Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Windsors => Topic started by: Ena on June 12, 2006, 07:47:43 PM

Title: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Ena on June 12, 2006, 07:47:43 PM
I know that her late immediate family (George VI, Queen Mother and Margaret) used to call her by this name.  What other members of the family are allowed to call her by her childhood nickname today?

Just curious.  :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Cunarder on June 13, 2006, 12:48:13 AM
I can't imagine that anyone has called her that name in decades.  I do remember seeing a pic of a family photo Christmas card she sent to her uncle, the Duke of Windsor, sometime in the 1960's, in which she signed herself as "Lilibet."  Any evidence that the Queen Mother and Margaret addressed her as such?  But you do raise an interesting question.  How does her immediate family address her?   For her children, is it "Mum?" or "Ma'am?"   I would guess that she's not the stickler for royal protocol that her grandmother was.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on June 13, 2006, 03:47:05 AM
The closest members of the Queen's family - her parents, Princess Margaret, Prince Philip and those who grew up with her called her by her nickname "Lilibet".

Her governess, Marion Crawford used it also, I think.  As far as I know, the only non-family member to call her Lilibet in her adult years was Elizabeth's long time dresser and companion, "Bobo" who died some years ago.

She is "Mama" to her children.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Yseult on June 13, 2006, 04:02:28 AM
The king of Spain also calls her Lilibeth, as appears in the bio writted by Villalonga ;)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Morecambrian on June 13, 2006, 11:35:50 AM
No doubt her first cousins such as the Kents,Gloucesters and the Hon Mrs Rhodes still in private give her the affectionate nickname.Would think too that Margarethe of Denmark and Constantine and Anne-Marie of Greece would be among the selected few who are allowed this intimacy.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Zanthia on June 13, 2006, 11:45:06 AM
That's is very likely, when they're in private. Queen Margrethe have always been "Daisy" for her family. Royals have almost always adressed each other by their nicknames. I'm very sure that Phillip calls her Lilibet in private.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Leuchtenberg on June 13, 2006, 05:32:57 PM
Quote
No doubt her first cousins such as the Kents,Gloucesters and the Hon Mrs Rhodes still in private give her the affectionate nickname.Would think too that Margarethe of Denmark and Constantine and Anne-Marie of Greece would be among the selected few who are allowed this intimacy.


In addition:

The King of Norway and his sisters have always used Lilibet when talking to her.   It seems likely Queen Sonja also calls The Queen Lilibet.  I heard that Martha-Louise uses Lilibet, so I would assume Crown Prince Haakon does as well.  No idea about the Crown Princess of Norway.

Crown Prince Alexander calls her Lilibet.  King Michael, Queen Anne, and their daughters also use Lilibet.

Countess Mountbatten and Lady Pamela Hicks address The Queen as Lilibet in private.  As does The Duke of Fife.  None of their spouses used such familiarity, although Lord Braburne called the Duke of Edinburgh  Philip.

Princess Michael of Kent calls The Queen only Ma'am, even in private and it's possible the same goes for The Duchess of Kent and The Duchess of Gloucester.

I recall reading somewhere that the late Princess Juliana of the Netherlands called The Queen Lilibet, but that Beatrix addresses her as Elizabeth.

There was a private party a couple of years ago and among the guests were The Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, and a Romanov prince.  I can't recall which one it was. (Nicholas Romanovitch??)    During an interview since that time, the Prince was asked how he addressed The Queen and her husband to which the Prince replied, "As Ma'am and Sir, of course."  The Prince said that he is on very social terms with Prince Michael of Kent whom he addresses as "Michael".

I do not remember the reason or the nature of the interview, but perhaps someone here might.  Marlene seems to be more up on such things.






Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Cunarder on June 14, 2006, 01:33:33 AM
I'm sure you all remember HM's Golden Jubilee celebration.  Prince Charles may have given us the definitive answer when to Her Majesty's surprise, and the crowd's delight, he introduced her as, among other titles,  "Mummie." Seems so much more logical that her family refers to her that way, instead of the diminuitive and somewhat now ill-fitting "Lilibet."   But this is only one Yank's speculation.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: emeraldeyes on June 14, 2006, 09:30:29 AM
Quote

Princess Michael of Kent calls The Queen only Ma'am, even in private

Am I the only one who thinks that Princess Michael called The Queen 'Lilibet' once, but never again?   ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Ena on June 14, 2006, 01:50:18 PM
Quote
Quote

Princess Michael of Kent calls The Queen only Ma'am, even in private

Am I the only one who thinks that Princess Michael called The Queen 'Lilibet' once, but never again?   ;D
No, you are not the only one!  ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Viscount on June 14, 2006, 04:25:52 PM
It was reported that when Marina Ogilvy (b 1966) - the only daughter of HRH Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Lady Ogilvy and The Rt Hon Sir Angus Ogilvy fell pregnant out of wedlock, the press had a field day.... and her parents were not too pleased, she wrote to HM The Queen asking for support etc writing to "Dear Cousin Lilibet".

Orchestrated by Marina herself, her photographer boyfriend and fiance persuaded her to dress up in kinky leather with a crown and Throne, she publicly criticised her parents for not publicly supporting her etc. As it happens Marina married the father (Paul Mowatt) - they have since divorced and she has returned to her maiden name.


The Viscount
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Marc on June 14, 2006, 06:09:30 PM
Maybe Princess Alexandra still calles her Lilibet?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on June 15, 2006, 12:39:05 AM
Quote
I'm sure you all remember HM's Golden Jubilee celebration.  Prince Charles may have given us the definitive answer when to Her Majesty's surprise, and the crowd's delight, he introduced her as, among other titles,  "Mummie." Seems so much more logical that her family refers to her that way, instead of the diminuitive and somewhat now ill-fitting "Lilibet."   But this is only one Yank's speculation.

Well, I think the children did call her "Mummie" when younger but on this occasion, I think Charles was rather parodying the way the press has always made him appear a weakling clinging to "Mummie's" skirts.  

Perhaps they do still call her Mummie but at the speech Charles made recently on his mother's 80th birthday, he referred to her as his "darling Mama", so I think this is probably the more used term now.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: TampaBay on June 15, 2006, 06:29:20 AM
Quote
Quote
No doubt her first cousins such as the Kents,Gloucesters and the Hon Mrs Rhodes still in private give her the affectionate nickname.Would think too that Margarethe of Denmark and Constantine and Anne-Marie of Greece would be among the selected few who are allowed this intimacy.


It was a private party a couple of years ago and among the guests were The Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, and a Romanov prince.  I can't recall which one it was. (Nicholas Romanovitch??)    During an interview since that time, the Prince was asked how he addressed The Queen and her husband to which the Prince replied, "As Ma'am and Sir, of course."  The Prince said that he is on very social terms with Prince Michael of Kent whom he addresses as "Michael".

I do not remember the reason or the nature of the interview, but perhaps someone here might.  Marlene seems to be more up on such things.


It was for a Romanov exhibit making a world tour on its London engagement.  Robert Massie chronicled the meeting in one of his books.


TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Keith on June 15, 2006, 02:17:14 PM
Possibly Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah refer to her as Aunt Lillibet??
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ferngully on June 17, 2006, 06:03:17 AM
i like a nickname like that. it seems so affectionate. i'm sure someone somewhere calls her that on a regular basis
selina                       xxxxxxxxxxx
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on June 20, 2007, 08:24:47 AM
The other thread on HM was getting a little bit long so I thought I would start this one by posting some pictures of HM over the last few weeks (from the U.S. tour onwards to Ascot)

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth2.jpg)

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth1.jpg)

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth3.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on June 20, 2007, 08:25:33 AM
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth4.jpg)

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth5.jpg)

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth6.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on June 20, 2007, 08:26:10 AM
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth7.jpg)

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth8.jpg)

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth9.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on June 20, 2007, 08:26:47 AM
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth10.jpg)

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth11.jpg)

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth12.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on June 20, 2007, 08:27:15 AM
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth13.jpg)

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth14.jpg)

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth15.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on June 20, 2007, 02:16:35 PM
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth1-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 20, 2007, 02:24:44 PM
Lovely photos thank you Duke. They really show just how stylish the Queen looks! I wonder where all those hats are stored!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on June 21, 2007, 12:10:22 PM
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth2-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ChristineM on June 21, 2007, 01:28:00 PM
WOW!!!   Thank you, your Grace.   Her Majesty would approve.

tsaria
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 21, 2007, 02:14:16 PM
WOW!!!   Thank you, your Grace.   Her Majesty would approve.

tsaria

I absolutely second your emotion!Wonderfull,Your Grace is most kind.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: TampaBay on June 21, 2007, 07:25:48 PM
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth10.jpg)


This suit needs a hat.  The Queen almost looks naked without a hat or head scarf.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on June 21, 2007, 07:41:32 PM
Quote
This suit needs a hat.  The Queen almost looks naked without a hat or head scarf.

TampaBay

I agree Tampa she does need a nice pink hat, I always thought that the Queen had to wear a scarf, or a hat, or a tiara, or a crown when she went outside.  Does she have to wear something when she goes outside? If you take a look back she always seems to be wearing something on her head, is this custom or just her personal dress style?

-Duke of NJ
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ChristineM on June 22, 2007, 02:31:47 AM
Don't you think that's just because we are SO used to seeing Her Majesty wearing some kind of headgear.

It must be immensely emancipating for her to leave the house bareheaded.

tsaria
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: emeraldeyes on June 22, 2007, 08:41:12 AM
I don't think she wears a hat because she has to per se, it just makes her easier to pick out in a crowd. 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Martyn on June 22, 2007, 08:47:28 AM
Well, we have seen her at various evening engagements without anything on her head for some time.  Perhaps the hatless,scarfless look is an attempt at some small degree of informailty in her public appearances?


I think that she looks great; so fresh and spry and her colours and outfits are always spot on.  Plus what an amazing array of brooches - I suspect that she would feel a bit undressed with the ubiquitous brooches and pearls.  So great to see the Cullinan heart brooch getting so many outings, although I really don't like that enamel thing  with the rose that she is wearing in one of the photos.............. ;)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: emeraldeyes on June 22, 2007, 08:59:23 AM
Ditto that on the rose brooch for me too.  Can't stand the thing.  Uggggleeee!  Where's that thread on Windsor Jewelry We Love to Hate? 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on June 22, 2007, 09:51:20 AM
Hi,

I think that the enamelled rose and diamond brooch is the one that The Queen gave to her mother for her 100th birthday.
I don't mind it, but it's not a favourite of mine either.

I also want to thank the 'Duke of New Jersey' for posting all these great photographs.  It really is heartening and refreshing to see an attractive and happy woman well dressed in public now-a-days.  And, in such great colours too.

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 22, 2007, 11:18:02 AM
Re: The Queen hatless. I do think it looks strange only because we are so used to seeing her with some form of head gear. For a lady her age she has lovely thick silver hair and it's nice to see it without being covered. Has she ever changed her hair style?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on June 22, 2007, 11:34:09 AM
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QE221E.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Martyn on June 22, 2007, 12:02:18 PM
Re: The Queen hatless. I do think it looks strange only because we are so used to seeing her with some form of head gear. For a lady her age she has lovely thick silver hair and it's nice to see it without being covered. Has she ever changed her hair style?

Not appreciably.  Her hairstyle is perfectly compatible with her need to wear both hats and tiaras and hasn't really changed all that much since the 1950's.  The flat crown with curl at the back and edges and the raised brow is a style that is typical of that era, and she obviously feels that it is practical; in addition, it suits her.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on June 22, 2007, 12:59:54 PM
Well, we have seen her at various evening engagements without anything on her head for some time.  Perhaps the hatless,scarfless look is an attempt at some small degree of informailty in her public appearances?


I think that she looks great; so fresh and spry and her colours and outfits are always spot on.  Plus what an amazing array of brooches - I suspect that she would feel a bit undressed with the ubiquitous brooches and pearls.  So great to see the Cullinan heart brooch getting so many outings, although I really don't like that enamel thing  with the rose that she is wearing in one of the photos.............. ;)


I don't like the brooch either. I wouldn't wear it when there are so many goodies to choose from but I suppose there's some sentimental attachment there.

We had discussed the Queen's appearance some time back and I said how wonderful I think she looks these last few years, especially with her bright colors. She pulls them off so well, especially with her white hair, and they are very suitable for her 'job' since it must make her very easy to spot in a crowd or from a distance. (Unlike the washed-out colors Sophie often wears.) She also seems to have the best hats in the family.  :) When you look at some of the photos of the family on other threads, really an 80+ year old woman should not be the best-dressed female in the family!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: TampaBay on June 22, 2007, 05:02:17 PM

Not appreciably.  Her hairstyle is perfectly compatible with her need to wear both hats and tiaras and hasn't really changed all that much since the 1950's.  The flat crown with curl at the back and edges and the raised brow is a style that is typical of that era, and she obviously feels that it is practical; in addition, it suits her.


It suits her!  This is the whole pont of style.  If you wear what looks good on you and works for you no one will ever notice (let alone care) if you are in fashion!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on June 22, 2007, 06:01:31 PM
So right, Tampa, I wish more women would realize this.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on June 22, 2007, 07:10:25 PM
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/QueenElizabeth10.jpg)


This suit needs a hat.  The Queen almost looks naked without a hat or head scarf.

