Queen Elizabeth II

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Something doesn’t sit right when he says “he plans to serve with loyalty, respect and love”, sure King Charles, since when?

He was talking about serving Camilla.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something doesn’t sit right when he says “he plans to serve with loyalty, respect and love”, sure King Charles, since when?

He's done a lot of work. Plus he's trying to take over where his mother left off.

If you think of how he behaved in his marriage to Diana, having respect, love and loyalty seems like a bad joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden says he is going to the funeral. I wonder if other former POTUSs will go.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-will-attend-queen-elizabeth-ii-funeral/

somehow I bet Donald will not get an invite

I suspect all but him will be invited. Especially the Obamas. It’s a state event.

Unfortunately the Queen was not like that. She would have invited Trump along with everyone else.

Not after he disrespected her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

I dunno about that - the British royals are a billion dollar industry and being in mind boggling amounts of tourist dollars … and for the first time ai ce Queen Victoria, brought a lot of cultural stability …

Queen Elizabeth had a knack for hitting the right balance between public ritual/ majestic rituals/ common touch with people/ public service . She just showed up every day in countless ways to bring a sense of British stiff upper lip normalcy in a rapidly changing world.

Charles is more arrogant and out of touch. I hope he can connect with people in the ways that commonwealth citizens expect of a king, but let’s see . His reign may hasten Republican movements around the commonwealth - or he may prove himself to be honest s mother’s son and find ways to reinvent the monarchy according to changing times …

I doubt Charles will be able to fulfill his mothers role
It just isn’t the same anymore
I doubt that they are the billion dollar industry you say
Funeral will cost millions, coronation too
Charles will likely reign for just a decade at the most

Then what?
William is plain and boring

Note: No one expects bipolar creativity for the British royals. William and his wife Kate have amazing social skills and connect with its many different types of people.

Regarding royal Boost to British economy - not insignificant and more importantly many British subjects were proud of the modern form
Of monarchy (hybrid parliamentary-monarchy democracy where royals hold symbolic rather than literal power). The symbols still matter in an ancient living culture ,.,

>>>>>>

Queen Elizabeth II, 95, is the world's most famous monarch, having been on the throne for almost 70 years, and the British Royal Family is known across the globe. While UK taxpayers contribute to the Crown via the Sovereign Grant, the Royal Household also brings in plenty of cash to help boost Britain's economy - and the figure amounts to some billions of pounds.


How much money does the Royal Family bring in?
According to Forbes Magazine, the House of Windsor is estimated to be worth £19 billion ($28 billion) and pumps hundreds of millions of pounds into Britain's economy every year.
According to a financial expert, it is the 1,000-year-old Firm's public perception and influence that makes it so valuable.
Chief executive of Brand Finance David Haigh told Forbes: “It is a very formalized influencer business."

Mr Haigh explained that unlike a celebrity family such as the Kardashians, the Windsors don’t personally profit from the business itself.
However, they contributed an estimated £1.9 billion ($2.7 billion) annually to Britain's economy pre-pandemic.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1437145/how-much-money-does-the-royal-family-bring-in-to-uk-evg

I find it highly unlikely that UK tourism would dwindle to nothing if English royalty went the way of German/French/Italian royalty. It's not like they'd be able to take the big historic castles and palaces with them if they got demoted and refuse to let tourists in to visit them. And it's not like the changing of the guards is the only thing that brings tourists in. Most tourists to the UK never see a royal anyway. The stuff about royal warrants bringing in millions also seems overblown. People would still be buying Johnny Walker and Cadbury without the queen's stamp of approval. I've never heard of the royal warrants before.

A lot of castles abandoned and falling apart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden says he is going to the funeral. I wonder if other former POTUSs will go.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-will-attend-queen-elizabeth-ii-funeral/

somehow I bet Donald will not get an invite

I suspect all but him will be invited. Especially the Obamas. It’s a state event.

I don’t think the Brits will want to start off with a diplomatic row. They’ll probably invite only Biden.

