Ministers 'rehearse for Queen's death for first time in secret exercise'

From Evening Standard

Government ministers have rehearsed for the Queen’s death for the first time in an “unprecedented” exercise to prepare for 10 days of national mourning, it has been reported.

Cabinet ministers and Whitehall officials this week met for the exercise, apparently known as Castle Dove, to discuss ‘D+1’, the day after the monarch’s death, according to the Sunday Times.

According to the newspaper, Theresa May’s deputy David Lidington chaired the meeting on Thursday which was also attended by home secretary Sajid Javid, leader of the commons Andrea Leadsom and Scottish secretary David Mundell.

© Provided by Independent Print Limited Queen.jpg

The meeting is said to have focused on the day after the Queen’s death with ministers deciding when the prime minister would make public statements.

It is not thought to have been prompted by any specific concerns about the monarch’s health.

A source was quoted by the Sunday Times as saying the scale of the exercise was “unprecedented” and that it was the first time different ministers had come together in one room to discuss it.

A Cabinet minister was quoted by the newspaper as saying that things had been “stepped up because of the ageing process”.

Operation London Bridge is widely understood to be the codename that refers to the plans for what will happen in the days after the death of the Queen.

The Standard has approached the Cabinet Office for further comment.

 

[Sable]

I can see it being a caretaker reign, but I'm doubting abdication.

Thing is, it doesn't matter who's going to reign when Liz dies, it's going to be really weird. It's entirely possible for someone to have been born in her reign and already have retired at the age of 65- there's not going to be lots of people who remember what was before, especially as there was less exposure of the royals until comparatively recently.

 

[LazarusOwenhart]

I can see it being a caretaker reign, but I'm doubting abdication.

Thing is, it doesn't matter who's going to reign when Liz dies, it's going to be really weird. It's entirely possible for someone to have been born in her reign and already have retired at the age of 65- there's not going to be lots of people who remember what was before, especially as there was less exposure of the royals until comparatively recently.

Charles will do alright. He's got his mothers forthrightness and his fathers intolerance to bullshit. People rag on the monarchy as being a waste of money but in truth our royal family is the single most powerful diplomatic tool the UK possesses. World leaders do flips and twists to even have lunch with them and they use their clout to do an awful lot of low key good in this world. There's a tradition in the UK aristocracy to never talk about your charitable giving, not because it's shameful but because you don't brag about that shit, it isn't the done thing. Charles, William and Harry have all spearheaded incredible charitable movements in the last few years and you can bet you're ass they've poured an epic sack of money into them but you'll never find out. I'm a self confessed royalist, I love the institution of the monarchy and the traditions it represents and I'll be bummed out when the Queen dies, she's an incredible woman who's done some unbelievable things.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

Charles will do alright. He's got his mothers forthrightness and his fathers intolerance to bullshit. People rag on the monarchy as being a waste of money but in truth our royal family is the single most powerful diplomatic tool the UK possesses. World leaders do flips and twists to even have lunch with them and they use their clout to do an awful lot of low key good in this world. There's a tradition in the UK aristocracy to never talk about your charitable giving, not because it's shameful but because you don't brag about that shit, it isn't the done thing. Charles, William and Harry have all spearheaded incredible charitable movements in the last few years and you can bet you're ass they've poured an epic sack of money into them but you'll never find out. I'm a self confessed royalist, I love the institution of the monarchy and the traditions it represents and I'll be bummed out when the Queen dies, she's an incredible woman who's done some unbelievable things.

To give some idea to this: The Royal Family is patron to, or lends their name and support to a staggering three thousand charities world wide, with the lion's share being in the UK (about 2,400). Some of them have clear pet favourites: Harry has the Invictus Games, Charles The Prince's Trust, Phillip the Duke of Edinburgh Award, they will at some time or another try and meet with and do something for any charity to which they have lent their name and financial support to, even if it's just to turn up for an afternoon for tea and cakes.