TampaBay


Is it not custom of HM that she went to Chelsea Flower Show without a hat, mostly with a head scarf for wearing it when windy or so... When I recall the last years she did every year so....
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: TampaBay on June 22, 2007, 08:49:45 PM
Shortly after the death of the Diana if someone had told me QEII would become the fashionista of the House of Windsor, I would have ask them what they were smoking and may I have some please.  ;D ;D ;D

QEII has somehow managed to pull off looking regal and age appropriate without looking dowdy as she did in her 40' s and 50's.  Her hats are just enough to make a fashion statement without deviating from her personal style.  Her designer seems to me to be styling her clothes around her jewelry, hats and perfect silver hair.  Even her make-up is perfect.

The queen has always worn "sensible" shoes but her shoes blend in with her outfits instead of sticking out like a sore thumb and ruining the effect.  See the latest photos of Mrs. Timothy Lawrence for a good example of how to ruin a great suit and perfect hat.

Anne really needs to make an appointment with her mother's desinger or stylists or both.  Martyn should really speak to her about this the next time he is in London.

TampaBay

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Arleen on June 23, 2007, 01:37:30 PM
I think that there is an interesting quote in W magazine this month.  It is the column written by Louise J. Esterhazy......she is picking the "style icons" of this generation, she says......."In the end, though, there is only one true icon of style:  none other than the Queen of England.  Why?  Because she has no style.....which is why she has it."

-----and to me that says it ALL.

Arleen
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: TampaBay on June 23, 2007, 01:53:19 PM
I think that there is an interesting quote in W magazine this month.  It is the column written by Louise J. Esterhazy......she is picking the "style icons" of this generation, she says......."In the end, though, there is only one true icon of style:  none other than the Queen of England.  Why?  Because she has no style.....which is why she has it."

-----and to me that says it ALL.

Arleen

I love this column.  It is the first thing I read when I pick up the magazine.

Who else did the Countess name as an Icon of Fashion???  Inquiring Minds want to Know!!!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on June 23, 2007, 01:59:05 PM
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/AqueenElizabeth1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 23, 2007, 02:46:41 PM

Who else did the Countess name as an Icon of Fashion???  Inquiring Minds want to Know!!!

TampaBay

Oh i'm sure i'm included in there somewhere and I know for a fact Kimberly is.

The Queen looks wonderful in the above ensemble.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: TampaBay on June 23, 2007, 02:51:00 PM
I do not care for her brooch.

Why would one wear a basket of flowers when one could wear Martyn's Chips.

When is the Cullinan I and II wore?  Has QEII ever worn them?

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 23, 2007, 03:05:47 PM
I know what you mean TB, but then the Queen would be accused of looking ostentatious!!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: TampaBay on June 23, 2007, 03:37:14 PM
I know what you mean TB, but then the Queen would be accused of looking ostentatious!!

Not at 80 years of age!  We would all cut her some slack.  If she lives to be as old as her mother she has only about 20 more years to enjoy those chips!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 23, 2007, 04:44:06 PM
True TB but then we are her supporters! Think of those awful hypocritical socialists!! Besides aren't the chips more evening peaces? Does the Queen ever wear them as a day peace with her pearls?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: TampaBay on June 23, 2007, 04:46:49 PM
True TB but then we are her supporters! Think of those awful hypocritical socialists!! Besides aren't the chips more evening peaces? Does the Queen ever wear them as a day peace with her pearls?

If those chips were mine, I would wear them each day to the grocery store along with the Vladimir tiara!  ;D ;D ;D

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on June 24, 2007, 03:54:09 AM
True TB but then we are her supporters! Think of those awful hypocritical socialists!! Besides aren't the chips more evening peaces? Does the Queen ever wear them as a day peace with her pearls?

(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/alexander1917/elizabeth2england2.jpg)
I think the larger chips (Cullinan I and II ) were only worn by Queen Mary. HM wore the "Granny's Chips" about 6 times in her life.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: TampaBay on June 24, 2007, 06:47:50 AM
I have a picture in a Field's book of Queen Mary wearing Cullian I & Cullian II on the first state opening of parliament after Edward VII's death.

Impressive!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on June 24, 2007, 08:39:09 AM
For those of us who don't know the difference between Cullinan I and IV:

http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/cullinandiamonds.html

-Duke of NJ

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on June 24, 2007, 01:36:32 PM
From the page the Duke linked to:

(http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/starofafrica2.jpg)

The Cullinan I (aka Star of Africa) can be detached from the royal sceptre to be worn as a brooch or pendant--could you imagine! It's 530.20 carats and with this photo giving a good approximation of the size you can only imagine how heavy it would be.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on June 24, 2007, 06:21:42 PM
HM behind the wheel today:

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/th_E103.jpg) (http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/E103.jpg)

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/th_E102.jpg) (http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/E102.jpg)

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/th_E101.jpg) (http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/E101.jpg)

-Duke of NJ
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on June 24, 2007, 06:22:21 PM
My last post for about a month:

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/E104.jpg)

-Duke of NJ
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on June 24, 2007, 06:24:41 PM
For those of us who don't know the difference between Cullinan I and IV:

http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/cullinandiamonds.html

-Duke of NJ



(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/alexander1917/marybrosche.jpg)

mary wearing both brooches the greater and the lesser stars of africa
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on June 24, 2007, 06:26:35 PM
My last post for about a month:

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/E104.jpg)

-Duke of NJ

Isn't it the outfit HM wore during the service of her golden wedding in 1997?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Martyn on June 25, 2007, 07:30:00 AM
Well, May was never shy when it came to loading herself with diamonds, was she??!!  ;)  You might or might not agree, but I think that she just about gets away with wearing Cullinan I and II as a brooch on that dramatic black outfit......

Having seen 'Granny's' (or rather Martyn's, depending on your perspective... ;)), 'Chips', wen they were exhibited in the Queen's Gallery last year, I can testify that they are impressive and sizeable and few would be able to pull off wearing them as part of a daytime ensemble.  However, the Queen does just that, as illustrated in that photo above.  Perhaps it is due to the fact that brooches are such an integral part of her look; I supect that the simplicity of that dress is a big factor in making the brooch work.....

Tampa, the jardinere flower brooch is actually quite a lovely piece - very delicate and precious.  I had the opportunity to see it at close range last year at BP in the exhibition of the Queen's dresses and jewels, and although very conventional in style, it is a pretty jewel and probably quite valuable.........

Also Tampa,  Mrs Tim Lawrence's fashion habits are perhaps not something that she would probably ever care to take up with me.  I suspect that if our paths ever did cross, like Jennie Bond, I would probably be looking down both barrels of a loaded gun!!!!!  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on June 25, 2007, 11:20:55 AM
During the visit of the Imperial Couple to London, the Cullinan Brooch came to light
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/alexander1917/cullinanbrooch2.jpg)


last seen during the 2002 Jamaica visit

(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/alexander1917/jamaica.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: TampaBay on June 25, 2007, 07:41:39 PM
Well, May was never shy when it came to loading herself with diamonds, was she??!!  ;)  You might or might not agree, but I think that she just about gets away with wearing Cullinan I and II as a brooch on that dramatic black outfit......


The best mourning outfit " I ever did see"!!!  Only Old Diamond Drawers could pull it off!  Full Marks!

The court was still in mourning for Edward VII when Parlimanent was opened.  This is the only Queen Mary dress ever worn by May that reminds me of a Queen Alexanda.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on June 25, 2007, 10:12:51 PM
Just as a side note, they had to wear mourning for next year's Opening of Parliament--the Duke of Fife had just died. Alexandra wore mourning to the OOP in 1902 (Queen Victoria), 1906 (Christian IX) and 1908 (Carlos & Luis of Portugal).

Some favorite photos of EII:

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/EII/HU0609741w.jpg)

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/EII/img158eiiw-1.jpg)

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/EII/HU0059681w.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on June 25, 2007, 10:13:53 PM
A gentlemanly kiss from her son:

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/EII/AADS0015121.jpg)

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/EII/30_11w.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on June 25, 2007, 10:14:16 PM
(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/EII/image264EIIw.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Prince_Lieven on June 26, 2007, 02:57:33 PM
Hey everyone! There's lots of rumours here at the moment that the Queen will make an official state visit to Ireland very soon, the first since our independence. Apparently our President said something like 'conditions now are better than they've ever been for a visit by the Queen' or words to that effect, and she's known to be a very great admirer of HM. Does anyone else know anything about it? Is it 'official' yet? Thanks!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 01, 2007, 02:45:38 AM
HM at the opening of the Scottish Parliament,saturday june 30th:
http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1183207425.html

Courtesy Marianne,BRMB.

HM speech:
http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1183205240.html

courtesy Karen,BRMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Mary R. on July 01, 2007, 06:46:19 PM
What a face! Oh the possible captions! The hat is lovely as usual!
(http://cache.gettyimages.com/xc/74964979.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193FE27433493C03A10D3744BF23EDA93DB)

Mary R.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Mary R. on July 02, 2007, 10:07:01 AM
Her Majesty is said to be a future owner of a Blackberry mobile phone! Prince Andrew, who owns one, convinced his mother of her usefulness.

Here's the article:
http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2007/06/29/queen-blackberry/ (http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2007/06/29/queen-blackberry/)

Mary R.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Mary R. on July 08, 2007, 07:24:46 PM
(http://www.showcook.com/images/Def%20The_Queen__by_Cecil_Beaton._The_White_Drawing_Room_Buckingham_Palace1968..jpg)

Does anyone have a larger version of this picture? Thanks!

Mary R.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 10, 2007, 12:30:38 AM
HM The Queen and HRH the Duke of Edinburgh will attend the Memorial ceremonies at Ypres and Tyne Cot war cemetary at Passendale by invitatition of
TM King Albert II and Queen Paola,thursday july 12th.

HM and the Duke will also visit GlaxoSmithKline at Waver accompanied by TRH the Crown Prince and Crownprincess,
luncheon at Laeken Castle with TM and TRH.

http://www.ww1battlefields.co.uk/flanders/tynecot.html

http://www.greatwar.co.uk/poems/inflanders.htm
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on July 10, 2007, 01:05:05 PM
HM The Queen and HRH the Duke of Edinburgh will attend the Memorial ceremonies at Ypres and Tyne Cot war cemetary at Passendale by invitatition of
TM King Albert II and Queen Paola,thursday july 12th.


I wonder if they'll pay any visit (public or private) to the grave of Prince Maurice of Battenberg who is buried at Ypres. Elizabeth would remember his mother Beatrice (who died in 1944) well and he's also a relative (closer one even) to Prince Philip--Maurice was his mother Alice's first cousin.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 11, 2007, 12:29:37 AM
HM The Queen and HRH the Duke of Edinburgh will attend the Memorial ceremonies at Ypres and Tyne Cot war cemetary at Passendale by invitatition of
TM King Albert II and Queen Paola,thursday july 12th.


I wonder if they'll pay any visit (public or private) to the grave of Prince Maurice of Battenberg who is buried at Ypres. Elizabeth would remember his mother Beatrice (who died in 1944) well and he's also a relative (closer one even) to Prince Philip--Maurice was his mother Alice's first cousin.

If then it will be public,the packed program of the one-day visit does not allow any space for a really private moment,
apart from the luncheon at Laeken Castle with the Belgium RF.

I will post pics as soon as I can as I know dutch photographer Mr.Albert Nieboer (PPE) will be present thoughout the visit.
 :)

http://www.regiments.org/biography/royals/1891mauB.htm

Courtesy Regiments.org/

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on July 11, 2007, 12:43:06 PM
Thanks, Lucien. I would like to think that a visit to the grave would happen since it's right there in Ypres and he was a relative but perhaps too much time has lapsed and it's just not a thought.

On a different note, here's a story from the Daily Mail:

"TV captures moment Queen loses her temper with celebrity photographer"

"This is the extraordinary moment the Queen lost her temper and stormed out of a photoshoot, after a celebrity photographer dared ask her to remove her crown. The astonishing footage is taken from a new BBC documentary entitled A Year With The Queen and captures the moment when Her Majesty lost her cool. During the programme photographer US celebrity snapper Annie Leibovitz sizes up the Queen in her full regalia and ventures: "I think it will look better without the crown, because the garter robe is so..." Before the photographer can finish saying "extraordinary", the Queen raises her eyebrows, fixes the snapper with an icy stare, and snaps: "Less dressy? What do you think this is?" pointing to what she is wearing. TV cameras follow the Queen storming off with an official lifting the large train of her blue velvet cape off the floor as the Queen tells her lady-in-waiting: "I'm not changing anything. I've had enough dressing like this thank you very much." "

The documentary makers had a lot of access to the Queen as she prepared for her birthday and trip to the US. Many light-hearted moments are also captured and, in addition to EII, Philip, Charles and William are also seen.

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_01/queenbbcb1107_468x268.jpg)

There's also a link to see the full article and a video clip:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=467754&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=picbox&ct=5
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 11, 2007, 04:43:08 PM
HM The Queen and HRH the Duke of Edinburgh will attend the Memorial ceremonies at Ypres and Tyne Cot war cemetary at Passendale by invitatition of
TM King Albert II and Queen Paola,thursday july 12th.