I would fully expect a U.S. delegation that includes past presidents, at least one Republican and one Democratic. It's about showing respect, not whether you like them personally or not. Makes sense to invite the Trumps and Obamas.

The Bushs and Obamas will do just fine.

Gah, I hope Michelle doesn't try to hug her in death!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the family drama aside, I can’t help but feel a bit sad about the queen’s passing. I thought the quote from Boris Johnson, of all people!, was on point:

“This is our country's saddest day. In the hearts of every
one of us there is an ache at the passing of our Queen,
a deep and personal sense of loss - far more intense,
perhaps, than we expected.”

https://mobile.twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1567941080796078085

One can always tell an Eton Head Boy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

I dunno about that - the British royals are a billion dollar industry and being in mind boggling amounts of tourist dollars … and for the first time ai ce Queen Victoria, brought a lot of cultural stability …

Queen Elizabeth had a knack for hitting the right balance between public ritual/ majestic rituals/ common touch with people/ public service . She just showed up every day in countless ways to bring a sense of British stiff upper lip normalcy in a rapidly changing world.

Charles is more arrogant and out of touch. I hope he can connect with people in the ways that commonwealth citizens expect of a king, but let’s see . His reign may hasten Republican movements around the commonwealth - or he may prove himself to be honest s mother’s son and find ways to reinvent the monarchy according to changing times …

I doubt Charles will be able to fulfill his mothers role
It just isn’t the same anymore
I doubt that they are the billion dollar industry you say
Funeral will cost millions, coronation too
Charles will likely reign for just a decade at the most

Then what?
William is plain and boring

Note: No one expects bipolar creativity for the British royals. William and his wife Kate have amazing social skills and connect with its many different types of people.

Regarding royal Boost to British economy - not insignificant and more importantly many British subjects were proud of the modern form
Of monarchy (hybrid parliamentary-monarchy democracy where royals hold symbolic rather than literal power). The symbols still matter in an ancient living culture ,.,

>>>>>>

Queen Elizabeth II, 95, is the world's most famous monarch, having been on the throne for almost 70 years, and the British Royal Family is known across the globe. While UK taxpayers contribute to the Crown via the Sovereign Grant, the Royal Household also brings in plenty of cash to help boost Britain's economy - and the figure amounts to some billions of pounds.


How much money does the Royal Family bring in?
According to Forbes Magazine, the House of Windsor is estimated to be worth £19 billion ($28 billion) and pumps hundreds of millions of pounds into Britain's economy every year.
According to a financial expert, it is the 1,000-year-old Firm's public perception and influence that makes it so valuable.
Chief executive of Brand Finance David Haigh told Forbes: “It is a very formalized influencer business."

Mr Haigh explained that unlike a celebrity family such as the Kardashians, the Windsors don’t personally profit from the business itself.
However, they contributed an estimated £1.9 billion ($2.7 billion) annually to Britain's economy pre-pandemic.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1437145/how-much-money-does-the-royal-family-bring-in-to-uk-evg

I find it highly unlikely that UK tourism would dwindle to nothing if English royalty went the way of German/French/Italian royalty. It's not like they'd be able to take the big historic castles and palaces with them if they got demoted and refuse to let tourists in to visit them. And it's not like the changing of the guards is the only thing that brings tourists in. Most tourists to the UK never see a royal anyway. The stuff about royal warrants bringing in millions also seems overblown. People would still be buying Johnny Walker and Cadbury without the queen's stamp of approval. I've never heard of the royal warrants before.

A lot of castles abandoned and falling apart.

Have you never toured an abandoned castle? They are quite fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

I dunno about that - the British royals are a billion dollar industry and being in mind boggling amounts of tourist dollars … and for the first time ai ce Queen Victoria, brought a lot of cultural stability …

Queen Elizabeth had a knack for hitting the right balance between public ritual/ majestic rituals/ common touch with people/ public service . She just showed up every day in countless ways to bring a sense of British stiff upper lip normalcy in a rapidly changing world.

