Queen Elizabeth Platinum Jubilee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question but why do you Americans care about Royals and England? Do you have some sort of feelings because our founding fathers (and most of your heritage I suppose) came from there? I grew up in this country but never really understood why people care so much.

I cannot speak for anyone else but I caught "Di fevor" and only watch now to see what a disaster the Royals are without her.

+1. I’m 49 so was the perfect age for my mom to wake me up at 4 in the morning to watch the royal wedding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question but why do you Americans care about Royals and England? Do you have some sort of feelings because our founding fathers (and most of your heritage I suppose) came from there? I grew up in this country but never really understood why people care so much.

I cannot speak for anyone else but I caught "Di fevor" and only watch now to see what a disaster the Royals are without her.

+1. I’m 49 so was the perfect age for my mom to wake me up at 4 in the morning to watch the royal wedding.

Nice!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anne’s kids didn’t make the cut for the balcony?

No because they have 5 grandkids between them and if Anne brings hers, why were Beatrice/Eugenie and their children cut?

Only one branch of the family is important.

This is it. It just is.

Did you even watch? Edward and his two kids were on the balcony. That’s why PP asked about Anne.

Edward's kids are younger and still live at home. Anne's kids are much older and have their own families and jobs. It makes sense that Edward gets to bring his kids and Anne doesn't.

It was spelled out -- working royals, spouses, and their minor children. So Charles and Camilla, William, Kate and the kids, Anne and her husband (her kids are grown and don't do engagements), Edward and Sophie and their two kids (okay Louise is 18, but it still counts), the Gloucesters, the Kents, and Princess Alexandra. They are the ones whose "job" is to do this kind of ceremonial stuff. Andrew is no longer a working royal, nor are his grown children, so no place on the balcony.

Beatrice has been doing as many engagements as Alexandra, the Kents, and the Gloucesters though. I believe those three groups do maybe 3-4 appearances a year if that. So what is 'working' and what isn't?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Five years ago, I would have really enjoyed this celebration. Growing up in the Diana era, I loved the old-school pageantry of the monarchy and charm of the BRF.

After Brexit, Andrew, and the poor treatment of Meghan in the media and subsequent revelations, the whole thing just seems so anti-modern.

I could use an innocent diversion, but unfortunately, this can't be it anymore.

So it this your resignation from Anglophilia?

I don't know. If I don't follow the BRF, am I still allowed to watch The Great British Baking Show and reruns of Bridget Jones?

Yes, you are. In my mind, Mary Berry is right up there with Her Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and Christiana Amanpour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Solid gold coach? I wonder where the raw material was looted from.

India and Africa, like everything else valuable that they own.

Dearie, the most valuable thing the royal family owns is real estate in both India and Africa and throughout the world. That "gold" carriage is nothing compared to the real estate cash flow.

What real estate does the BRF own in India?

NP: The BRF owns a few properties throughout India but had to give it up most of their land at independence. Its land holdings are mostly in UK and Commonwealth countries.

[Anonymous]

Have Meghan and Harry been photographed yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question but why do you Americans care about Royals and England? Do you have some sort of feelings because our founding fathers (and most of your heritage I suppose) came from there? I grew up in this country but never really understood why people care so much.

I cannot speak for anyone else but I caught "Di fevor" and only watch now to see what a disaster the Royals are without her.

+1. I’m 49 so was the perfect age for my mom to wake me up at 4 in the morning to watch the royal wedding.

Nice!

I'm 55, and my mom woke me up to watch it, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question but why do you Americans care about Royals and England? Do you have some sort of feelings because our founding fathers (and most of your heritage I suppose) came from there? I grew up in this country but never really understood why people care so much.

I cannot speak for anyone else but I caught "Di fevor" and only watch now to see what a disaster the Royals are without her.

+1. I’m 49 so was the perfect age for my mom to wake me up at 4 in the morning to watch the royal wedding.

Haha. Me too.

[Anonymous]

I was in my college summer abroad program in London and we were among the crowds who cheered Charles and Diana on their wedding dayas they drove past in London!

[Anonymous]

As an American I don't get a vote, but I think it would be too bad if the UK completely loses the BRF. There are certainly principled objections, but I like and admire how the UK has adapted and changed the role and function of the royal family over time, but haven't gotten rid of such a rich part of their history.

