Queen Elizabeth Platinum Jubilee

[Anonymous]

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.

Meghan is fine, just fine. She was not treated any differently. She wanted drama and desperately to live in the US.

[Anonymous]

How come Harry and his fam were on the balcony for the trooping of the colors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The teak was likely looted from their Indian holdings

[Anonymous]

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.

Meghan is fine, just fine. She was not treated any differently. She wanted drama and desperately to live in the US.

+1

All she had to do to still be a working royal and a major part of this day was stay. Or just return after fleeing to Canada/California. She wanted to live in the US. As did Harry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn’t William on Elizabeth’s immediate left instead of Kate on the balcony? Symmetry lovers are scarred by this.

Yeah, it was strange. It looked like George paused for Louis to move over but when he didn't, his father nudged him over to where the Wessexs was standing and William followed him. I imagine Kate was tasked with minding Louis so that left them off-balance. He was constantly distracting the Queen which was funny to see but what can you do...

Their places on the balcony are planned WAY in advance. No one was nudged into a new spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wasn’t William on Elizabeth’s immediate left instead of Kate on the balcony? Symmetry lovers are scarred by this.

Yeah, it was strange. It looked like George paused for Louis to move over but when he didn't, his father nudged him over to where the Wessexs was standing and William followed him. I imagine Kate was tasked with minding Louis so that left them off-balance. He was constantly distracting the Queen which was funny to see but what can you do...

Their places on the balcony are planned WAY in advance. No one was nudged into a new spot.

Umm William nudged Kate over at the second to last pre-Covid balcony and this balcony appearance Camilla pushed Charles over to his mother (where he should have been in the first place).

[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.

Her kids have two parents. Not just one. And they were in boarding school most of the year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How come Harry and his fam were on the balcony for the trooping of the colors?

I think you’re asking why they were not on the balcony. They were not there because they are not part of the working royal family. Only working royal family members were on the balcony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The teak was likely looted from their Indian holdings

You have no way of knowing that so Shut up.

I'm sure it was ethically sourced from a plantation that treated their workers totally humanely and happily paid living wages. The British Empire had those when this thing was built, right?

[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.

I'm trying to stay out of this b/c it's off-topic, but if I were a British taxpayer I think I'd rather some government support or inheritance laws go to keeping these properties in the hands of Britons or the government over auctioning them off to foreign oligarchs.

[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.

I'm trying to stay out of this b/c it's off-topic, but if I were a British taxpayer I think I'd rather some government support or inheritance laws go to keeping these properties in the hands of Britons or the government over auctioning them off to foreign oligarchs.

That's not very capitalist of you. Foreign oligarchs are the rightful owners of everything, since they have so much excess wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The teak was likely looted from their Indian holdings

You have no way of knowing that so Shut up.

I'm sure it was ethically sourced from a plantation that treated their workers totally humanely and happily paid living wages. The British Empire had those when this thing was built, right?

Is there anything built, erected, or made for the wealthy in any country or continent where the workers were treated in a yotally humane manner and paid living wages?

[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?

We are, frankly. This country treated the natives here horribly. How do you not understand that???

[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.

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.

Totally agree - I think most people realize that she was seriously flawed and was an equal contributor to all the drama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How are her clothes so unflattering?