Charles is more arrogant and out of touch. I hope he can connect with people in the ways that commonwealth citizens expect of a king, but let’s see . His reign may hasten Republican movements around the commonwealth - or he may prove himself to be honest s mother’s son and find ways to reinvent the monarchy according to changing times …

I doubt Charles will be able to fulfill his mothers role
It just isn’t the same anymore
I doubt that they are the billion dollar industry you say
Funeral will cost millions, coronation too
Charles will likely reign for just a decade at the most

Then what?
William is plain and boring

Note: No one expects bipolar creativity for the British royals. William and his wife Kate have amazing social skills and connect with its many different types of people.

Regarding royal Boost to British economy - not insignificant and more importantly many British subjects were proud of the modern form
Of monarchy (hybrid parliamentary-monarchy democracy where royals hold symbolic rather than literal power). The symbols still matter in an ancient living culture ,.,

>>>>>>

Queen Elizabeth II, 95, is the world's most famous monarch, having been on the throne for almost 70 years, and the British Royal Family is known across the globe. While UK taxpayers contribute to the Crown via the Sovereign Grant, the Royal Household also brings in plenty of cash to help boost Britain's economy - and the figure amounts to some billions of pounds.


How much money does the Royal Family bring in?
According to Forbes Magazine, the House of Windsor is estimated to be worth £19 billion ($28 billion) and pumps hundreds of millions of pounds into Britain's economy every year.
According to a financial expert, it is the 1,000-year-old Firm's public perception and influence that makes it so valuable.
Chief executive of Brand Finance David Haigh told Forbes: “It is a very formalized influencer business."

Mr Haigh explained that unlike a celebrity family such as the Kardashians, the Windsors don’t personally profit from the business itself.
However, they contributed an estimated £1.9 billion ($2.7 billion) annually to Britain's economy pre-pandemic.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1437145/how-much-money-does-the-royal-family-bring-in-to-uk-evg

I find it highly unlikely that UK tourism would dwindle to nothing if English royalty went the way of German/French/Italian royalty. It's not like they'd be able to take the big historic castles and palaces with them if they got demoted and refuse to let tourists in to visit them. And it's not like the changing of the guards is the only thing that brings tourists in. Most tourists to the UK never see a royal anyway. The stuff about royal warrants bringing in millions also seems overblown. People would still be buying Johnny Walker and Cadbury without the queen's stamp of approval. I've never heard of the royal warrants before.

Tend to agree with this. The monarchy will always be the UKs legacy, but it is no longer relevant. The Queen was the monarchy. She was the last vestige of the integrity it represented. Now it’s just an episode of real housewives of Windsor.

We can’t know for sure except that common sense tells us that nothing happens overnight (except for 45’s denigration of US popular discourse into course rabble Rousing) … Charles III’s lack of social skills and popular appeal would lead most likely lead to gradual chipping away at the dignified but human mystique of the British royalty… hope Charles can miraculously cut it late in life but I really think he should retire as early as possible and let William and Kate lead the way. He won’t of course. I hope the damage to the British royalty will be minimal but as a commonwealth citizen, I know that he has been unpopular for decades.

Long alive the King’s retirement !

Charles will cut lose the Commonwealth countries as quickly as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone here is so sure of their own facts when so many of them are wrong. Can’t you even google before you post something that makes you look stupid?

Well said!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

I dunno about that - the British royals are a billion dollar industry and being in mind boggling amounts of tourist dollars … and for the first time ai ce Queen Victoria, brought a lot of cultural stability …

Queen Elizabeth had a knack for hitting the right balance between public ritual/ majestic rituals/ common touch with people/ public service . She just showed up every day in countless ways to bring a sense of British stiff upper lip normalcy in a rapidly changing world.