I wonder if they'll pay any visit (public or private) to the grave of Prince Maurice of Battenberg who is buried at Ypres. Elizabeth would remember his mother Beatrice (who died in 1944) well and he's also a relative (closer one even) to Prince Philip--Maurice was his mother Alice's first cousin.

Apparently the visit to Ypres will take place after lunch,followed by the visit to Tyne Cot,after the ceremonies and the wreath laying,HM and The Duke will walk through the cemetary,so yes,I suppose they will visit Maurice's final resting place.

Queen Paola will accompany HM and The Duke in the afternoon due to the convalesence of King Albert after the hip relacement surgery last week he won't be able to be present the whole day.

HM and The Duke have left London late this evening by Eurostar to Brussels.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5531.asp
 :)

http://members3.boardhost.com/Beneluxroyal/msg/1184182562.html

Courtesy Marianne,BRMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 12, 2007, 05:39:32 AM
Thank you for the information Lucien!! The Queen really shouldn't be arriving on the Eurostar - so ridiculous & to common. She should be using the Royal Train!! Then of course they will be critisced for the ££!!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: dmitri on July 12, 2007, 06:24:03 AM
Have you ever considered that perhaps HM The Queen wanted to travel on the Eurostar? Other members of her family have done so. The Queen actually finds people with pretensions rather tedious. She really is a very lovely lady. I am not surprised she was a touch dismayed at the request from the photographer. What a tedious situation some of these sittings must be, especially after 55 years on the throne. Perhaps you do not know what HM The late Queen Mother once said when she heard that her daughter, The Queen had a particularly trying afternoon. She stated, "Poor Queen". 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 12, 2007, 06:30:22 AM
Thank you for the information Lucien!! The Queen really shouldn't be arriving on the Eurostar - so ridiculous & to common. She should be using the Royal Train!! Then of course they will be critisced for the ££!!

Besides that the Royal train wouldn't do in the Channel tunnel due to safety regulations,it's only logical to use the comfortable & luxurious and far from "common" Eurostar if it was just to boost the travel on the once multi billion euro project.And it's the quickest way from the center of London to dear old continental Europe.
So no,I don't agree with you on this,it's far from ridiculous,HM has a vision that's not shared by all of her loyal subjects obviously.
We here couldn't care less really,she made the right choice for travel.

Official welcome in Brussels this morning:
http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=12-07-2007%20Brussel

Courtesy PPE/Albert Nieboer.
 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 12, 2007, 06:55:11 AM
Your opinion!! ;)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 12, 2007, 07:26:16 AM
Arrival at Laeken Castle:
http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=12-07-2007%20Laken

Courtesy PPE/Albert Nieboer.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 12, 2007, 10:27:07 AM
I didn't for one minute believe that story of the Queen walking out of the photo shoot.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070712/tuk-uk-britain-queen-fa6b408.html
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 12, 2007, 01:32:35 PM
HM at Glaxo and Ypres,the Menen Gate today:
http://picture.belga.be/cgi-bin/belgapict/belgapicture.sh?ACTIE=DETAIL&FILE=/galleries/263409.html

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 12, 2007, 02:33:09 PM
I didn't for one minute believe that story of the Queen walking out of the photo shoot.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070712/tuk-uk-britain-queen-fa6b408.html

If you can't trust the BBC then what has this world come too,but I do look forward to the documentary nonetheless:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6294472.stm
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 13, 2007, 04:31:34 AM
HM and the Yeomen of the Guard:
http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1184296109.html

Courtesy Marianne,BRMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Mary R. on July 14, 2007, 08:38:07 PM
I found this piece recently and thought it quite unique:

"Bulgarian artist Andrey Andreev, 31, poses in front of his work made out of 8,000 English post stamps with the image of Queen Elizabeth which his father had been collecting for 30 years. It took Andreev six months to produce the work displayed in a Sofia art gallery on January 14, 2002, dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Queen's crowning."

(http://www.art.bg/rafaela/andrey.jpg)

Courtesy of http://www.art.bg/rafaela/queen.htm (http://www.art.bg/rafaela/queen.htm)

Mary R.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Richard_Maybery on July 15, 2007, 05:22:11 AM
Isn't this nonsense with the Queen all a storm in a teacup? On the whole the BBC is pretty reliable and one error doesn't damn the whole of their output. The clip does show something we don't often see - a rather tetchy Queen. From that point of view, it's quite refreshing to see something which isn't sanitised.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on July 15, 2007, 05:34:52 PM
What about the BBC's recent interview with Princes William and Harry?  An embarrassment to watch and a total waste of time if one wanted to truly learn anything new about the princes... >:(
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Martyn on July 16, 2007, 06:36:58 AM
Isn't this nonsense with the Queen all a storm in a teacup? On the whole the BBC is pretty reliable and one error doesn't damn the whole of their output. The clip does show something we don't often see - a rather tetchy Queen. From that point of view, it's quite refreshing to see something which isn't sanitised.

I agree with that.

I found it rather refreshing to see the Queen display a little temperament and I think that it will come as something of a revelation to some.  The Queen of course is a very careful custodian of her own image and Leibovitz's suggestion that she alter her appearance by removing the tiara, which obviously had been very carefully considered in advance (as she was shown stomping into the shoot uttering 'I'm not changing anything', probably was verging on lèse majesté.........
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Mary R. on July 17, 2007, 08:05:12 PM
Just to double check, is the woman holding the child QEII? Thanks!

(http://worldroots.com/brigitte/gifs7/george6britain1895-71.jpg)

Mary R.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on July 17, 2007, 08:19:36 PM
Just to double check, is the woman holding the child QEII? Thanks!

Mary R.
I do not know ?
A potrait of the Queen !
(http://www.speedace.info/speedace_images/Queen_Elizabeth_portrait_Canberra_head_of_state.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on July 17, 2007, 10:30:51 PM
Just to double check, is the woman holding the child QEII? Thanks!

Mary R.

Yes, that is HM.  The child is Prince Andrew.  :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on July 17, 2007, 10:57:17 PM
Just to double check, is the woman holding the child QEII? Thanks!

Mary R.

Yes, that is HM.  The child is Prince Andrew.  :)

Yes, it's definitely EII though she actually bears a bit of a resemblance (from the side) to her mother in that photo, I think. Are you sure it's Andrew? I was thinking with Margaret & Tony Armstrong-Jones there perhaps it was David Linley?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on July 18, 2007, 05:29:20 AM
Just to double check, is the woman holding the child QEII? Thanks!

Mary R.

Yes, that is HM.  The child is Prince Andrew.  :)

Yes, it's definitely EII though she actually bears a bit of a resemblance (from the side) to her mother in that photo, I think. Are you sure it's Andrew? I was thinking with Margaret & Tony Armstrong-Jones there perhaps it was David Linley?

I also think its David, cause HM is also his godmother...so she held him in her arms
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 18, 2007, 05:30:50 AM
Lovely photo! They appear to be on a train or at a window?!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ashdean on July 18, 2007, 06:12:11 AM
Lovely photo! They appear to be on a train or at a window?!
Looks like the royal train..
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on July 18, 2007, 07:14:21 AM
I am certain I have this photo somewhere credited as Andrew.  Anyway, here is another similar picture of Andrew with Anne.  It looks like the same child to me.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v667/Obesemia/train.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 18, 2007, 09:23:06 AM
Garden party Buckingham Palace,yesterday july 17th:
http://www.wireimage.com/GalleryListing.asp?navtyp=gls====282757&nbc1=1

Courtesy Ken,who posted the link at the BRMB.
 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Janet on July 18, 2007, 11:57:49 AM
Just to double check, is the woman holding the child QEII? Thanks!

Mary R.

Yes, that is HM.  The child is Prince Andrew.  :)

Yes, it's definitely EII though she actually bears a bit of a resemblance (from the side) to her mother in that photo, I think. Are you sure it's Andrew? I was thinking with Margaret & Tony Armstrong-Jones there perhaps it was David Linley?

It is Andrew, 100% sure.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Olishka~ Pincess on July 18, 2007, 01:04:52 PM
Queen Elizabeth on July 12, 2007 !
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u269/Valeria_Anya/75371569.jpg
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Mary R. on July 25, 2007, 05:29:20 PM
HM and the Duke of Edinburgh are due to pay a private visit to Malta following a trip to Uganda to open the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. The Malta visit is being dubbed by some as a "second honeymoon."  :)

The Buckingham Palace Press Release:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5531.asp (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5531.asp)

Another story:
http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2007/07/25/queen-malta/ (http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2007/07/25/queen-malta/)

Mary R.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on July 27, 2007, 01:44:31 PM
EII looking quite svelte and lovely in a lace dress :)

(http://www.queensimages.com/images/zoom/QCAAYH/queen_elizabeth_in_australia_1954.jpg)

(http://www.queensimages.com/images/zoom/QCAAYH/queen_elizabeth_at_film_show_1952.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on July 27, 2007, 05:37:28 PM
The Queen views her wedding dress from the new exhibit. I wonder what was going through her mind--it must've brought back many memories.

(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00192/queenehibit_192191a.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Mary R. on July 27, 2007, 07:17:27 PM
It must be such a trip down memory lane for her, seeing a dress she wore 60 years ago!  :) There's a video of her viewing some of her wedding gifts and dress etc.

Here's the link:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp# (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp#)

Mary R.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 28, 2007, 03:13:01 AM
The Queen looks simply stunning and elegant in that lace dress.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 28, 2007, 01:38:19 PM
A delightfull story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=458590&in_page_id=1770

Courtesy Hovite who posted the link at the BRMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 28, 2007, 03:52:46 PM
HM and the Duke of Edinburgh are due to pay a private visit to Malta following a trip to Uganda to open the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. The Malta visit is being dubbed by some as a "second honeymoon."  :)

The Buckingham Palace Press Release:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5531.asp (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5531.asp)

Another story:
http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2007/07/25/queen-malta/ (http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2007/07/25/queen-malta/)

Mary R.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5531.asp
 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 28, 2007, 03:58:01 PM
Buckingham Palace announcement of a Service of Celebration:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page6026.asp

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on July 30, 2007, 10:01:34 AM
The Queen wants BBC's faked film banned
Palace fury at refusal to scrap 'misleading' documentary

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=471543&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix//2007/07_01/queenrecropDM_468x523.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Martyn on July 30, 2007, 11:25:27 AM
The Daily Mail is no friend to the BBC, so it isn't surpsrising that it is running this story.

Come to think of it, the Daily Mail is no friend to anyone who simply wishes to read newsworthy stories containing a modicum of truth........
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: dmitri on August 04, 2007, 10:17:13 PM
How exciting this diamond royal wedding celebration will be. I bet Anne Boleyn had wished she had seen her marriage last that long!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: alixaannencova on August 19, 2007, 08:29:52 AM
I have been trawling the Times archive for the coronation of 1953 and have can not find out whether or not Princess Arthur of Connaught actually attended! I can not believe she did not, unless she was gravely ill at the time! Can anyone clarify whether she did attend, and more to the point, did the present Duke of Fife? I can not locate either in the family photos taken at the palace after the ceremonials, but may not be looking properly!!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: carl fraley on September 03, 2007, 08:20:35 PM
Ok on some discussion board several months ago Prince Phillip was quoted as Saying that Queen Victoria was more of an "Executive Sovereign" than HM QE II.  With an "Unwritten Constitution " and all, exactly what perogatives have been lost by the sovereign since QV? 

I know in the BBC Production EDward VII, after Queen victoria's death, Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour is quoted as saying that he(EVII) must not be allowed to rule as his mother did (per the movie, i don't know how true it is)

But what is the break down in power from QV to QEII


Anyone know?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: dmitri on September 03, 2007, 10:13:51 PM
Queen Victoria had far greater influence in foreign affairs for starters.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: CHRISinUSA on September 04, 2007, 10:23:16 PM
There are a number of ways that the power held by Victoria has been diluted from then to the present.  But, the larger decine in power had already occurred.  First, earlier history - condensed from the Monarchy website.

The Glorious Revolution brought a significant decline in crown power - not least of which because Parliament asserted its right to control the succession.  The Bill of Rights of this period reaffirmed Parliament's claim to control taxation and legislation, and allowed Parliament to function without royal interference. The Sovereign was forbidden from suspending or dispensing with laws passed by Parliament, or imposing taxes without Parliamentary consent. The Sovereign could no longer interfere with elections or freedom of speech, and proceedings in Parliament could no longer be questioned in the courts or in any body outside Parliament itself. The Triennial Act of 1694 required the Sovereign to summon Parliament frequently.  Also, the financial settlement reached with William and Mary deliberately made them dependent upon Parliament.  Finally, the King was forbidden to maintain a standing army in time of peace without Parliament's consent.  The Bill of Rights also forbade the King to establish his own courts or to act as a judge himself.   At this stage, however, the Sovereign could still summon and dissolve Parliament, appoint and dismiss Ministers, veto legislation and declare war. There was a permanent shift of power at this stage, although the Crown remained at the center of political life.