Shockingly, they don't publicise this aspect of their lives. There's no media circus constantly following them around and screaming about how nice they are. Through a combination of security reasons and just not wanting the attention the Royals will turn up with little fanfare to see how things are going with a given local school or charity they have an interest in.

Prince Michael (aka the Duke of Kent) and Prince Andrew are both shockingly regular visitors to East Pillockshire, as both have charitable concerns and interests in a local (former) Tech college in the area.

 

[Ravenor]

The transition has been happening in the Palace itself for a few years now anyway, William and Kate have been stepping up a lot, Harry too, so I can see Liz pressuring Charles to stand aside. It would be best for the monarchy in the long run.

Yep they are stepping up their game in terms of PR they are trying to avoid another downswing by trying to make the take over as seamless as possible.

Hey, quick question: Is this a normal thing in the UK, to mourn the death of the king/queen for a certain period of time?

Yes it's prety much standard and codified at this point with some leway given to other events of national importance.

In both 2017 Charles had hundreds more engagements than William and Kate, 270 more than both of them combined, which is only a slightly smaller gap than 2016.

Most of his are on a much smaller less publicised scale often counting multiple events on the same day.

The plans have been around for years. The difference is they've never actually acted on, or really rehearsed them in a proper exercise before. The BBC does stuff every so often, but again, it's basic rehearsals, not the full blown practise of pulling shows and replacing them that'll be expected of them.

It should be pointed out that Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother, lasted until she was 101. So it's likely most ministers and government simply hasn't bothered on the basis she's probably going to last as long.

TBH The BBC has a plan for everything and some of it has been leaked over the years no Comedy is due to be broadcast for a month after she dies. Certain prevetted pictures are already selected for use during official broadcasts there is also a number of other plans such as how quick they are going to react to the funeral plans and then the inauguration of Charles or William.

If this was his royal spideryness of ten years ago, then I'd agree. Camilla has however helped to really calm Charles down, he knows as monarch his reign will be a fairly short one and the chances of him making any real impact is slim to none. If anything he will probably make his reign a relatively caretaker one, or even consider when many of his peers have done in mainland Europe and elsewhere, abdicated in favour of a younger monarch who can also promise similar long term stability.

Nha he is unpopular and he knows it and is more likely to be a risk that damages the Royals image and publicity back to early to mid 80's levels going forward I can see him wanting to skip the roll entirely and hand it of to William as he is more popular and as you said likely to have a long reign, This is especially true if the Queen dies within 6 months to a year post Brexit I can see there being a push on Charles to let the post skip him as to symbolise the new fresh direction of the UK or some such.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

Nha he is unpopular and he knows it and is more likely to be a risk that damages the Royals image and publicity back to early to mid 80's levels going forward I can see him wanting to skip the roll entirely and hand it of to William as he is more popular and as you said likely to have a long reign, This is especially true if the Queen dies within 6 months to a year post Brexit I can see there being a push on Charles to let the post skip him as to symbolise the new fresh direction of the UK or some such.

The Queen is also a stickler of tradition. She was approached by Charles about abdication a few years ago, and her response to such inquiries was that British Monarchs die ruling. There's also an order to these things, and Charles will more likely than not take on the role. His whole movement towards head of the Commonwealth and increase in duties (taking on things such as the Remembrance Sunday Wreath Laying duties) is a sure sign that the Queen is finally starting to properly groom him for the role. She has also formally named him as her successor as is traditionally known a couple of times now. Pressure from the Palace, or worse, the government, is more likely to make her dig her heels in.

If we're going with the whole "Brexit as a watershed" thing (I doubt it, but let's use it) they're far more likely to enact a Regency Council, this would allow The Queen to retire formally from public life and spend her remaining years with Phillip (something she seems keen to do) with the council's likely makeup being her, Phillip, Charles and William. This would allow Phillip and Elizabeth to advise the Regent and let Charles get a better feel for what it feels to be King, something he is already clearly getting a feel for with his increased public presence as HRH's representative.

