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.

Americans are so weird about Diana, she was not the angel you think she was and everyone knows it excep the Americans apparently. I don't understand the obsession with a seriously flawed woman who basically abandoned her children for her lovers.

[Anonymous]

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.

WTF? Are you 822 years old?

Any land the royal family owns in India and Africa is land they STOLE. They are disgusting racist a-holes.

[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.

Americans are so weird about Diana, she was not the angel you think she was and everyone knows it excep the Americans apparently. I don't understand the obsession with a seriously flawed woman who basically abandoned her children for her lovers.

I think it's only Americans of a certain age who were around for the wedding and bought into the fairytale marriage aspect of it. I'm 37 and by the time I knew anything about her it was all tabloid trash, trainwreck mode stuff you'd see at the supermarket and not think much more about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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=

And Princess Alexandra does far less

https://www.royal.uk/court-circular?text=&mrf=9&date%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=3%2F06%2F2021&date%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=3%2F06%2F2022&id=

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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=

And Princess Alexandra does far less

https://www.royal.uk/court-circular?text=&mrf=9&date%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=3%2F06%2F2021&date%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=3%2F06%2F2022&id=

So, perhaps you can answer the question about what “working” means, and how it does —or doesn’t—apply to Beatrice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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=

And Princess Alexandra does far less

https://www.royal.uk/court-circular?text=&mrf=9&date%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=3%2F06%2F2021&date%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=3%2F06%2F2022&id=

So, perhaps you can answer the question about what “working” means, and how it does —or doesn’t—apply to Beatrice?

Isn’t the point that there is no set standard? Why is Alexandra on the balcony and not Beatrice if the only metric is ‘working’?

[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.

WTF? Are you 822 years old?

Any land the royal family owns in India and Africa is land they STOLE. They are disgusting racist a-holes.

What land do they currently own?

[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.

WTF? Are you 822 years old?

Any land the royal family owns in India and Africa is land they STOLE. They are disgusting racist a-holes.

And everyone in America—including you—lives on stolen land.

I guess all of us are disgusting racist a-holes?

[Anonymous]

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.

We have statues an memorials honoring Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, and Martin Luther King, and Then there is Mount Rushmore. Not sure I am getting your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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=

And Princess Alexandra does far less

https://www.royal.uk/court-circular?text=&mrf=9&date%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=3%2F06%2F2021&date%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=3%2F06%2F2022&id=

So, perhaps you can answer the question about what “working” means, and how it does —or doesn’t—apply to Beatrice?

Isn’t the point that there is no set standard? Why is Alexandra on the balcony and not Beatrice if the only metric is ‘working’?

It’s who’s getting paid for it. They have trimmed back who gets paid greatly. So anyone can do a charity event, but Princess Alexandra is still supported by the Queen/state. The Queen gets monies from the civil list as part of old agreements for the royal family to turn over most of their holdings to the state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WTF? Are you 822 years old?

Any land the royal family owns in India and Africa is land they STOLE. They are disgusting racist a-holes.

And everyone in America—including you—lives on stolen land.

I guess all of us are disgusting racist a-holes?

+1 it is incredible how people forget our own sordid history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WTF? Are you 822 years old?

Any land the royal family owns in India and Africa is land they STOLE. They are disgusting racist a-holes.

And everyone in America—including you—lives on stolen land.

I guess all of us are disgusting racist a-holes?

+1 it is incredible how people forget our own sordid history.

We don’t parade around the family of General Custer and the like, with pomp and glory.

In addition, the UK Royal family’s grand kn worldwide atrocities is recent as far as history goes. SHE has been on the throne during some of it and her father for much of it.

For many people in the world, they’re parading around the direct oppressor. It’s not something abstract like a statue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WTF? Are you 822 years old?

Any land the royal family owns in India and Africa is land they STOLE. They are disgusting racist a-holes.

And everyone in America—including you—lives on stolen land.

I guess all of us are disgusting racist a-holes?

+1 it is incredible how people forget our own sordid history.

We don’t parade around the family of General Custer and the like, with pomp and glory.

In addition, the UK Royal family’s grand kn worldwide atrocities is recent as far as history goes. SHE has been on the throne during some of it and her father for much of it.

For many people in the world, they’re parading around the direct oppressor. It’s not something abstract like a statue.

That is only because Custer is dead! We still are living on stolen land and Congress has plenary authority over tribes. We are founded by colonizers and conquerors who we celebrate! And the British empire only shrunk during her reign. So I don’t get why she is being singled out, simply because she is old?

[Anonymous]

Does anyone else feel like the Queen has been holding on to meet Harry’s new baby and then… It’s the end?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone else feel like the Queen has been holding on to meet Harry’s new baby and then… It’s the end?

He’s having another baby?