The Act of Settlement not only addressed the succession, it also further restricted the powers and prerogatives of the Crown. Under the Act, parliamentary consent had to be given for the Sovereign to engage in war or leave the country, and judges were no longer to hold office at royal pleasure.  The Act of Settlement reinforced the Bill of Rights, in that it strengthened the principle that government was undertaken by the Sovereign and his or her Government Ministers, not by the Sovereign and any personal advisers whom he or she happened to choose.

George I further contributed to the loss of Crown power because he spoke little English and was often abroad.  After 1717, George I rarely attended Cabinet meetings.  George II did little to reverse this trend, but George III tried to reassert Crown power, much to his minister's dismay.  William III was forced to sign the Great Reform Bill of 1832 which extended the franchise to the middle classes, and further erorded the Royal Perrogative in favor of Parliament.

And then came Victoria.  During Victoria's long reign, direct political power moved away from the sovereign. A series of Acts broadened the social and economic base of the electorate.  The Second Reform Act of 1867; the introduction of the secret ballot in 1872 (which made it impossible to pressurise voters by bribery or intimidation) and the Representation of the Peoples Act of 1884 increased voters.

Despite this decline in the Sovereign's power, Victoria showed that a monarch who had a high level of prestige and who was prepared to master the details of political life could exert important influence. She mediated between the Commons and the Lords during the acrimonious passing of the Irish Church Disestablishment Act of 1869 and the 1884 Reform Act.

It was during Victoria's reign that the modern idea of the constitutional monarch, whose role was to remain above political parties, began to evolve. But Victoria herself was not always non-partisan and she took the opportunity to give her opinions, sometimes very forcefully, in private.

After the Second Reform Act of 1867, and the growth of the two-party (Liberal and Conservative) system, the Queen's room for manoeuvre decreased. Her freedom to choose which individual should occupy the premiership was increasingly restricted.  In 1880 she tried, unsuccessfully, to stop William Gladstone from becoming Prime Minister.

In foreign policy, the Queen's influence during the middle years of her reign was generally used to support peace and reconciliation. In 1864, Victoria pressed her ministers not to intervene in the Prussia-Austria-Denmark war, and her letter to the German Emperor (whose son had married her daughter) in 1875 helped to avert a second Franco-German war.

George V's reign saw a strange mix of decrease / increase of Crown power.  First, the Parliament Bill of 1911 took away the Lords power to veto bills passed by Commons.  And, under the Statute of Westminster 1931, many other reserve Crown powers were eliminated.  But, the King's importance grew somewhat because the dominion parliaments were no longer dependent on the UK Parliament, but rather were linked in personal union under the Crown.

Edward VII and George VI's reigns were dominated by the abdication crisis and then World War II, and by 1953, the Crown had settled into its present role as a chiefly ceremonial position.

It is interesting to note that during much of the transitions above, deference to the Crown and British fondness for tradition meant that the Sovereign - and much of the establishment - continued in many ways to behave as if the Crown's powers remained intact, even while those powers were being exercised behind the scenes by ministers.

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: joan_d on September 05, 2007, 12:26:28 AM
Chris - What an excellent summation of the erosion of monarchial power !   Very interesting and, above all, succinct.   I would now like to see an erosion of it's wealth, privilege and media exposure.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: dmitri on September 05, 2007, 03:28:45 AM
sounds like you would prefer a republic Joan_d
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ChristineM on September 05, 2007, 04:11:58 AM
Chris - I bow to your knowledge and eloquence.

May I humbly add a few more thoughts - in the shape of World Wars I - which changed the shape and face of Europe for ever:  II which brought Great Britain almost to her knees.   Add to this the Abdication crisis and the loss of Empire.   This was cleverly reshaped into the British Commonwealth - a kind of milk and water version of Empire - but still managed to maintain the British Monarch as a titular 'Head of State'.   Now we have what, in my opinion holds the strongest likelihood of sounding the death knell for the British monarchy and that is what is (jokingly) called 'multiculturism'.   A misnomer if ever there was one and totally unachievable.   Differences should be appreciated and cherished - not painted over with some bland, nonsensical cover.

tsaria

 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: joan_d on September 05, 2007, 11:49:05 AM
Dmitri - I am a realist and given Britain's history, I doubt there will ever be a Republic much as I vere towards  the "ideal" of a Republic.  However, I have been following the "Camilla" thread and the contributions made by Tsaria has been ones which have been well-thought through and with which I concur.

The UK has changed in such a rapid way during the last 10 years, it is hardly a country I recognise any more.  What she has to say about multi-culturalism is a view I hold myself.   Britain is a small, denslely populated island with a history stretching back 2000 years.   The last thing we need is more people, although the Blair/Brown government has tried to indoctrinate the population that we do.   We are constantly being told about about the declining birthrate in this country and that we need to bring in people to compensate.  As Tsaria said in the "Camilla" thread, we have had an influx of people from Eastern Europe and the Indian sub-continent which, in parts of the UK, threatens to subsume the indigenous population.  This is certainly a "Little Britain" viewpoint - the birth rate of the world is far from declining.   What do we do - open the floodgates??

If the monarchy/royal family is supposed to symbolise and reflect 21stC Britain, it had better get it's act together and SOON !!!   
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: HerrKaiser on September 05, 2007, 02:41:08 PM
 We are constantly being told about about the declining birthrate in this country and that we need to bring in people to compensate.  As Tsaria said in the "Camilla" thread, we have had an influx of people from Eastern Europe and the Indian sub-continent which, in parts of the UK, threatens to subsume the indigenous population.  This is certainly a "Little Britain" viewpoint - the birth rate of the world is far from declining.   What do we do - open the floodgates??

If the monarchy/royal family is supposed to symbolise and reflect 21stC Britain, it had better get it's act together and SOON !!!   


I'm not sure I fully understand the opposing view of multiculuralism, but the fact is that most nations of Europe and the U.S. are not birthing replacement poplulations. The forecasts are easy to see....millions fewer cauasion, native ethnicities in such countries in the next decades. That is fine IF those nations can "survive" with much fewer people. Many believe not only the infrastructure needs to have a constantly stable population base but the economic factors dictate such as well. On the other hand, Portugal once ruled the world..not it is a little sliver of a country known only for olive oil. And from what I see, they're happy. Hmmm. Things do change.

I recommend "America Alone..." by Mark Steyn for anyone who wants to be scared.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on September 05, 2007, 02:56:48 PM


The UK has changed in such a rapid way during the last 10 years, it is hardly a country I recognise any more.  What she has to say about multi-culturalism is a view I hold myself.   Britain is a small, denslely populated island with a history stretching back 2000 years.   The last thing we need is more people, although the Blair/Brown government has tried to indoctrinate the population that we do.   We are constantly being told about about the declining birthrate in this country and that we need to bring in people to compensate.  As Tsaria said in the "Camilla" thread, we have had an influx of people from Eastern Europe and the Indian sub-continent which, in parts of the UK, threatens to subsume the indigenous population.  This is certainly a "Little Britain" viewpoint - the birth rate of the world is far from declining.   What do we do - open the floodgates??


Goodness, an opinion of your's I actually agree with. Britain is far to much of a soft touch. We can not cope with the strain of over population - look at the strain on the NHS? The need for housing? This country needs to pull itself together and fast. People should be made to work or they get nothing. I'm tired of seeing people in my line of work that play the system and get housing, funding, handouts etc etc.

Anyway, thank goodness we still have the Monarchy, a part of our heritage, a privileage and one that needs to continue. History, museums, and palaces would be a lot less interesting had it not been for the monarchy. Such a joy to see collections that have been added to, by the likes of Queen Mary, for us to share and enjoy.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ChristineM on September 05, 2007, 02:57:22 PM
I am grateful for your remarks joan_d.   However, I was slightly pilloried when I made those rather overt political opinions on the other thread.   I don't apologise for them.   I find being accosted by Romanian beggars in the streets of Glasgow uncomfortable - at best.   There is change and there is CHANGE.

During the reign of Victoria, the British took their ideas, their ideals and their inventions all over the world.   Any Indian friend we have say the worst thing that happened to India was the withdrawal of the British.   Have a look around Africa and see what has happened since the British withdrawal.   I think you will find Zimbabwe a case in point.   I am proud to know personally the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia, Ian Smith.   The contrast with the current president Mugabe could not be greater.

What is Elizabeth II left with - hundreds of thousands of economic immigrants arriving annually - most of whom are not here to ADD to the good of all, but to live off the crazy generosity of the British state.    Apart from the collapse of the indiginous birth rate, the rate of indiginous British emigrating exceeded records last year.   People educated by my state, whose work and ingenuity have served my state along with their taxes - gone for good.   

Is there any wonder that the British monarchy could well be in peril in the not so distant future?

tsaria
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ChristineM on September 05, 2007, 03:00:11 PM
HerrKaiser

Multiculturism is a platitude - nothing less... nothing more.    It insults all cultures.

tsaria
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: dmitri on September 06, 2007, 10:10:56 AM
I tend to agree with you Tsaria. Where has it truly worked?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on October 01, 2007, 01:00:21 AM
With the Diamond Wedding Anniversary little over a month away,which I do hope will see a avalange/outpour of affection love and respect to my favorite,admirable,hard working,loveble even and certainly witty octagenarians..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe1PsVGUSaw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh1-9ww_HmM

Courtesy Vlassco.

 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: dmitri on October 01, 2007, 06:18:52 AM
I think you very well might. The Queen is admired and held in great affection by a great many people in all her realms. Prince Philip has been a stalwart support to her for so many years. I thnk they make a wonderful couple. God bless them both. I for one am looking forward to seeing them on their wedding anniversary.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: B5218 on October 15, 2007, 10:49:14 AM
Should we be using part 2 or part 3??
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: nerilka on November 15, 2007, 11:33:41 AM

LETTER FROM KING GEORGE VI TO HIS DAUGHTER, PRINCESS ELIZABETH (NOW THE QUEEN) FOLLOWING HER MARRIAGE TO THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH IN 1947
 
I was so proud of you & thrilled at having you so close to me on our long walk in Westminster Abbey, but when I handed your hand to the Archbishop I felt that I had lost something very precious.

You were so calm & composed during the Service and said your words with such conviction, that I knew everything was all right ...

I have watched you grow up all these years with pride under the skilful direction of Mummy, who, as you know is the most marvellous person in the World in my eyes, & I can, I know, always count on you, & now Philip, to help us in our work. Your leaving us has left a great blank in our lives but do remember that your old home is still yours & do come back to it as much & as often as possible. I can see that you are sublimely happy with Philip which is right but don't forget us is the wish of

Your ever loving & devoted 

Papa
 
 
 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ChristineM on November 19, 2007, 05:33:58 AM
I am watching the memorial service 'live' on BBC1.   The Queen looks wonderful and the music superb - bravely, she is wearing white/silver.

tsaria
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ChristineM on November 19, 2007, 11:59:44 AM
It was a very dignified service.

A couple of observations - the York princesses were certainly dressed down.   Princess Alexandra looked wonderful.   Didn't like the Duchess of Cornwall's choice of attire.   Two duchesses were missing and no explanation given.   The Duchess of Kent, who although a semi-detached member of the royal family usually turns up on such occasions.   Also the Duchess of Gloucester.   Her husband arrived alone.

tsaria
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 03:50:06 PM
From The Guardian


The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh's 60 years of marriage has been praised by the Archbishop of Canterbury as a faithful and creative partnership lived in the "full light of publicity". Dr Rowan Williams said the milestone was a symbol of the relationship between the people and monarch and was part of her "unqualified commitment" to every aspect of her reign....The Archbishop told the congregation: "Every marriage is a public event, but some couples have to live more than others in the full light of publicity."We are probably more aware than ever these days of the pressures this brings. But it also means that we can give special thanks for the very public character of the witness and the sign offered to us by this marriage, and what it has meant to nation and Commonwealth over the decades."And part of what it has meant has had to do precisely with the sense of unqualified commitment that has been so characteristic of every aspect of this reign: the faithful and creative personal partnership at the centre of everything else has been a sign of creative faithfulness to a task, a vocation, the creative faithfulness that secures the trust, love and prayerful support of millions."

The lasting union has seen the monarch become the first British sovereign to celebrate a diamond wedding.

Among the congregation were senior Royals including the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall and Princes William and Harry, military chiefs of staff and some of the Queen's godchildren.About 500 members of Royal Household staff - past and present - were also among the guests at the Abbey in central London, including some of the servants who have worked most closely with the monarch and her consort over the years.

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 04:03:23 PM
From the BBC

The morning's one glimmer of showbiz was Dame Judi Dench reading a poem by poet laureate Andrew Motion, but its theme was marked by as much reserve as the rest of the occasion.


"Love found a voice and spoke two names aloud," Dame Judi read, "two private names, though breezed through public air / and joined them in a life where duty spoke." The morning's one glimmer of showbiz was Dame Judi Dench reading a poem by poet laureate Andrew Motion, but its theme was marked by as much reserve as the rest of the occasion. "Love found a voice and spoke two names aloud," Dame Judi read, "two private names, though breezed through public air / and joined them in a life where duty spoke."

They had experienced a day very much in keeping with their partnership, after all. A contained, unshowy celebration of affection, and one clearly forged in a different age.

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Greenowl on November 19, 2007, 04:03:58 PM
Such a wonderful and extremely rare occasion. I'm very moved. Thanks Lucien for the lovely photos.