Now, what we do know is that while Charles is very much into the whole "mutter to plants" and all the other things that at times make it seem like stuff and nonsense he is also a hideously superstitious man. To the point he's blamed some of his behaviours on the fact he was named Charles and he sees it as a "cursed name for the Royal Family" for very obvious reasons. This has now gone to the point that he's supposedly refusing to allow himself to be crowned as "King Charles III" and is far more likely to pick the Regal Name of George instead, something that will likely make him feel linked to his much more beloved and well known Grandfather and Great Grandfather.

 

[CWCissey]

I don't know why, Charles II did alright...

 

[Ravenor]

The Queen is also a stickler of tradition. She was approached by Charles about abdication a few years ago, and her response to such inquiries was that British Monarchs die ruling. There's also an order to these things, and Charles will more likely than not take on the role. His whole movement towards head of the Commonwealth and increase in duties (taking on things such as the Remembrance Sunday Wreath Laying duties) is a sure sign that the Queen is finally starting to properly groom him for the role. She has also formally named him as her successor as is traditionally known a couple of times now. Pressure from the Palace, or worse, the government, is more likely to make her dig her heels in.

She is but she is also practical, Charles has been waiting in the wings for a few decades now and hasn't exactly had a great public image in that time. Charles is if anything a bit of a political nightmare he's viewed by a lot of people as Phillip junior not King in waiting, I agree he is taking on more rolls as of presant but I can also see her being worried about just how he can fuck it up and lead to the monarchy becomming less and less relevant in British Public life as all it would take is a genuinely unpopular King or Queen and they are right back to the dark days of the 80's and possibly even worse.

I am not saying that she doesn't want him to be king but she certainly has a plan if he proves to be unsuitable.

If we're going with the whole "Brexit as a watershed" thing (I doubt it, but let's use it) they're far more likely to enact a Regency Council, this would allow The Queen to retire formally from public life and spend her remaining years with Phillip (something she seems keen to do) with the council's likely makeup being her, Phillip, Charles and William. This would allow Phillip and Elizabeth to advise the Regent and let Charles get a better feel for what it feels to be King, something he is already clearly getting a feel for with his increased public presence as HRH's representative.

As much as I don't like the size of the Royal Family and some of the Royals on a personal level, I do think the Queen has done good and has lead a life that's been pretty much nothing but service to the nation in one way or the other, and Her and Philip do deserve to spend the last few years doing not very much but sitting around drinking tea and doing something with the Corgi's. And the Regency Council sounds like the best idea to achive that with her doing the bare minimum she has to by law (an even then trying to cut her some slack) such as the Opening of Parliament and the Queens Speech.

Now if this did happen and it gave Charles a chance to try and prove himself read I am all for it, I just doubt he will be able to in the public eye and given the fact he regularly get's various briefings and the royals have since the 70's become increasingly adept at media and PR I can see him either doing it for a few years and then abdicating or him talking to the queen or trying to arranging things that he's seen as King in name only.

Now, what we do know is that while Charles is very much into the whole "mutter to plants" and all the other things that at times make it seem like stuff and nonsense he is also a hideously superstitious man. To the point he's blamed some of his behaviours on the fact he was named Charles and he sees it as a "cursed name for the Royal Family" for very obvious reasons. This has now gone to the point that he's supposedly refusing to allow himself to be crowned as "King Charles III" and is far more likely to pick the Regal Name of George instead, something that will likely make him feel linked to his much more beloved and well known Grandfather and Great Grandfather.

The problem as I said his whole persona isn't something that does well for him, and if he chooses to throw a cat amongst the Pigeons by choosing a reginal name that isn't Charles that's going to make things confusing for the general populous who by in large feel alienated from this Royal Family, and are most ignorant about the Royal Family and there roll's duty's, responsibilities and traditions this will only have a impact on him and the wider royal family.

Also as a Chap I am not in favour of him becoming the next George, We haven't had enough time to rebuild the Market for Perri Wigs, and Ruffles yet.