Charles is more arrogant and out of touch. I hope he can connect with people in the ways that commonwealth citizens expect of a king, but let’s see . His reign may hasten Republican movements around the commonwealth - or he may prove himself to be honest s mother’s son and find ways to reinvent the monarchy according to changing times …

Please forgive all the typos and auto correct nonsense …

Auto correct nonsense isn't the only nonsense about your post. I was born and raised in a country that is officially a commonwealth member and, no one expects anything from charles or any royal for that matter . The commonwealth isn't what you think it is.

To pretend that the royal family is responsible for generating substantial amount of tourism money is, quite frankly, offensively ignorant of you. The french monarchy came to an end in 1848 , that hasn't stopped the palace of versailles from attracting 15 million tourists per year .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also are her and William even together? It’s incredibly bizarre that she’s not with the rest of the family and also wasn’t at the Diana statute unveiling. It’s like every event that is important to William she’s MIA.

She was also not at the Diana statue unveiling. Maybe pass that because it’s public but why wouldn’t you be with your husband with his grandmother dying? Sophie and Camilla were there.

Because the Queen was already dead and they had just dropped the children off for the first day of school. She needed to be there to pick them up and be with them for all of the stuff that is about to follow. With the exception of William and Harry - who were/were now about to be the children of a King — no other grandchildren or great-grandchildren were there. It’s not nefarious - this is part of a very-long planned out national event which it sounds like moved very quickly and didn’t have as much notice as people had presumed would happen.

Sophie and Edward also have minor children. If they were already dropped off that makes even less sense as seems super easy to have Nanny Maria pick them up. It’s not like his grandmother dies every day seems kind of unhealthy to decline to be supportive for even one day for a school run. Either she didn’t care to go or he didn’t want her there.

Prince Edward is her actual child. William is her grandchild. His kids are her great grandchildren. So big difference.

I heard on the news that her children had gathered near at the end. Not the entire family.

It does not seem odd for a granddaughter-in-law to not show up at the bedside. What is a little odd is for the second son of the future king to not be able to travel to Scotland on the same military jet his brother took. Does it have to do with Harry not being able to use public resources? They couldn't stop being paranoid about whether he would share details about the experience or what people would say in his memoir? Harry should have been treated as an equal to William by his father in this particular private situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

I dunno about that - the British royals are a billion dollar industry and being in mind boggling amounts of tourist dollars … and for the first time ai ce Queen Victoria, brought a lot of cultural stability …

Queen Elizabeth had a knack for hitting the right balance between public ritual/ majestic rituals/ common touch with people/ public service . She just showed up every day in countless ways to bring a sense of British stiff upper lip normalcy in a rapidly changing world.

Charles is more arrogant and out of touch. I hope he can connect with people in the ways that commonwealth citizens expect of a king, but let’s see . His reign may hasten Republican movements around the commonwealth - or he may prove himself to be honest s mother’s son and find ways to reinvent the monarchy according to changing times …

I doubt Charles will be able to fulfill his mothers role
It just isn’t the same anymore
I doubt that they are the billion dollar industry you say
Funeral will cost millions, coronation too
Charles will likely reign for just a decade at the most

Then what?
William is plain and boring

Note: No one expects bipolar creativity for the British royals. William and his wife Kate have amazing social skills and connect with its many different types of people.

Regarding royal Boost to British economy - not insignificant and more importantly many British subjects were proud of the modern form
Of monarchy (hybrid parliamentary-monarchy democracy where royals hold symbolic rather than literal power). The symbols still matter in an ancient living culture ,.,

>>>>>>

Queen Elizabeth II, 95, is the world's most famous monarch, having been on the throne for almost 70 years, and the British Royal Family is known across the globe. While UK taxpayers contribute to the Crown via the Sovereign Grant, the Royal Household also brings in plenty of cash to help boost Britain's economy - and the figure amounts to some billions of pounds.


How much money does the Royal Family bring in?
According to Forbes Magazine, the House of Windsor is estimated to be worth £19 billion ($28 billion) and pumps hundreds of millions of pounds into Britain's economy every year.
According to a financial expert, it is the 1,000-year-old Firm's public perception and influence that makes it so valuable.
Chief executive of Brand Finance David Haigh told Forbes: “It is a very formalized influencer business."