GREENOWL
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 04:05:31 PM
From the Times

When you have been married for 60 years, which few of us have, perhaps you don’t feel the need to do the touchy-feely-smiley eye-contact stuff any more. Love and companionship travel through the deep roots rather than the waving branches.

And perhaps, when you have endured a marriage conducted relentlessly in the public gaze, you reserve the intimacies, however small, for your treasured moments of privacy. They are rare enough.

During an hour-long service to celebrate their diamond wedding anniversary, in the same Westminster Abbey in which they were married amid the grey, postwar austerity of 1947, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh did not look at each other; there was no exchange of surprised, “Crikey, we’ve made it” glances.

In a white wool coat and matching hat, and bespectacled throughout, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England paid close attention to her order of service, putting it down only during the singing of the 23rd Psalm, which was performed at her wedding to the then unfamiliar but by now near-universal Scottish tune of Crimond; she clearly knows the words by heart.

Prince Philip, by contrast, kept the words open in front of him. As Dr Rowan Williams, the Supreme Governor’s highest priest on this Earth, delivered his address from the Abbey’s tall pulpit, the Duke wore one of his favourite slightly bemused expressions, as though not entirely believing that he was being preached to by a wildly bearded archdruid. The Queen fixed the Archbishop with a steady gaze, drinking in his every word.

The Primate of All England, whose sermons sometimes seem as focused as a gas cloud in a distant nebula, was on much sharper form than usual, given that he had something utterly specific to talk about: the longstanding marriage of two individuals.

“Every marriage is an act of faith. When you think about it, the promise to be in the company of the same person for a lifetime is an extraordinary thing to undertake,” the Archbishop said. It was deeply mysterious and never free of risk.

Marriage was a relationship that said something profound and exhilarating about humanity; it was a sign of what God thought about the capacity of humanity. He then got down to the specific marriage that he had been summoned to talk about.

“Every marriage is a public event, but some couples have to live more than others in the full light of publicity; we are probably aware more than ever these days of the pressures this brings,” Dr Williams said.

“But it also means that we can give special thanks for the very public character of the witness and the sign offered to us by this marriage, and what it has meant to nation and Commonwealth over the decades. And part of what it has meant has had to do precisely with the sense of unqualified commitment that has been so characteristic of every aspect of this reign.”

Dr Williams continued: “Today we celebrate not only a marriage but the relationship between monarch and people of which also that marriage is a symbol: a relationship in which we see what levels of commitment are possible for someone upheld by a clear sense of God’s calling and enabling.”

Dr Williams concluded: “In the lives of the couple with whom today we join in celebration, that bracing, renewing and hopeful vision of faithful generosity has been for 60 years set so clearly before our eyes. May it be so for many more years.”

....Other telltale signs signified that this was 2007, not 1947. Clergy of other religions, from Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor to a Zoroastrian and two Muslim clerics, had their honoured place by the altar. And the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, who led the guest clergy in prayers, was a woman. They’re quite enlightened up there.

And there was another sign, too, in the choir; two of the young choristers were black. Elizabeth and Philip were married a year before the Empire Windrush brought the first small wave of Caribbean immigrants to Britain. It is sometimes difficult to remember how long ago, and in what a different country, this particular marriage was cemented, and how little else of that grim but somehow hopeful postwar era endures.

Today the Queen and Prince Philip fly to Malta for a brief private stopover on their way to the Commonwealth summit in Uganda. It was where they spent some of their early married life and had a brief opportunity to be almost-normal people. For not much more than a day they can be ordinary people again.

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 04:09:53 PM
From the AP

(http://ap.google.com/media/ALeqM5jwwIMmSZk4HMW7xDJZ1BxqmRe0CQ?size=m)

Prince William marked the 60th wedding anniversary of his grandparents, the queen, 81, and Prince Philip, 86, by giving a New Testament reading from the Bible in their honor.....Eight couples who had married on the same day as the queen and Philip also attended the ceremony....Five men who were boy choristers at the 1947 wedding service carried candles in the procession. Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, who actually reach their personal milestone on Tuesday, will travel to Malta, where they spent some of their happiest days as a young married couple.


(http://ap.google.com/media/ALeqM5gPdmsFj7i-OZ1gHMDcxAqsyXGn5A?size=m)

(http://ap.google.com/media/ALeqM5hX9VCzc7dUlYl_8dNLpLPqSo9RrQ?size=m)

(http://ap.google.com/media/ALeqM5i67zVXITQrEoZ0_rgkFJy-cRce7g?size=m)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 04:13:16 PM
From the BBC, facts about the marriage:

1.The Queen is the first British monarch to have celebrated a diamond wedding anniversary.

2. Princess Elizabeth and Philip first met when they attended the wedding of Philip's cousin, Princess Marina of Greece to The Duke of Kent, who was an uncle of Princess Elizabeth, in 1934.

3. The engagement between Princess Elizabeth and Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten RN was announced on the 9 July 1947. Philip was born Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark. He joined the Royal Navy in 1939 and after the war, in February 1947, became a naturalised British subject. Philip was required to choose a surname in order to continue his career in the Royal Navy, and adopted Mountbatten, the name of his mother's British relatives. He was created Duke of Edinburgh by King George VI on marriage.

4. The platinum and diamond engagement ring was made by the jewellers, Philip Antrobus, using diamonds from a tiara belonging to Philip's mother.

5. Philip had two stag parties the night before the wedding - the first at the Dorchester to which the press were invited and the second with his closest friends at the Belfry Club.

. The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were married in Westminster Abbey on 20 November, 1947 at 1130GMT with 2,000 invited guests.

7. It was the first, and so far only time in British history, that the heir presumptive to the throne had been married.

8. The Queen was the 10th member of the Royal Family to be married in the Abbey. The first Royal wedding to take place in the Abbey was when King Henry I married Princess Matilda of Scotland on 11 November, 1100. On 26 April, 1923, the Queen's parents King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (then the Duke and Duchess of York) were married there.

9. The eight bridesmaids were: HRH The Princess Margaret, HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent, Lady Caroline Montagu-Douglas-Scott, Lady Mary Cambridge, Lady Elizabeth Lambart, The Hon. Pamela Mountbatten, The Hon. Margaret Elphinstone, The Hon. Diana Bowes-Lyon.

10. There were two pages: HRH Prince William of Gloucester and HRH Prince Michael of Kent, both aged just five.

11. Guests attending the wedding included the King and Queen of Denmark, the King and Queen of Yugoslavia, the Kings of Norway, Romania and the Shah of Iran.

12.The Queen's wedding dress was designed by Sir Norman Hartnell, who had submitted designs for the dress in August 1947.

 
Princess Elizabeth wore satin shoes trimmed with silver and seed pearl

13. The fabric for the dress was woven at Winterthur Silks Limited, Dunfermline, in the Canmore factory, using silk that had come from Chinese silkworms at Lullingstone Castle.

14. The Queen's bridal veil was made of tulle and held by a tiara of diamonds. This tiara was made for Queen Mary in 1919. It was made from re-used diamonds taken from a necklace/tiara purchased by Queen Victoria from Collingwood and Co and a wedding present for Queen Mary in 1893. In August 1936, Queen Mary gave the tiara to Queen Elizabeth from whom it was borrowed by Princess Elizabeth for her wedding in 1947.

15. After the wedding, the dress was exhibited at St James's Palace and was then shown in the capital towns of the British Isles and in Glasgow, Liverpool, Bristol, Preston, Leicester, Nottingham, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds and Huddersfield.

16. The bride's wedding bouquet was supplied by the Worshipful Company of Gardeners and made by the florist MH Longman. It was of white orchids with a sprig of myrtle from the bush grown from the original myrtle in Queen Victoria's wedding bouquet. An identical copy of the bouquet was made and presented to The Queen on her Golden Wedding in 1997.

17. The grave of the Unknown Warrior was the only stone that was not covered by the special carpet in the Abbey. The day after the wedding, Princess Elizabeth followed a Royal tradition started by her mother, of sending her wedding bouquet back to the Abbey to be laid on this grave.

18. The bridesmaids wore wreaths in their hair of miniature white sheaves, Lilies and London Pride, modelled in white satin and silver lame. They were made by Jac Ltd of London. The pages wore Royal Stewart tartan kilts.

19. The bridesmaids' bouquets, prepared by Moyses Stevens, were of white orchids, lilies of the valley, gardenias, white bouvardia, white roses and white nerine.

20. The bells of St Margaret's Church, Westminster Abbey, hailed the arrival of the carriage procession. The Queen arrived at the Abbey with her father, George VI, in the Irish State Coach.

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 04:14:55 PM
21. Other music at the wedding included: Psalm 67 (God be merciful unto us and bless us) sung to a setting by EC Bairstow; the motet We Wait For Thy Loving Kindness, O God, by Dr William McKie, organist and master of the choristers of the Abbey; the hymn The Lord's My Shepherd (to the then relatively unknown Scottish tune Crimond); the anthem Blessed Be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, by SS Wesley was sung by the Abbey choir and members of the choirs of the Chapel Royal and St George's Chapel Windsor; and after signing the register in St Edward's Chapel, the procession made its way out of the Abbey to Mendelssohn's Wedding March.

22. There were 91 singers at the wedding, made up from the Abbey Choir, the Choir of HM Chapels Royal and additional tenors and basses. They sat in the organ loft as the choir stalls were occupied by various dignitaries.

23. William McKie, the Abbey organist, had been summoned to the Palace four days before the wedding so that Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret could sing the descant to Crimond to him so that he could note it down as no other copy was available.

24. The two Royal kneelers, used during the service, were covered in rose pink silk. They were made from orange boxes, due to war time austerity, and date stamped 1946. 

25. The altar was hung with the white dorsal given in 1911 by King George V and Queen Mary for their coronation and the 1937 coronation frontal given by the Princess' parents. The Abbey plate was displayed on the altar.

26. The bride's wedding ring was made from a nugget of Welsh gold which came from the Clogau St David's mine, near Dolgellau.

27. As not all the people to sign the register could fit into St Edward's Chapel, only the bride and groom, the King and Queen, Queen Mary and Princess Andrew of Greece (the groom's mother), the Archbishop, and the Dean of Westminster signed it at this point. The rest of the signatures were added later at Buckingham Palace. They included: Princess Margaret, Prince George of Greece (the groom's uncle), Henry (Duke of Gloucester), Alice (Duchess of Gloucester), Princess Marina (Duchess of Kent), Lady Patricia Ramsay, Alexander Ramsay, Alice Mary (Countess of Athlone), Earl of Athlone, Victoria Milford Haven, Nada Milford Haven, Edwina Mountbatten of Burma, Earl Mountbatten of Burma, King Haakon (of Norway), King Michael (of Romania), Queen Ingrid (of Denmark), King Frederick (of Denmark).

28. Trumpet fanfares were introduced for the first time at a Royal wedding in the Abbey. A white flag was waved in the organ loft to signal the fanfare once the register had been signed.

29. The position of the BBC microphones had to be carefully checked as at the 1934 Royal wedding, the Abbey cross had hit the microphone suspended above the altar steps. Radio commentators shared the organ loft with the choir.

30. Thousands of people lined the processional route and were able to file through the Abbey after the service. Millions listened to the live radio broadcast.

31. The film of the wedding was watched by many thousands of people at cinemas across the country.

32. About 10,000 telegrams of congratulations were received at Buckingham Palace.

33. The Royal couple received over 2,500 wedding presents from well-wishers around the world. Most were put on display for a few days in a charity exhibition at St James's Palace. From India, there was a piece of crocheted, cotton lace made from yarn personally spun by Mahatma Gandhi. The central motif reads "Jai Hind" (Victory for India). The couple received a pair of Meissen chocolate pots from Pope Pius XII 

34. Other gifts from abroad included a gold and jade necklace given by King Farouk of Egypt, a writing desk from the Government of New Zealand and pieces from a Chinese porcelain dinner service printed with characters denoting "double joy" given by President Chiang Kai Shek of the Chinese Republic.

35. As well as jewellery from their close relatives, including the King and Queen, the couple received many useful items for the kitchen and home, including salt cellars from the Queen, a bookcase from Queen Mary, and a picnic case from Princess Margaret.

36. Other gifts, kindly made and given by members of the public, included a hand-knitted cardigan, two pairs of bed socks, and a hand-knitted tea cosy.

37. Over 200,000 people visited the special exhibition of wedding presents at St James's Palace.

38. The "wedding breakfast" was held after the marriage ceremony at Westminster Abbey in the Ball Supper-room at Buckingham Palace. The menu was Filet de Sole Mountbatten, Perdreau en Casserole, Bombe Glacee Princess Elizabeth.

39. The bride and groom sat at the main table with the bride's parents, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, the bride's grandmother, Queen Mary, her sister Princess Margaret, the groom's mother, Princess Andrew of Greece, the groom's uncle, Prince George of Greece and the Kings of Norway, Denmark and Romania.

40. Individual posies of myrtle and white Balmoral heather were placed at each place setting as "favours" (gifts to the guests).

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 04:16:36 PM
41. The flowers decorating the tables were pink and white carnations, donated by the British Carnation Society.

42. The string band of the Grenadier Guards played music during the "wedding breakfast" under the direction of Captain FJ Harris. The King's Pipe Major also played at the lunch.

