've never been one of Charles III's subjects, I   
   HAVE always liked this improbably-good-natured, privileged-from-birth fellow,   
   once I started following the young then-Prince of Wales circa 1963.   
   >   
   > And I was forevermore in Charles's sympathetic camp ever since he famously,   
   > as teenager (and then still blissfully-future-harridan-Diana-free!) Prince   
   > Charles, surreptitiously mailed that fan letter overseas to Mad Magazine*.   
   > Thus I always hoped the often-unfairly-ridiculed Charles would enjoy his OWN   
   > lengthy time on the throne (ESPECIALLY after he set a new Brit record   
   > awaiting his reigning parent to expire, thus eclipsing the future Edward   
   > VII's waiting for HIS mother to die--eventually, as it happened, on Tuesday,   
   > January 22, 1901 on the Isle of Wight--thus ending the then-record-setting   
   > Victorian Era).   
      
   Queen Victoria reigned   
   63 years,7 months,2 days   
   and   
   Queen Elizabeth II reigned   
   70 years,7 months,2 days   
      
   Charles also broke the age-at-accession record of William IV   
   (born August 21st 1765,acceded June 26th 1830,but wasn't even   
   next in line until January 5,1827).   
      
   > MEANWHILE:   
   >   
   > IF (and I did type IF) I understand these arcane Anglo things,   
   > nowadays-not-so-young Prince William doesn't by British law HAVE to choose   
   > William V as his kingly moniker once he's ultimately crowned, even though   
   > after that WOULD be the expected sequence after William IV died thrusting   
   > young (and quite fertile) Victoria into 19th AND 20th Century history.   
   >   
   > Instead, rather than the somewhat, uh, common William V...Prince William can   
   > instead go with, say, King Ringo, should he so choose.  Or King Clapton.  Or   
   > King Elvis.  Or even King Sinatra** !   
   >   
   > (Isn't that--if a bit irreverently--correct, Sir Epstein?)   
      
   He could,but should not.   
      
   (As far as musical courts go,at least King Oliver had a musical nobility   
   (Duke Ellington,Count Basie) and ecclesiastical household (Reverend   
   Satchelmouth,"Satchmo" for short,and Elder Teagarden)).   
      
   > BRYAN STYBLE/Florida   
   > ===================   
   > * Anyone remember the year he (quite privately) posted that published   
   > envelope to the Mad editors stateside?  I wanna say 1964, but I might be off   
   > by several years on this one.   
   > ** I suppose that's what little ol' me would select, were I in his regal   
   shoes.   
      
   -=-=-   
   The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,   
   at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)