I am enjoying watching the Jubilee and think it is a fitting tribute for the Queen and that she deserves it. She also seems to have finally accepted/publicly acknowledged that she is not in great health. It will be sad when she passes, and interesting to see how Charles handles the role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question but why do you Americans care about Royals and England? Do you have some sort of feelings because our founding fathers (and most of your heritage I suppose) came from there? I grew up in this country but never really understood why people care so much.

I cannot speak for anyone else but I caught "Di fevor" and only watch now to see what a disaster the Royals are without her.

+1. I’m 49 so was the perfect age for my mom to wake me up at 4 in the morning to watch the royal wedding.

Haha. Me too.

46, me too,

My kids were not enthused about Meghan and Harry. I watched without them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any Brits on this thread who can estimate what percent of British people enjoy this stuff, versus what percent find it disgusting, versus what percent are just apathetic to it all? As an American, I'd be curious.

I find the whole idea of monarchy offensive and especially the aspect of it where the royals parade around in gold coaches and expense clothes, dripping in diamonds, on the taxpayer's dollar, but then argue it's good for the country.

And yet, as someone who is not a British subject, I also find that some part of me enjoys this stuff. I will get up early to watch the weddings, for instance. I like reading about the fashion even thought it's mostly terrible. I think the monarchy should be abolished but it's not my monarchy so I still enjoy some royal-watching and don't feel that guilty about it. They are like weird, untalented celebrities.

I also sort of love the idea of this all happening if only because Prince Andrew has been barred from participating in any of it and I'm certain it is destroying him from the inside out. Which is probably a more tortuous punishment for his grossness than most other things you could come up with. So I'm sort of pro-Jubilee primarily to stick it to Prince Andrew, I guess. Not super cost effective, I guess.

This is the part you don't understand. No one is paying tax dollars that are sent to the Royals. There is simply less money flowing from the Royals' properties into the general coffers because some is withheld (or "granted" to the Royals for their upkeep. Unless you think at some point the government had the right to seize all of the wealth from the Royal family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They projected holograms on Stonehenge. Bizarre.

I was thinking about this last night and why its so 'anathema' to me as an American. There's not a single person in this country, dead or alive, which we treat with such reverence that their image would be hologrammed on national monuments or buildings for a week. Not even George Washington.

How do you feel about Stone Mountain— that homage to the Confederacy that’s carved into a mountain?
Makes a temporary hologram seem kinda nice, no?



https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2018/stone-mountain-monumental-dilemma?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyKvHi4uQ-AIVQ8qUCR3uCAPpEAAYASAAEgI4vPD_BwE

How did this reduce us to Southern Poverty Law Center links?

Stay on topic.

Someone asked a question. Someone else answered it. Clearly not everyone can keep up or handle complexity.

No one asked a question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question but why do you Americans care about Royals and England? Do you have some sort of feelings because our founding fathers (and most of your heritage I suppose) came from there? I grew up in this country but never really understood why people care so much.

I cannot speak for anyone else but I caught "Di fevor" and only watch now to see what a disaster the Royals are without her.

+1. I’m 49 so was the perfect age for my mom to wake me up at 4 in the morning to watch the royal wedding.

Me again, adding that she was the same age for Elizabeth’s coronation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anne’s kids didn’t make the cut for the balcony?

No because they have 5 grandkids between them and if Anne brings hers, why were Beatrice/Eugenie and their children cut?

Only one branch of the family is important.

This is it. It just is.

Did you even watch? Edward and his two kids were on the balcony. That’s why PP asked about Anne.

Edward's kids are younger and still live at home. Anne's kids are much older and have their own families and jobs. It makes sense that Edward gets to bring his kids and Anne doesn't.

It was spelled out -- working royals, spouses, and their minor children. So Charles and Camilla, William, Kate and the kids, Anne and her husband (her kids are grown and don't do engagements), Edward and Sophie and their two kids (okay Louise is 18, but it still counts), the Gloucesters, the Kents, and Princess Alexandra. They are the ones whose "job" is to do this kind of ceremonial stuff. Andrew is no longer a working royal, nor are his grown children, so no place on the balcony.

Beatrice has been doing as many engagements as Alexandra, the Kents, and the Gloucesters though. I believe those three groups do maybe 3-4 appearances a year if that. So what is 'working' and what isn't?

Not sure what you consider an appearance but the Duke of Kent makes far more appearances, and that’s just taking a cursor glance at the Ourt Circular.


https://www.royal.uk/court-circular?text=&mrf=2940&date%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=3%2F06%2F2021&date%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=3%2F06%2F2022&id=