43. The official wedding cake was made by McVities and Price. Eleven other cakes were given as presents. With post-war food rationing still in place ingredients were sent as wedding presents from overseas, for example the official cake was made using ingredients given as a wedding gift by Australian Girl Guides. Pieces of cake and food parcels were later distributed to schoolchildren and institutions.

44. The cake was nine feet high in four tiers, with painted panels of the armorial bearings of both families, and included the monograms of bride and groom, sugar-iced figures to depict their favourite activities, and regimental and naval badges. The cake was cut using the Duke's Mountbatten sword, which was a wedding present from the King.

45. United Biscuits, which now owns the former McVities and Price brand, will be making two cakes to mark the diamond wedding anniversary in 2007. The first of the cakes will be on display at the lunch for members of various Royal Families at Buckingham Palace after the Service of Thanksgiving at Westminster Abbey on the 19 November. The second cake will be distributed to members of staff.

46. The bride and bridegroom left the Palace showered with rose petals. For the Princess' going-away outfit, Hartnell designed an ensemble of a dress and matching coat in mist-blue with mushroom-coloured accessories.

47. The couple departed from Waterloo station with the Princess's corgi, Susan, for their honeymoon.

48. The newlyweds spent their wedding night at Broadlands in Hampshire, home of Prince Philip's uncle Earl Mountbatten. The second part of the honeymoon was spent at Birkhall on the Balmoral Estate.

49. Early in 1948 the couple leased their first marital home, Windlesham Moor, in Surrey, near Windsor Castle, where they stayed until they moved to Clarence House on 4 July 1949.

50. After marrying Princess Elizabeth, the Duke of Edinburgh continued his naval career, reaching the rank of Lieutenant-Commander in command of the frigate HMS Magpie.

51. Although he was the Queen's husband, the Duke of Edinburgh was not crowned or anointed at the Coronation ceremony in 1953. He was the first subject to pay Homage to Her Majesty, and kiss the newly crowned Queen by stating "I, Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, do become your liege man of life and limb, and of earthly worship; and faith and truth I will bear unto you, to live and die, against all manner of folks. So help me God."

52. Prince Philip has accompanied the Queen on all her Commonwealth tours and State visits, as well as on public engagements in all parts of the UK. The first of these was the Coronation tour of the Commonwealth from November 1953 to May 1954, when the couple visited Bermuda, Jamaica, Panama, Fiji, Tonga, New Zealand, Australia, Cocos Islands, Ceylon, Aden, Uganda, Libya, Malta and Gibraltar, travelling a distance of 43,618 miles.

53. The Duke of Edinburgh is only one of a few consorts to reigning female Queens in British history. William III was co-Sovereign with Mary II, although she, as daughter of James II, was nearer the throne than him. The husband of Queen Anne was not given the title of King, but remained Prince George of Denmark. Prince Albert was created Prince Consort by Queen Victoria in 1857.

54. The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh have four children: Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales (b. 1948), Princess Anne, The Princess Royal (b. 1950), Prince Andrew, The Duke of York (b. 1960), and Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex (b. 1964).

55. With the birth of Prince Andrew in 1960, the Queen became the first reigning Sovereign to give birth to a child since Queen Victoria, whose youngest child, Princess Beatrice, was born in 1857.

56. The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh have seven grandchildren - Peter Phillips (b. 1977), Zara Phillips (b. 1981) Prince William (b. 1982), Prince Harry (b. 1984), Princess Beatrice (b. 1988), Princess Eugenie (b. 1990), and Lady Louise Windsor (b. 2003). The Earl and Countess of Wessex are expecting their second child in December.

57. The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh celebrated their 6th wedding anniversary in the year of the coronation, with a dance at Clarence House given by Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. They left on their Commonwealth tour three days later.

58. A service of thanksgiving was held in Westminster Abbey for both the Silver and Golden wedding anniversaries.

59. There will be a service of thanksgiving in Westminster Abbey on the 19 November 2007 to celebrate the Diamond Wedding Anniversary. On the 20 November, the day of their wedding anniversary, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will travel to Malta where they lived as a young married couple from 1949-51 while the Duke was stationed there as a serving Royal Naval officer.

60. Five choristers who sang at the 1947 Wedding Service in Westminster Abbey will be serving at the Service of Thanksgiving on the 19 November, 2007 in Westminster Abbey.

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 04:19:01 PM
From the Guardian, the National Archives has put together a book:

Documents, which have been turned into a book, detail not only the costs and arrangements, but also how the post-war naturalisation of British citizens was held up because the royal family and the Attlee government wished to delay the news that Prince Philip was becoming a British subject until the engagement was announced.

They also disclose the horror of Queen Mary, the widow of George V, when the palace received a lace tray cover, woven by Mahatma Gandhi himself as a wedding present for the royal couple, because she thought it was his loincloth.

The book says that the government gave the couple the standard extra 200 clothing coupons, allowed to all brides, but that they were also inundated with coupons sent by women from all over the country - all sent back because passing on coupons was illegal. Among gifts from abroad were 131 pairs of nylons and 500 cases of tinned pineapples from the governor of Queensland. The New York Institute of Dress Designers sent 25 dresses as a gift, 20 of which were given to other brides getting married at the same time.

Among the 2,500 wedding presents were a sewing machine, a vacuum cleaner, an automatic potato peeler and a bath sponge. Some, including a Sevres dinner service given by the government and people of France, are still in use.

The wedding, on November 20 1947, followed a year of rationing, shortages and severe weather. It was intended to be an opportunity for public celebration - a "first postwar sight of pageantry and colour" in the words of the Manchester Guardian. The paper reported that huge crowds cheered the princess to and from the service at Westminster Abbey: "Great crowds remained in front of Buckingham Palace for hours after they had greeted the wedding party's two appearances on the balcony and the King and Queen came out again four times last night. The floodlights were switched off when they left the balcony on their last appearance at 11pm, but many of the crowd kept up the rejoicings for some time afterwards."

The book details many of the costs of the wedding as far as the government was concerned - and its attempts to pass on some of the expense. The dean and chapter of Westminster were less than pleased to be billed for £92 to cover the cost of a temporary stand for clergy unable to take their usual seats in the abbey's choir stalls.

The ministry of works scrupulously detailed its costs, including an awning for the west door of the Abbey £115, carpets £83, draping in the chapel £9, curtain at abbey door £15, loan of 800 chairs £50, Whitehall decorations £400, banners by Buckingham Palace £544.

Anxious not to appear too extravagant at a time of rationing, the royal family limited the wedding breakfast to 150 guests and three courses, with partridge as the main dish since it was not rationed.

For police on duty in the cold outside, extra rations were agreed, including bacon sandwiches - three-fourteenths of an ounce of bacon each, plus extra belly bacon - and a special licence was given for police canteens to serve beer outside normal hours, between 3pm and 5.30pm.

The issue of the prince's nationality was a sensitive one, not least because his four sisters had all married Germans, some of them with "unfortunate connections" during the war - so they would not be invited to the wedding.

The engagement was to take place on the princess's 21st birthday in April 1947, but it was discovered that Philip had already applied for British nationality in December 1946, just as a quicker procedure was being adopted, so news of his naturalisation was likely to leak out at a time when the palace was still denying that any engagement would take place. But, as the archives disclose, officials pointed out that if there was a delay in processing the prince's application "it might appear that there is some doubt about his suitability".

The solution adopted was for the naturalisation board to revert to the longer and more costly previous procedure for all applicants, not just the prince: "Despite the obvious inconvenience to both candidates and board, this is what happened".

· Elizabeth and Philip by Val Horsler, National Archive, £7.99

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 04:20:21 PM
From the Times

Choristers who sang at the original service in 1947, now in their seventies, will also be among the 2,000 invited guests along with Gordon Brown, Baroness Thatcher, Sir John Major, 30 members of the Royal Family and Royal Household staff, past and present.

Some of the Duke’s German relatives will attend; it was not diplomatic to invite them to the original service. Even his sisters, who married Germans, were not invited. This time the guests will include his niece Princess Margarita of Baden, the Margrave and Margravine of Baden, and Prince and Princess Ludwig of Baden.

Princess Elizabeth, as she was then, and Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten were married at the height of postwar and rationing; like all brides at the time the Princess had to save up her clothing ration coupons for her wedding dress.

Given the nation’s hard times the couple prepared for a quiet, simple wedding. But Clement Attlee, the Prime Minister, favoured a grand occasion to help lift the gloom that hung over the country. Churchill, then Leader of the Opposition, called it “a flash of colour on the hard road we travel”.

They were married in front of 2,600 guests by Dr Geoffrey Fisher, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Princess had eight bridesmaids, led by her sister Princess Margaret; Philip had his cousin David, Marquess of Milford Haven, as best man. The couple received 2,500 wedding presents, including Meissen pots from Pope Pius XII and a thoroughbred filly from the Aga Khan.

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 04:24:18 PM
From the BBC

(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44248000/jpg/_44248105_queenojcouplechurch220_pa.jpg)

(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44248000/jpg/_44248199_queenphiliprels_ap416.jpg)

(Some of Philip's German relatives, perhaps someone can ID; perhaps Princess Margarita of Baden, the Margrave and Margravine of Baden, and Prince and Princess Ludwig of Baden listed prior as atttending?)

(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44248000/jpg/_44248143_queen07leave220_getty.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 04:48:34 PM
From the AP (photos were taken at Broadlands where they spent their honeymoon, sweet  :) They posed for a photograph in the grounds, striking the same pose as in 1947, with the Queen wearing the same jewellery, a double strand pearl necklace, which was a wedding gift from her father, George VI, and a brooch which was thought to have been a gift to Queen Victoria from Prince Albert.

(http://ap.google.com/media/ALeqM5hZ1ovf56kHfPtInHFWUbgg-0B2Rg?size=m)

(http://ap.google.com/media/ALeqM5ho_THiS_HsOD2cshdPq8uy_H2Zig?size=m)

(http://ap.google.com/media/ALeqM5gykd7TbClqQK36Ded_4uEg5hEkgA?size=m)

(http://ap.google.com/media/ALeqM5iMOHoTF3jzJrkrm85Zj52GNpbmwA?size=m)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 04:57:43 PM
From The Telegraph

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/11/19/nroyal119vid.jpg)

The dinner Charles hosted for his parents marked the public debut in royal circles of Autumn Kelly, the 31-year-old fiancée of Peter Phillips, son of the Princess Royal. The couple are due to marry next year at Windsor Castle. The line-up also included a heavily pregnant Countess of Wessex. The Duchess of Kent, who has virtually vanished from public life, withdrew because of a heavy cold. It was a poignant evening for Princess Alexandra as she was one of the bridesmaids at the wedding....The striking table arrangement, white cattleya orchids, was inspired by the Queen's bouquet which, after the wedding ceremony, she left on the tomb of the unknown soldier at Westminster Abbey. The florist, Shane Connolly, also wove delicate sprays of orange and wheat blossom around the gilt candelabra, which were modelled on the bridesmaids' headdresses.


(I think Anne looks good!)

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/11/19/nroyals119a.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ChristineM on November 19, 2007, 04:59:12 PM
Thanks Ella for the superb commentary which made fascinating reading.

tsaria
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on November 19, 2007, 06:42:35 PM
Hi,

Thank you for the very full information that you posted about The Queen and The Duke and their history.  Very worthwhile!!

In the picture of the family taken at The Prince of Wales dinner party, I do not see the Gloucester, Kent or Ogilvie children.  Were they present?  Or not invited?  Or are they not royal enough to be included?

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: emeraldeyes on November 19, 2007, 07:50:59 PM
Some bits and pieces...

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/wed.jpg)

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/route.jpg)

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/weda.jpg)

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/wedf.jpg)

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/wedd.jpg)

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/wede.jpg)

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/wedb.jpg)

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/wedg.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: emeraldeyes on November 19, 2007, 07:56:56 PM
One last one...this is one of my all-time favourites...

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/queenelizabeth146.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 09:59:39 PM
Some of the guests

Duchess of Gloucester

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/modern/77979737.jpg)

The Yorks

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/modern/77979740.jpg)

The Linleys

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/modern/77979863.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 10:01:14 PM
Princess Alexandra

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/modern/77979865.jpg)

Prince & Princess Michael

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/modern/77979925.jpg)

Lady Helen Taylor

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/modern/77979592.jpg)

Lord Frederick Windsor

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/modern/77978058.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 10:03:00 PM
Lady Mountbatten

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/modern/77979136.jpg)

Pamela Hicks (a bridesmaid) with her 2 daughters India and Edwina

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/modern/77979147.jpg)

Brand new parents Lord & Lady Nicholas Windsor

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/modern/77979682.jpg)

Duchess of Gloucester and her daughter Davina

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/modern/77979715.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 10:04:17 PM
Princess Anne

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/modern/77978146.jpg)

Princess Anne, Commander Laurence, Peter Phillips & Autumn Kelly, Zara

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/modern/77979641.jpg)

Peter & Autumn

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/modern/77979123.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 10:06:29 PM
Camilla

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/modern/77979133.jpg)

Lady Gabriella Windsor

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f282/vickyandfritz/britain/modern/77979116.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 10:10:00 PM
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/11/11/royal/royal1947.jpg)

"The queen, whose marriage with Philip has had its up and downs, has described her husband as her "strength and stay" over the years.

