Queen Elizabeth Platinum Jubilee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Londoner here!

That is not a solid gold coach. It lives permanently in the Museum of London if any of you want to check it out.

Generally the attitude to the Jubilee has been an eye roll and shrug. We all got a 4 day weekend out of it so happy for that, but most Londoners I know have given central London a wide berth and either gone on holiday or stayed home and done normal things. I have no idea who all these true believers are in these huge crowds!

I did a walkabout and London looked amazing all decorated. There is union jack bunting in all the high traffic tourist areas.

There is definitely a sense that a reckoning in near for the monarchy, if not here already. The Caribbean tours have been disasters, there are a lot of calls for apologies and reparations that the BRF are silent on. They need to make an attempt to reconcile their racist and colonial past with modern sensibilities. I don't know if its possible but they for sure have to try.

Interesting. Kind of hard to reconcile when they're completely mute on their own family. Unfortunately for them the entire world watched and judged and found the remaining royals wanting.

And William looks like he has an ulcer. Camilla looked STUNNING today. Best I've ever seen her though.

Wow, hate the hat (I hate most hats) but the dress and bag are lovely.

Really? The dress looks like drapes.

[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?

Not at all. The Queen has never been a particularly doting mother/grandmother/great-grandmother, and we've rarely seen her cuddling or cooing over babies. And Great-Grandchild #11 is not special.

I think you'll gradually see the Queen fade from public events, except those that are particularly interesting to her (i.e., involve horses). However, I think she could live another 5 years in relatively good health. It seems to be mobility that she's struggling with. She seems mentally sharp and engaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

More likely holding on for this platinum jubilee.

I wonder if she abdicates after this.

Have you ever listened to her? She's never abdicating and there's no reason to spend $1 billion on a Jubilee and then turn around and do the same billion for a coronation within 6 months. Especially when the Brits can't even afford to heat/cool their homes.

[twitter]. https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1532261042750988289[/twitter]

I doubt Charles will do a big coronation.

I bet once she’s dead there will be a lot less grandeur. This was the last big hurrah.

Charles didn’t wait all this time to have a small coronation. He might not do it right away
But he’ll have a big one AND he’s going to have Camilla as Queen Consort. I bet a big part of him playing nice with the Sussexes is to get them back on board to participate in any coronation because otherwise it will make him look bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is it with these dress coats? Do you have one in your wardobe? What do you do when it gets hot? Do they wear anything underneath?

I saw that Jacinda Ardern wore a coat over a dress to the White House this week when it was about 93 degrees. It looked like she was expecting it to rain any moment.

Ugh I want so badly to have an occasion to wear a coat dress and not look ridiculous. I'm guessing you wear a simple dress underneath?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

More likely holding on for this platinum jubilee.

I wonder if she abdicates after this.

Have you ever listened to her? She's never abdicating and there's no reason to spend $1 billion on a Jubilee and then turn around and do the same billion for a coronation within 6 months. Especially when the Brits can't even afford to heat/cool their homes.

[twitter]. https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1532261042750988289[/twitter]

I doubt Charles will do a big coronation.

I bet once she’s dead there will be a lot less grandeur. This was the last big hurrah.

Big or small its still expensive - with multiple celebrations across the (remaining) realms. The little book the palace put out just for the Jubilee cost $12 million by itself.

Ok. It can be much smaller and not cost $1B.

+1. And while this woman makes a point, I think there's this sentiment that if you get rid of the BRF then all these issues dissolve and miraculously the British class system simply melts away. It's a convenient scapegoat.

I mean if you're no longer paying a single family $100 million a year for random appearances - then yeah a lot of issues dissolve. Its always funny to me that the Prime Minister lives in a tiny 2-bedroom flat (and the Treasury Secretary gets an astonishing 4-bedrooms!) while the Queen has a 100-bedroom palace sitting empty. The two were fighting over those tiny spaces and the incoming Foreign? Secretary had a dispute with the fired one over a country estate that they could use. Issues like that would dissipate. And if the inheritance of these 30,000 acre estates for aristos was legally forced to be divided between the 3-5 kids they have instead of the first-born, those estates would be open to the public within 2 generations.

Reforming inheritance taxes so that you can't just dodge them with trusts would break up a lot of the old holdings in a couple of generations. Just thanking the aristocracy for their service and then nationalizing and then auctioning off their heredity holdings would do it much faster.

They already did that. That's why the royals and peers are mostly broke.

Not sure what good getting rid of the aristocracy would do. Would you just bulldoze all those palaces and castles? Or would you pay for the upkeep, which is really expensive?

No more Buckingham Palace? What good would that do?

[Anonymous]

can y'all explain the ribbons/ metals on Harry's jacket? Is that b/c he served in the military or is that something royal and if it's royal, how does he still retain them? I'm not a royal watcher except when it makes world news. Like now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Not at all. The Queen has never been a particularly doting mother/grandmother/great-grandmother, and we've rarely seen her cuddling or cooing over babies. And Great-Grandchild #11 is not special.

