In alt.talk.royalty D. Spencer Hines <d_spencerhines@america.com> wrote: > Perhaps Her Majesty, knowing her reign must surely be approaching its final > years, is currently saving those three Garter appointments for her successor > to make. > > DSH I doubt very much that she wishes the Order to depopulate for the remainder of her reign.Given the number of members in their 80s and 90s there would be little left of it at her death. > "Louis Epstein" wrote in message news:ng9kod$i1n$1@reader1.panix.com... > > In alt.talk.royalty D. Spencer Hines <d_spencerhines@america.com> wrote: >> Again, just bald assertions -- no proof. > > The FACT that appointments were NOT made is more > than a "bald assertion" and demands for "proof" > are ridiculous. > >> The more important issue -- if, as a hypothetical, what you say were to be >> scrupulously accurate -- is WHY the Queen is supposedly leaving the Garter >> positions vacant. > > That's something to discuss. > > It was alleged elsewhere that appointments will be made later, > according to one of the Pursuivants Extraordinary...perhaps the > 90th birthday year will be an excuse for the appointments to > be made in the Birthday Honours,though that would cut very close > to the traditional investiture of the year's new Companions. > >> Get Real... >> >> ...And learn how to make a newsworthy post. >> >> Who, What, When, Where, Why & How. >> >> Elementary, My Dear Epstein... >> >> DSH >> >> Exitus Acta Probat >> >> "Louis Epstein" wrote in message news:ng5gps$kgm$1@reader1.panix.com... >> >> In alt.talk.royalty D. Spencer Hines <d_spencerhines@america.com> wrote: >> >>> Let's see some scholarly proof for your sack of unsubstantiated >>> assertions - or substitute a more earthy word of your choice. >>> >>> Facts, quotations, sources and citations -- and hypothetical rationales. >>> >>> ...Otherwise you are just bloviating. >>> >>> DSH >> >> You're being ridiculous. >> It is clearly documented that the announcements of new Companions >> of the Garter have as a rule been made on April 23rd since the 1960s, >> and no such announcement was made this year or last. >> There are three vacancies in the Order,the most recent by the >> death of the late Duke of Wellington at the end of 2014. >> >>> "Louis Epstein" wrote in message news:nfm3l5$1dv$2@reader1.panix.com... >>> >>> In alt.talk.royalty D. Spencer Hines <d_spencerhines@america.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Interesting... >>>> >>>> ...If indeed true. >>> >>> And how would it not be true? >>> No announcement of new Knights was made on the 23rd. >>> >>>> DSH >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>> From: Louis Epstein >>>> >>>> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 5:51 AM >>>> Newsgroups: alt.talk.royalty >>>> >>>> Subject: Days Without Knights! >>>> >>>> Since the 1960s the vacancies among the Companions of the Most Noble >>>> Order >>>> of the Garter have been filled by announcements made on St. George's >>>> Day, >>>> April 23rd. >>>> >>>> Since 2014 there have been three vacancies. >>>> >>>> In 2015 and now again in 2016...no announcements! >>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>>>-=-=- >>>>The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, >>>>at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. >> >> > >