"I owe him a debt greater than he would ever claim, or we shall ever know," the queen said recently about her husband.

Looking at the relationship from Philip's point of view, a top courtier once said: "Prince Philip is the only man in the world who treats the queen simply as another human being." "

Commemorative stamps

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/11/11/royal/royalstamps.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 10:12:45 PM
From the Telegraph, Pamela Hicks shares some memories

"She looked wonderful in her beautiful dress and veil and she had an incredible peaches-and-cream complexion. She was 21, in love and radiantly happy. He was 26 and unbelievably good-looking. Every girl in Britain seemed to be in love with him. As the Queen walked into Westminster Abbey for the service, she had a remarkable poise. Yet, behind the scenes, there had been endless mishaps which we, the bridesmaids, only learnt about afterwards. Most brides who had endured such an ordeal would have been quivering wrecks, but not the Queen.

As the bride was being dressed - having her tiara and veil fitted - the tiara snapped. Some unfortunate person, I think it was Col Martin Charteris [later Lord Charteris and the Queen's private secretary], was bundled into a taxi and sent across London to the jeweller to get it fixed. Furthermore, the Queen wanted to wear the pearls that her parents had given her, but they had been left with the other wedding presents. For a second time, someone was dispatched to wherever the presents were on display so the pearls could be retrieved in the nick of time. Finally, just as the Queen was about to leave for Westminster Abbey, her bouquet could not be found. Again, there was a frantic search and it was discovered someone had put it in a cool cupboard - it was found just in time......

After the service, we bridesmaids joined the Queen and Prince Philip on the balcony at Buckingham Palace. The police had been holding everyone back around the Victoria Memorial, but they then let them go and there was this most incredible surge of people. Every time the couple waved, the volume of cheering got even louder. It was one of the most memorable days of my life, yet I so nearly did not make it. There was real anxiety that my family would have to stay in India because my father had just switched from being the last Viceroy of imperial India to being Governor General of the new India. The riots had started and the situation was so worrying that he felt we would have to stay. But, eventually, the country's new leaders persuaded him that we should go and my parents and I flew back to Britain for 10 days.

Princess Elizabeth had written me a sweet letter asking me to be one of her bridesmaids and I, of course, was honoured to accept. Before we left, my parents saw Mahatma Gandhi [the spiritual leader of the new India] and he told my father: "I so wanted to give Princess Elizabeth a present, but I have given all my possessions away." My father, however, knew he still had his spinning wheel and he told Gandhi: "If a cloth could be made from yarn you have spun, that would be like receiving the Crown Jewels." And so this was done and we took his present to Britain for the wedding, but Queen Mary [the Queen's grandmother] wrongly thought it was a loincloth and that it was a most "indelicate" gift.

During our time in London, we stayed at the Dorchester, which was rather fun. We arrived just a few days before the wedding: the other seven bridesmaids were very calm and collected, because they had had lots of fittings for their dresses, but I had just one rushed fitting. But they - the designer Norman Hartnell and his staff - were so professional that it was all fine. When the couple left Buckingham Palace after the wedding breakfast, it was poignant for us because they were going to spend their wedding night at Broadlands...When they left, the Queen hid Susan - her favourite corgi - under a rug in their carriage so that she could go with them. I went to bed that night too over-excited to sleep. It had been a fairy-tale wedding and I felt so thrilled to have played a small part in it."




Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 10:17:32 PM
From the Telegraph:

"It has also, in its dignified and unassuming way, become a source of national reassurance, a steadying influence, a humbling example of how it is done. Sir Michael Oswald, an old friend of the Queen, believes that the secret of her long and happy marriage is that she shares with her husband not only a strong sense of duty, but also a sense of humour. As well as a sense of humour they also share a passion for horses, and the countryside generally. But in other ways they are opposites who attract. He is intellectual, she intelligent. She is passive, he active. She will move at the slowest pace of the crowd, he goes with the fastest. But who ultimately wears the trousers in the relationship? The answer, it appears, is entirely based upon whether they are in public or private. "They have worked out a very interesting modus operandi," says the senior royal official. "In public, as you might expect, the Queen is very much in the lead, and the jokes about him always being one step behind her are entirely accurate.". Philip is certainly protective of her, and fiercely loyal. He will bark at photographers to get them out of her way. One senior courtier notes that the Queen and Prince Philip were a particularly good partnership in times of family crisis - including during the break-up of three of their four children’s marriages. It seems that when all is said, they are a good double act. They both have a much closer relationship with their grandchildren than people give them credit for. They are always arranging private events - often afternoon teas - where they see their grandchildren on their own."





Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 10:22:48 PM
The Mirror also had their own 60 facts

royal expert James Whitaker reveals 60 things which may surprise you about this lasting love affair...

1 THEY sealed their friendship over ginger biscuits and lemonade, then Philip demonstrated his athleticism by jumping over the nets of the college tennis courts.

2 ALTHOUGH a prince of Greece, Philip comes from Danish, Russian, German and English stock. Before marrying, he had to be naturalised as British, which took three years.

3 IN 1956, the Queen and the duke introduced lunches at Buckingham Palace to meet distinguished people from all walks of life. There are usually six to eight guests.

4 TOGETHER, the two have sent nearly 40,000 Christmas cards during her 55-year reign.

5 THEIR first London residence was Clarence House, where Charles and Camilla now live.

6 THE royal couple have been separated just once on an overseas tour. In 1974 the Queen had to return home from Australia when an election was called. Philip was rejoined by his wife in Indonesia.

7 THE Prince's favourite tipple is lager.

8 EVERY week, without fail, Prince Philip gets flowers for the Queen.

9 THE Queen's former private secretary, Lord Charteris (1972-77), said of Philip: "He is the only man in the world who treats the Queen as a human being."

10 THE teenage Princess Elizabeth kept a photo of Philip on her mantelpiece. When her nanny Marion Crawford asked if it was wise as people would gossip, Elizabeth replaced it with one of the prince with a naval beard and said: "I defy anyone to recognise who that is!"

11 DURING their engagement they played a parlour game called Murder, often ending up in dark spots when the lights went out.

12 NOT as religious as his wife, Philip conspicuously read a book during Prince Charles's confirmation. The Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, Michael Ramsay, said: "Bloody rude, that's what I call it."

13 PHILIP'S pet name for his wife is "sausage".

14 THE Queen Mother used to refer to Philip as The Hun as he is a member of the German house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg.

15 WHEN the pair honeymooned at Broadlands, the Mountbatten's country home near Romsey, Hants, the bride had 15 suitcases, the groom two.

16 UNDER pressure from his wife-to-be, Philip gave up smoking on the morning of his wedding.

17 PRINCESS Elizabeth and Lieut Philip Mountbatten had an inauspicious start to married life. None of his sisters were allowed to at tend the wedding as they had all married high-ranking German officers and the war was "too fresh in people's minds".

18 WHEN Philip's cousin Patricia Mountbat ten remarked on Elizabeth's flawless complexion, the Prince joked: "Yes, and she's like that all over."

19 GEORGE VI's private secretary, Sir Alan Lascelles, spoke for many when he described Philip as "rough, uneducated and would probably not be faithful".

20 THE princess first met Philip when she was 13 during a tour of the Royal Naval College in Dartmouth, Devon.

21 PHILIP was born a prince of Greece and became a prince of the United Kingdom in 1957.

22 IN traditional upper-class fashion Elizabeth and Philip had connecting bedrooms. When he walked into Philip's bedroom one morning, royal valet James MacDonald was embarrassed to find Elizabeth in a silk nightgown and Philip naked. "Prince Philip didn't care at all," said MacDonald. "Pyjamas? Never wear the things," Philip once said.

23 WHEN they first moved into Buckingham Palace, Philip had a direct phone line installed so that he could talk to his wife without going through the switchboard.

24 BECAUSE war rationing was in force when they married, Elizabeth had to save her clothes coupons for her Norman Hartnell wedding dress. It cost £1,200 and used up 300 coupons.

25 ONCE, when the Queen repeatedly sucked in her breath at his fast driving, Philip told her: "If you do that once more I shall put you out of the car."

26 TO the delight of Philip, the Queen refuses to wear a riding hat (she wears a scarf) and will not belt up in the car.

27 BOTH the Queen and Prince Philip dislike duvets and prefer sheets and blankets.

28 THE wedding reception was a low-key af fair for 150 at Buckingham Palace. The King decreed there should be no long speeches as he hated both making and listening to them.

29 THE Queen has never revealed how Philip proposed to her.

30 ON the day of the wedding, a footman lost the bride's bouquet and hertiara snapped as it was put on.

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 19, 2007, 10:23:06 PM
31 IN the year of their wedding, the Queen and Philip attended a fancy-dress ball. She dressed as a maid, he as a waiter.

32 WHILE courting, the couple's favourite tune was People Will Say We're In Love from the musical Oklahoma!

33 PHILIP has nothing to do with his wife's life as sovereign but does deal with family problems, of which there have been many.

34 "IT is not unknown for the Queen to tell Philip to shut up," Lord Charteris once revealed.

35 THE first "Royal walkabout" was in 1970 in New Zealand and Australia. The idea, thought to have been put forward by Philip, was to meet ordinary people.

36 PHILIP personally designed his bride's engagement ring using diamonds given to him by his mother, Alice.

37 ALTHOUGH the Queen has sat for 141 official portraits during her lifetime, only two were with her husband.

38 THE Queen took her favourite corgi, Susan, along on their honeymoon.

39 ON the day of his wedding a relative of the nervous Philip told him to enjoy the "great day". He replied: "I don't know if I'm being very brave or very foolish."

40 THE Queen still carries in her handbag a silver make-up case given to her by Philip as a wedding gift.

41 ALL the Queen's major decisions - paying tax, giving up the royal yacht, urging Charles and Diana to have an early divorce - were taken after consulting Philip.

42 AT the Coronation in 1953, Philip was the first layman to pay homage to the Queen. He knelt at her feet and kissed her left cheek.

43 AFTER the death of King George VI in February, 1952, the royal couple did not want to move into Buckingham Pa lace but Pr ime Minis ter Wins ton Churchill insisted.

44 THE Queen and Philip still have blazing rows. One courtier said: "You can hardly believe what you are seeing. There are cries of 'Rubbish' and 'You don't know what you're talking about.'"

45 WHEN Philip, encouraged by the Queen, mooted the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme in 1956, the then Education minister, David Eccles, said: "I hear you're trying to invent something like the Hitler Youth movement."

46 LIKE her late mother, the Queen loves a gin and Dubonnet for lunch but actually drinks very little.

47 WHEN Philip was not allowed to give son Charles his surname, Mountbatten, he protested loudly.

48 PHILIP has not missed a single key event of the Queen's long reign.

49 PHILIP could never have a bath with his wife because a maid is always in attendance.

50 THE Queen loves to do impersonations and does a very good one of Philip.

51 PHILIP stays fit by using coiled-metal chest expanders, taking them with him wherever he goes.

52 ALTHOUGH they still sleep in the same bed most of the time, they stay in separate rooms if one of them has to get up early.

53 THE couple received 2,500 wedding presents from around the world. Among them was a piece of cloth from Mahatma Gandhi which Queen Mary, the Queen's grandmother, thought was a loin cloth.

54 BECAUSE of post-war rationing, most of the ingredients for the four-tier wedding cake were donated as a wedding gift by Australian Girl Guides.

55 A PICTURE of Prince Philip wearing naval uniform, as above, has pride of place on the Queen's writing table.

56 MALTA is the only country other than the UK where the royal couple have lived. Philip served there with the Navy between 1949 and 1951, during which time his wife would visit.

57 THE Queen finds video recorders complicated so Philip is in charge of taping her favourite programmes.

58 THEY eat breakfast together with cereals on the table in plastic Tupperware containers.

59 IF rowing with her husband, the Queen's technique is to talk in riddles to confuse his logical mind.

60 THE 60th wedding anniversary is being celebrated with Royal Mint gold and silver £5 coins, featuring a joint portrait of the Queen and Philip on one side and an engraving of the rose window of Westminster Abbey, where they married, on the other.

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on November 20, 2007, 01:58:26 AM
Marvellous, GDE, thank you!  I think there's a lot here that explains why their 60 year union has been so successful, don't you think?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Martyn on November 20, 2007, 08:08:04 AM
Hugely entertaining as well as informative........
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on November 20, 2007, 10:42:32 AM
I love the fact that the Queen took 15 suitcases with her on honeymoon! And fancy the Queen mother referring to the Duke as "the hun"!!!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Victor on November 20, 2007, 04:47:21 PM
Gin and Dubonnet at lunch-delisious!Love the Hitler Youth Movement comment.He was proven wrong.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 20, 2007, 09:13:06 PM
You're all welcome. I really liked this list--the other was very informative but this was gossipy too.  ;) I confess to liking the 'naughty' bits that showed the couple behind the stiff photos--the ending up in dark corners, the Queen in her nightgown and Philip in his birthday suit and Philip's comment about her skin being flawless 'all over'. Also him getting her flowers every week--for 60 years!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on November 30, 2007, 05:32:41 PM
If these pictures have been posted somewhere else please in the Alexander Palace Forum delete them.  I have been away for so long that it is daunting to go through the threads and see if these pictures have been posted in the last four months.  Again, please delete duplicates.  Thanks.