I think you'll gradually see the Queen fade from public events, except those that are particularly interesting to her (i.e., involve horses). However, I think she could live another 5 years in relatively good health. It seems to be mobility that she's struggling with. She seems mentally sharp and engaged.

I think she's been hanging on for this Platy Jube.

Farewell, Elizabeth. Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:can y'all explain the ribbons/ metals on Harry's jacket? Is that b/c he served in the military or is that something royal and if it's royal, how does he still retain them? I'm not a royal watcher except when it makes world news. Like now.

He served his country and earned them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

More likely holding on for this platinum jubilee.

I wonder if she abdicates after this.

Have you ever listened to her? She's never abdicating and there's no reason to spend $1 billion on a Jubilee and then turn around and do the same billion for a coronation within 6 months. Especially when the Brits can't even afford to heat/cool their homes.

[twitter]. https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1532261042750988289[/twitter]

I doubt Charles will do a big coronation.

I bet once she’s dead there will be a lot less grandeur. This was the last big hurrah.

Charles didn’t wait all this time to have a small coronation. He might not do it right away
But he’ll have a big one AND he’s going to have Camilla as Queen Consort. I bet a big part of him playing nice with the Sussexes is to get them back on board to participate in any coronation because otherwise it will make him look bad.

He better home mom expires before the next general election, because a labor government isn't footing the bill for that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

More likely holding on for this platinum jubilee.

I wonder if she abdicates after this.

Have you ever listened to her? She's never abdicating and there's no reason to spend $1 billion on a Jubilee and then turn around and do the same billion for a coronation within 6 months. Especially when the Brits can't even afford to heat/cool their homes.

[twitter]. https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1532261042750988289[/twitter]

I doubt Charles will do a big coronation.

I bet once she’s dead there will be a lot less grandeur. This was the last big hurrah.

Big or small its still expensive - with multiple celebrations across the (remaining) realms. The little book the palace put out just for the Jubilee cost $12 million by itself.

Ok. It can be much smaller and not cost $1B.

+1. And while this woman makes a point, I think there's this sentiment that if you get rid of the BRF then all these issues dissolve and miraculously the British class system simply melts away. It's a convenient scapegoat.

I mean if you're no longer paying a single family $100 million a year for random appearances - then yeah a lot of issues dissolve. Its always funny to me that the Prime Minister lives in a tiny 2-bedroom flat (and the Treasury Secretary gets an astonishing 4-bedrooms!) while the Queen has a 100-bedroom palace sitting empty. The two were fighting over those tiny spaces and the incoming Foreign? Secretary had a dispute with the fired one over a country estate that they could use. Issues like that would dissipate. And if the inheritance of these 30,000 acre estates for aristos was legally forced to be divided between the 3-5 kids they have instead of the first-born, those estates would be open to the public within 2 generations.

Reforming inheritance taxes so that you can't just dodge them with trusts would break up a lot of the old holdings in a couple of generations. Just thanking the aristocracy for their service and then nationalizing and then auctioning off their heredity holdings would do it much faster.

They already did that. That's why the royals and peers are mostly broke.

Not sure what good getting rid of the aristocracy would do. Would you just bulldoze all those palaces and castles? Or would you pay for the upkeep, which is really expensive?

No more Buckingham Palace? What good would that do?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/duke-of-westminster-son-avoids-inheritance-tax-billions-britains-richest-men-family-trusts-rules-gerald-cavendish-grosvenor-hugh-grosvenor-a7998246.html


The reformed it two hundred years ago, the smart ones have avoided it ever since. Most of the viable listed country houses are still around because of tourism. There is no reason that they couldnt be sold at auction. Versailles get more tourism and generates more revenue than Buckingham palace because there is no family still occupying it.

[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.

They also completely fail to recognise their own hypocrisy. Anyone who owns a mobile phone should know they are ostensibly supporting modern slavery as rechargeable lithium batteries contain cobalt and 60% comes from the DRC where people, including an estimated 35,000 CHILDREN, work in appalling conditions akin to slavery. So it’s a bit rich to criticise some stupid carriage made donkey’s years ago but not feel a twinge of guilt when you hear the ping of an incoming text.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

More likely holding on for this platinum jubilee.

I wonder if she abdicates after this.

Have you ever listened to her? She's never abdicating and there's no reason to spend $1 billion on a Jubilee and then turn around and do the same billion for a coronation within 6 months. Especially when the Brits can't even afford to heat/cool their homes.

[twitter]. https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1532261042750988289[/twitter]

I doubt Charles will do a big coronation.

I bet once she’s dead there will be a lot less grandeur. This was the last big hurrah.

Big or small its still expensive - with multiple celebrations across the (remaining) realms. The little book the palace put out just for the Jubilee cost $12 million by itself.

Ok. It can be much smaller and not cost $1B.

+1. And while this woman makes a point, I think there's this sentiment that if you get rid of the BRF then all these issues dissolve and miraculously the British class system simply melts away. It's a convenient scapegoat.