Mr Haigh explained that unlike a celebrity family such as the Kardashians, the Windsors don’t personally profit from the business itself.
However, they contributed an estimated £1.9 billion ($2.7 billion) annually to Britain's economy pre-pandemic.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1437145/how-much-money-does-the-royal-family-bring-in-to-uk-evg

I find it highly unlikely that UK tourism would dwindle to nothing if English royalty went the way of German/French/Italian royalty. It's not like they'd be able to take the big historic castles and palaces with them if they got demoted and refuse to let tourists in to visit them. And it's not like the changing of the guards is the only thing that brings tourists in. Most tourists to the UK never see a royal anyway. The stuff about royal warrants bringing in millions also seems overblown. People would still be buying Johnny Walker and Cadbury without the queen's stamp of approval. I've never heard of the royal warrants before.

Tend to agree with this. The monarchy will always be the UKs legacy, but it is no longer relevant. The Queen was the monarchy. She was the last vestige of the integrity it represented. Now it’s just an episode of real housewives of Windsor.

We can’t know for sure except that common sense tells us that nothing happens overnight (except for 45’s denigration of US popular discourse into course rabble Rousing) … Charles III’s lack of social skills and popular appeal would lead most likely lead to gradual chipping away at the dignified but human mystique of the British royalty… hope Charles can miraculously cut it late in life but I really think he should retire as early as possible and let William and Kate lead the way. He won’t of course. I hope the damage to the British royalty will be minimal but as a commonwealth citizen, I know that he has been unpopular for decades.

Long alive the King’s retirement !

Charles will cut lose the Commonwealth countries as quickly as possible.

Another matter-of-factly statement by someone who has no clue what they're blabbing about .

[Anonymous]

This was amazing!

https://twitter.com/davidmackau/status/1567894552744271872?s=20&t=vpVCbTw9MzQYNn_UrEPGcw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone here is so sure of their own facts when so many of them are wrong. Can’t you even google before you post something that makes you look stupid?

1000% so many dolts on here royalsplaining like they’re some expert when it’s clear they have no clue what they are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also are her and William even together? It’s incredibly bizarre that she’s not with the rest of the family and also wasn’t at the Diana statute unveiling. It’s like every event that is important to William she’s MIA.

She was also not at the Diana statue unveiling. Maybe pass that because it’s public but why wouldn’t you be with your husband with his grandmother dying? Sophie and Camilla were there.

Because the Queen was already dead and they had just dropped the children off for the first day of school. She needed to be there to pick them up and be with them for all of the stuff that is about to follow. With the exception of William and Harry - who were/were now about to be the children of a King — no other grandchildren or great-grandchildren were there. It’s not nefarious - this is part of a very-long planned out national event which it sounds like moved very quickly and didn’t have as much notice as people had presumed would happen.

Sophie and Edward also have minor children. If they were already dropped off that makes even less sense as seems super easy to have Nanny Maria pick them up. It’s not like his grandmother dies every day seems kind of unhealthy to decline to be supportive for even one day for a school run. Either she didn’t care to go or he didn’t want her there.

Prince Edward is her actual child. William is her grandchild. His kids are her great grandchildren. So big difference.

I heard on the news that her children had gathered near at the end. Not the entire family.

It does not seem odd for a granddaughter-in-law to not show up at the bedside. What is a little odd is for the second son of the future king to not be able to travel to Scotland on the same military jet his brother took. Does it have to do with Harry not being able to use public resources? They couldn't stop being paranoid about whether he would share details about the experience or what people would say in his memoir? Harry should have been treated as an equal to William by his father in this particular private situation.

He was treated as an equal. maybe he didn’t want to go on the jet, or maybe he had a bad stomach or maybe he and Meghan were unsure of what to do and hesitated before the plane took off. Not sure why you jump to the conclusion that poor Harry was maligned when you literally have no idea.