Queen Elizabeth Platinum Jubilee

[Anonymous]

She’s the queen. And it’s her party. She can do whatever TF she wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They projected holograms on Stonehenge. Bizarre.

That's actually pretty awesome. Projecting pictures onto buildings is something that we have barely started to do here, and we should do more of it. It's cool, it's art, it's temporary, what's not to like?

We saw it in Berlin in 2019. It is very cool and I wish we did more of it, particularly in Washington with its large white edifices.

[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.

So it this your resignation from Anglophilia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of the other European royals preen like this?

Yes, but the other countries with functional royals are not as significant as Britain so people don't care as much. If France or Germany had working royals, I think they'd also get this kind of attention, but they don't. People just don't care that much when the monarchies in the Netherlands or Luxembourg get up to shenanigans. Spain is the probably the closest and they don't even come close to having the reach or influence of Britain.

But yes, all monarchies preen, it's pretty much their entire job.

Can't we stop raining on the parade? 70 years at a job is worth celebrating! You don't like it? Don't comment and don't watch! If American and don't care why are you posting?

Well I mean...nothing went right. Wasn't this supposed to be a celebration of the Queen and her three heirs? Heir 3 and 4 aren't even in most of the shots...

Instead Louis' seriously unimpressed face stole the show.

Those are great pics. Louis is a (great) grandchild - he's not stealing the show, he is the show.

He was waving to all the helicopters and planes, which was cute.

He spent most of the time frowning/upset or talking to the Queen who was twisting and interacting with him - can't be rude after all.

Standing on the balcony like that had to be exhausting. They should have had an elevated chair for her. She's the Queen. No one would mind if she were on a "throne" on the balcony instead of standing.

She did look like she was genuinely enjoying herself, though.

I doubt she could make it up any stairs to a chair (which would need to visible over the ramparts) and unless they were going to block off the entire balcony with curtains - cameras would have captured her every agonizing movement trying to get to the chair.

Anyway, anyone under 8 should have been situated at the end and the children old enough to stand still and stare straight up/ahead - or dare I say the heir - should have been standing side-by-side with her. Less required movement on her end and she could focus on the celebration.

[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.

I am you except I'm going to go ahead and be diverted by it. I am in the worst headspace right now and this is exactly the kind of distraction I can embrace. Even with all the stuff I find distasteful. Andrew has been banned from the festivities (good, but they should go a step further and put him in jail) so at least I don't have to watch him preen around. I actually feel bad for his daughters. I have abusive/neglectful parents so I often feel bad for kids in this situation, unless the grow up to be their parents (which sadly happens).

Harry and Meghan will be there and I do actually want to see how they are treated. I won't read any of the trash British tabloids coverage of them, but I'm curious how they will be received and how they will interact with the family.

The whole this IS anti-modern and I feel it's all on its way out, which is for the best. But if I can spend a weekend looking at pictures of the last gasps of the last actually-powerful British monarchy, and it brings me a shred of joy in a world full of misery, I will take it.

And yes, I love the dogs.

Goodness, what a lot to unpack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else they’re putting a hologram in a solid gold state coach for the festivities? The level of Hunger Games is just astonishing…

This thing needs to be melted down.

Wood doesn't melt it burns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They projected holograms on Stonehenge. Bizarre.

That's actually pretty awesome. Projecting pictures onto buildings is something that we have barely started to do here, and we should do more of it. It's cool, it's art, it's temporary, what's not to like?

We saw it in Berlin in 2019. It is very cool and I wish we did more of it, particularly in Washington with its large white edifices.

National history and idolatry are two different things. D.C. projects cool national attractions on the monuments all the time.

[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.

Which is…exactly what the PP said.

You must have not reached your A Levels. The poster wondered where the raw material for the coach was "looted from." The response was from India and Africa. Real estate is not raw materials -- or perhaps one of your thinks it may be.

[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.

Which is…exactly what the PP said.

You must have not reached your A Levels. The poster wondered where the raw material for the coach was "looted from." The response was from India and Africa. Real estate is not raw materials -- or perhaps one of your thinks it may be.

Dp. You must not have reached 3rd grade reading comprehension levels. The poster clearly stated "India and Africa, like everything else valuable that they own"

[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.

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?

[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.

What real estate does the BRF own in India?

[Anonymous]

I thought Louis was fine and perfectly age-appropriate. His public appearances with the Queen are numbered and they probably erred on the side of bringing him for that reason.

[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.

They...carved four President's faces into stone on a mountain that was promised to Native Americans in a treaty the US Government reneged on.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

Yes, this. It was explained quite clearly.