I mean if you're no longer paying a single family $100 million a year for random appearances - then yeah a lot of issues dissolve. Its always funny to me that the Prime Minister lives in a tiny 2-bedroom flat (and the Treasury Secretary gets an astonishing 4-bedrooms!) while the Queen has a 100-bedroom palace sitting empty. The two were fighting over those tiny spaces and the incoming Foreign? Secretary had a dispute with the fired one over a country estate that they could use. Issues like that would dissipate. And if the inheritance of these 30,000 acre estates for aristos was legally forced to be divided between the 3-5 kids they have instead of the first-born, those estates would be open to the public within 2 generations.

Reforming inheritance taxes so that you can't just dodge them with trusts would break up a lot of the old holdings in a couple of generations. Just thanking the aristocracy for their service and then nationalizing and then auctioning off their heredity holdings would do it much faster.

They already did that. That's why the royals and peers are mostly broke.

Not sure what good getting rid of the aristocracy would do. Would you just bulldoze all those palaces and castles? Or would you pay for the upkeep, which is really expensive?

No more Buckingham Palace? What good would that do?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/duke-of-westminster-son-avoids-inheritance-tax-billions-britains-richest-men-family-trusts-rules-gerald-cavendish-grosvenor-hugh-grosvenor-a7998246.html


The reformed it two hundred years ago, the smart ones have avoided it ever since. Most of the viable listed country houses are still around because of tourism. There is no reason that they couldnt be sold at auction. Versailles get more tourism and generates more revenue than Buckingham palace because there is no family still occupying it.

You mean after the Buckingham Palace renovation?

[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.

They also completely fail to recognise their own hypocrisy. Anyone who owns a mobile phone should know they are ostensibly supporting modern slavery as rechargeable lithium batteries contain cobalt and 60% comes from the DRC where people, including an estimated 35,000 CHILDREN, work in appalling conditions akin to slavery. So it’s a bit rich to criticise some stupid carriage made donkey’s years ago but not feel a twinge of guilt when you hear the ping of an incoming text.

I don't envy the British. Having to defend your current Queen being a literal colonizer and her Uncle, the earl of Mountbatten, being responsible for the partition of India which resulted in devastating consequences, and the family sitting on a billion-dollars while their people starve and UNICEF feeds its children.

Hell, up until her last son was born 'ethnic minorities' were banned from being hired by Buckingham Palace.

It must be exhausting defending all this.

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

More likely holding on for this platinum jubilee.

I wonder if she abdicates after this.

Have you ever listened to her? She's never abdicating and there's no reason to spend $1 billion on a Jubilee and then turn around and do the same billion for a coronation within 6 months. Especially when the Brits can't even afford to heat/cool their homes.

[twitter]. https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1532261042750988289[/twitter]

I doubt Charles will do a big coronation.

I bet once she’s dead there will be a lot less grandeur. This was the last big hurrah.

Big or small its still expensive - with multiple celebrations across the (remaining) realms. The little book the palace put out just for the Jubilee cost $12 million by itself.

Ok. It can be much smaller and not cost $1B.

+1. And while this woman makes a point, I think there's this sentiment that if you get rid of the BRF then all these issues dissolve and miraculously the British class system simply melts away. It's a convenient scapegoat.

I mean if you're no longer paying a single family $100 million a year for random appearances - then yeah a lot of issues dissolve. Its always funny to me that the Prime Minister lives in a tiny 2-bedroom flat (and the Treasury Secretary gets an astonishing 4-bedrooms!) while the Queen has a 100-bedroom palace sitting empty. The two were fighting over those tiny spaces and the incoming Foreign? Secretary had a dispute with the fired one over a country estate that they could use. Issues like that would dissipate. And if the inheritance of these 30,000 acre estates for aristos was legally forced to be divided between the 3-5 kids they have instead of the first-born, those estates would be open to the public within 2 generations.

Reforming inheritance taxes so that you can't just dodge them with trusts would break up a lot of the old holdings in a couple of generations. Just thanking the aristocracy for their service and then nationalizing and then auctioning off their heredity holdings would do it much faster.

They already did that. That's why the royals and peers are mostly broke.

Not sure what good getting rid of the aristocracy would do. Would you just bulldoze all those palaces and castles? Or would you pay for the upkeep, which is really expensive?

No more Buckingham Palace? What good would that do?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/duke-of-westminster-son-avoids-inheritance-tax-billions-britains-richest-men-family-trusts-rules-gerald-cavendish-grosvenor-hugh-grosvenor-a7998246.html


The reformed it two hundred years ago, the smart ones have avoided it ever since. Most of the viable listed country houses are still around because of tourism. There is no reason that they couldnt be sold at auction. Versailles get more tourism and generates more revenue than Buckingham palace because there is no family still occupying it.

You mean after the Buckingham Palace renovation?

Maybe that will finish while lizzy is still alive and she can gift it to the country.

[Anonymous]

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

It's not solid gold. It's teak covered with gold.