 

[Sable]

People rag on the monarchy as being a waste of money

I know I'm quoting something that's in no way the main body of your quote, but it annoys me a little when people say this because it shows an ignorance as to how the royal family is funded.

Basically, the way they're funded if you simplify it works like this: The crown owns a bunch of lands and holdings and the like. The crown basically lets the government have these lands in exchange for 15% of the money that those lands generated two years ago from the Treasury.

Using 2012 as an example, these crown estates generated around 290 million, so the RF got 37.9 (ish) and the Treasury got the rest.

This is the money that's used to fund the royal household for things like salaries, upkeep and engagements.

Both the Queen and Charles have their own estates that everything else the royal family does is funded from these.

There's obviously more to it than that, but that's the gist of things. Calculating things like the money generated from tourism is a little more difficult.

 

[LazarusOwenhart]

@Sable it annoys me a LOT when people say that. I have an acquaintance who's a republican and has no understanding of the fact that the monarchy is actually amazing value for money. He makes me fists itch.

 

[RodgerDodger]

@Sable it annoys me a LOT when people say that. I have an acquaintance who's a republican and has no understanding of the fact that the monarchy is actually amazing value for money. He makes me fists itch.

I’m amazed the British tabloid press doesn’t secretly underwrite the entirety of the Royals budget. I mean what would the tabloids do or report on without them? Covering the Royal family probably provides the backbone of the entire English speaking tabloid industry. And not just the local domestic ones. Without the Royals American Supermarket checkout lines would be a lot less interesting. They certainly drive the British economy in unusual and unexpected ways. I think if the Royals were to call it a day the British GDP would fall by 3 points or more, just from unemployed paparazzi.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

Even factoring in the security details and other costs the keeper of the purse revealed back in 2017 that the Royals run to about 65p per person per year.

Which considering the way the monarchy likely has a soft impact on the tourist economy seems like OK money value to me.

 

[AprilRains]

I don't see why the government needs to have drills for the day the Queen dies.

The collectible plate industry, on the other hand...

 

[CWCissey]

I don't see why the government needs to have drills for the day the Queen dies.

State funeral to organise, events to reschedule/cancel, currency to change etc.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Charles will do alright. He's got his mothers forthrightness and his fathers intolerance to bullshit.

Charles is rather partial to his own fair share of bullshit; some of it quite sinister. Of course, there is the obvious example of his hare-brained advocacy for homeopathy and alternative medicine (which he has lobbied the NHS to adopt), but there is also the more worrying sign of his apparently fond relationship to fundamentalist Islam.

He is a good friend of the Saudis, who have pumped billions each year into promoting Wahhabi fanaticism across Europe in mosques and faith schools, and he has even given speeches himself in Saudi-funded institutions where he has gone as far as to denigrate science as an 'affront to sacred religious traditions'.

On Galileo, he apparently went on record as saying:

As a result, nature has been completely objectified. She has become an it, and we are persuaded to concentrate on the material aspect of reality that fits within Galileo's scheme.

How did he think that this speech was likely to be received by the Muslim audience he was giving it to? What influence did he think it would most likely have on the younger Muslims present?

As far as I am concerned, Charles becoming King doesn't bode well for the UK, especially if he is more politically active and opinionated than his mother; which seems likely, given the way he has behaved thus far. A monarch can have a lot of influence on the wider public conversation, and considering that Charles' ideology is one part new age kookery, and another part reactionary sentimentalism, I don't see how his influence could be anything but negative.

 

[RodgerDodger]

State funeral to organise, events to reschedule/cancel, currency to change etc.

See the currency is an easily fixable problem. Stop putting living people faces on the money! Wait until they are dead! It saves on transition costs.

 

[CWCissey]

See the currency is an easily fixable problem. Stop putting living people faces on the money! Wait until they are dead! It saves on transition costs.

Eh, the dead faces change every now and then anyway, the only living face on the money is the monarch, and they tend to stick around a bit longer.

 

[AprilRains]

State funeral to organise, events to reschedule/cancel, currency to change etc.

...yes I know it was a joke