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/Nov6.jpg)
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/Nov6II.jpg)
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/Nov6III.jpg)
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/Nov7.jpg)

-Duke of NJ
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on December 09, 2007, 03:13:37 AM
An interesting insight...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071209/ten-britain-royals-people-queen-a56114e_2.html (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071209/ten-britain-royals-people-queen-a56114e_2.html)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: pandora on December 09, 2007, 08:31:40 AM
Thank you Eddieboy for that article as it was very insightful. I may be an American but I've always admired the Queen very much.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Tdora1 on December 20, 2007, 03:04:13 AM
HM will become the longest living British monarch at 17.00 GMT today (20 December 2007) as she overtakes the record set by her great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria. QV was born on May 24 1819 and died on January 22 1901 at the age of 81 years and 243 days. QEII was born on April 21 1926. This takes into account the time of QV's birth and death. According to BP, HM has no public engagements or audiences today but will be hard at it as usual with the red boxes and stuff. The Royal Family spend Christmas and New Year at Sandringham in Norfolk. (The record for the longest reign would be surpassed on September 9 2015).
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: TampaBay on December 20, 2007, 06:28:39 AM
Which Monarch ahd the longest regin?  Was it James I??


TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on December 20, 2007, 09:05:50 AM
Hi,

Congratulations to HM The Queen on setting this milestone.........  And, long may she live and reign!!

I think Queen Victoria reigned the longest = 64 years (1837 - 1901)..
George III = 60 years (1760 - 1820)
James I = 58 years (1567 - 1625)
Henry III = 56 years (1216 - 1272)
come next.

Elizabeth II comes next = 55 years (1952 - present)

Although I don't know if they separate James I's reigns between Scotland and England and list them separately...

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Tdora1 on December 23, 2007, 09:19:38 AM
I believe James' reigns are regarded separately. He is known as James VI of Scotland and then as James I when he gained the English throne.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on December 24, 2007, 03:35:23 AM
The Royal Channel,Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/theroyalchannel

On Christmas Day you can watch HM Christmas speech here at 15.00PM GMT.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on December 29, 2007, 09:11:49 PM
At Christmas services

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_04/queenDM2512_468x660.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on January 14, 2008, 10:22:17 AM
French President Nicolas Sarkozy will pay a State Visit at the invitation of HM,march 26th - 28th.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page6127.asp

..wonder if Sarko takes his toydoll with him......hope not ::)

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: CHRISinUSA on January 14, 2008, 10:27:40 AM
A Buckingham Palace spokesman rather gallantly deflected a reporter's question on the topic, saying only that "it is too early to determine who, if anyone, will accompany the President on his State Visit."
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on January 15, 2008, 08:28:29 PM
Whether of not this is true, it's a cute story from people.co.uk:

"MAKE WAY FOR THE Q Wii N
Elizabeth hogs Wills' Xmas gift from Kate ROYAL EXCLUSIVE
By Dean Rousewell
The gadget-loving Queen has become HOOKED on Prince William's new Nintendo Wii games console.

William's girlfriend Kate Middleton bought him the £200 gift for Christmas - but he now has to share it with his grandma. A Palace source told The People: "When she saw William playing a game after lunch at Sandringham she thought the Nintendo looked tremendous fun and begged to join in. "She played a simple ten-pin bowling game and by all accounts was a natural. "It was hilarious. William was in fits of laughter. He was enormously impressed at having such a cool gran. "And although she is 81 the Queen's hand-eye co-ordination was as good as somebody half her age."

The Wii was this Christmas's musthave gift. Players can create their own customised on-screen lookalike..."His only difficulty nowis prising it away from the Queen's clutches. She showed all the signs of becoming a Nintendo addict." It's not the first time the Queen has joined the hi-tech revolution. In 2001 she got her first mobile phone and has regularly upgraded to one with the latest features. Her Majesty set up her own email account years ago. In 2005 she took delivery of an iPod that stores more than 100,000 tunes. And last June she added a trendy BlackBerry to her technological armoury - and made sure her senior staff were equipped with them too." "
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Martyn on January 21, 2008, 08:03:00 AM
What a great story.  Technology can be sometimes be baffling for those of us who are half the Queen's age so it is great to read that she keeps abreast of this type of thing.

We seem to learn more and more about Elizabeth the private person as the years progress, all of it positive.  I think that this in no way diminishes respect for her but renders her more accessible to the public.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ashdean on January 21, 2008, 10:34:05 AM
I have been trawling the Times archive for the coronation of 1953 and have can not find out whether or not Princess Arthur of Connaught actually attended! I can not believe she did not, unless she was gravely ill at the time! Can anyone clarify whether she did attend, and more to the point, did the present Duke of Fife? I can not locate either in the family photos taken at the palace after the ceremonials, but may not be looking properly!!

princess Arthur suffered from a number of illnesses in her later years including crippling reuhmatism....perhaps that was why she did not attend.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: dmitri on January 21, 2008, 10:35:56 AM
The Queen has always been very likeable. She continues to try and do her job as best she can. It must be very disheartening seeing how things have disintegrated in the United Kingdom even though she has done her utmost to try to keep it all together. She is not responsible for political policies and social dislocation. God Save The Queen as nothing else will save those she tries to valiantly reign over. People need to do something to salvage the situation by electing more repsonsible governments and being a touch more responsible themselves for their children and a range of other important issues. No wonder The Queen likes the electronic game. It might allow her to forget some of the troubles she sees everywhere.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on January 24, 2008, 11:46:24 AM
Banana anyone..?

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1201185872.html

Courtesy Janet,BRMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: dmitri on January 24, 2008, 06:06:53 PM
HM The Queen looks simply marvellous in those photos. What a lovely situation for both ladies.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on January 25, 2008, 03:44:26 PM
Yes, it's a really nice story.  Thanks for posting, Lucien.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Mari on January 26, 2008, 03:53:36 AM
Really touching...the baby reaching out for the bananas! Really amusing too!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on February 05, 2008, 08:18:31 PM
Thomas (Reichen) posted this link on the GREMB. It's the Rolf programme that was on TV awhile back. It's now on the internet:

http://www.stage6.com/user/erezgonen1/video/1971174/The-Queen-by-Rolf
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on February 07, 2008, 03:42:36 PM
56 Years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN5MN3H1WWk

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on February 20, 2008, 12:54:02 PM
HM and the DoE will pay a State Visit to Turkey in may.They will visit Ankara and Istanbul.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on February 22, 2008, 12:16:35 PM
HM yesterday:
http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1203668767.html

Courtesy Barbara D.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 01, 2008, 12:16:37 PM
HM yesterday:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1204366899.html

Courtesy Barbara,BRMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 05, 2008, 03:49:39 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/helenazar/liz3.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/helenazar/liz2.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/helenazar/liz1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Umjetnik on March 05, 2008, 04:04:38 PM
oooooo i love them. I always wanted to ask does anyone have them, a little bigger. I think , that there is two more. I love Annie.... And the Queen , on the third looks a bit scary to me.....ha ha 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 05, 2008, 04:30:46 PM
Scarey ? Or bored to tears and  is only thinking of getting out the getup and having a nice cuppa?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 06, 2008, 01:48:40 AM
State Visit to Turkey in may:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page6212.asp

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: TampaBay on March 08, 2008, 07:55:50 AM
Does anyone know how well QEII knew the Tsar's sister, Grand Duchess Olga of Russia?

TampaBay

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: alixaannencova on March 08, 2008, 10:21:19 AM
What an interesting question TamapaBay!!

I wonder too now that you have raised it! It must be very strange for someone who has literally everything to have close relatives with next to nothing! I understand that the Queen and Prince Phillip did visit Olga A. in Canada in the late fifties or maybe it was the early sixties!

It must be very hard, for someone like the Queen to really understand the magnitude and impact that events had on her Romanov kin! One could never justly criticize the Queen for this, as I do not feel it is, or ever was her fault that she probably has never been able to fully relate to them! I often wonder though how she feels about the position GV was put in in 1917/18! I know political expediency and self preservation dealt GV a terrible personal blow and often wonder whether the emotional burden wasn't in some way passed on to GVI and the Queen! One gets the impression that Xenia in particular reaped some benefits from this later on, but with regards to Olga, I have no idea, though I think she did get some sort of annuity from her English cousins, though it was probably not very much!

I would really like to know how Cookie felt too! I mean she could hardly have been able to imagine the sort of lives Xenia and Olga lead before the Revolution! I dare say there are/were few who can, except those born to the purple proper! Then again, no one but a Romanov could really have been able to empathize, as their pre - revolutionary lives were probably beyond the imaginings of any other mortals on earth at that time, were they not?

It is interesting to see that the Queen has maintained close relationships with Constantine and Anne Marie of Greece since they were thrown out of Greece and with Alexander of Yugoslavia too! Perhaps this is a reflection of HM's wish to support those amongst her 'peers' less fortunate then herself.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: TampaBay on March 09, 2008, 09:34:38 AM
I read an account in some book that when told QEII and Philip would visit, it was politely suggested to Olga that she buy a new dress.  Olga responded with something like"All this fuss for just Lilibet".......and shook her head and smiled.

I have no doubt QEII knew Xenia as Xenia was supposed to be GV's favorite cousin in several books I have read.  However, I have always wondered about the Queens's relationship with Olga.


TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 15, 2008, 02:08:33 AM
HM opened Terminal 5 at Heathrow.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7294618.stm
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 21, 2008, 06:54:04 AM
Maundy thursday,Armagh.

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1206042178.html

Courtesy Brent,BRMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 25, 2008, 04:09:33 AM
President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and mrs.Carla Sarkozy will arrive in the UK tomorrow for a State Visit.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 26, 2008, 01:51:00 AM
President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and mrs.Carla Sarkozy will arrive in the UK tomorrow for a State Visit.

Windsor yesterday:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1206483778.html

Courtesy Torkel,GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 26, 2008, 08:31:21 AM
President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and mrs.Carla Sarkozy will arrive in the UK tomorrow for a State Visit.

The couple was welcomed at the airport by TRH The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1206534226.html

Courtesy Barbara D & Tim,BRMB.

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1206534642.html

Courtesy Nellie,GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 26, 2008, 11:10:34 AM
President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and mrs.Carla Sarkozy will arrive in the UK tomorrow for a State Visit.

The couple was welcomed at the airport by TRH The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1206534226.html

Courtesy Barbara D & Tim,BRMB.

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1206534642.html

Courtesy Nellie,GREMB.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7314230.stm

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 26, 2008, 12:57:05 PM
President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and mrs.Carla Sarkozy will arrive in the UK tomorrow for a State Visit.

The couple was welcomed at the airport by TRH The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1206534226.html

Courtesy Barbara D & Tim,BRMB.

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1206534642.html

Courtesy Nellie,GREMB.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7314230.stm

Uhmm,I'm a bit lost as to why president Sarkozy took his mother-in-law with him as well....maybe she treatened to publish another semi nude of her demi monde daughter come Premier Dame de France.... ::)?

Excusez moi.. :-\

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1206553655.html

Courtesy Barbara D,BRMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on March 26, 2008, 01:14:05 PM
Thank you Lucien for sharing with us! The Duchess looks very nice. Mrs Sarkozy does too but the flat shoes she is wearing look very odd.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 26, 2008, 01:36:46 PM
What is she thinking here?She has that mischievous look...
http://www.abacausa.com/ximagi/search.php?u=&assignment_id=42488

What is your guess in the jewellery department for tonights banquet Eddie?Anyone?

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: CHRISinUSA on March 26, 2008, 03:30:12 PM
Thank you Lucien for sharing with us! The Duchess looks very nice. Mrs Sarkozy does too but the flat shoes she is wearing look very odd.

I agree Eddie, although I've read that she wears flats so as not to tower over her shorter husband.  Diana, PoW did the same thing during her marriage to the somewhat shorter Charles.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 26, 2008, 04:07:45 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7313570.stm

Madame Sarkozy,Windsor Castle:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1206565777.html

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1206566811.html

Courtesy Henri M,BRMB.

Oh,and here...:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7017/87958739bc3bbwq9.jpg

Courtesy Paty,TRF.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 26, 2008, 04:48:12 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7313570.stm

Madame Sarkozy,Windsor Castle:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1206565777.html

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1206566811.html

Courtesy Henri M,BRMB.

Oh,and here...:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7017/87958739bc3bbwq9.jpg

Courtesy Paty,TRF.

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/91/8796048b2f49fqo4.jpg

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/579/8796060b4161cqy5.jpg

Courtesy Paty,TRF.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 27, 2008, 10:25:37 AM
Guestlist State Banquet,Windsor Castle last night:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/court_and_social/article3627344.ece

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 27, 2008, 11:20:38 AM
Au revoir Madame:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1206631495.html

Courtesy Torkel,GREMB.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7316401.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7310000/newsid_7316700/7316744.stm?bw=nb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1bbcws=1

HM speech:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7310000/newsid_7315400/7315405.stm?bw=nb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1bbcws=1
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 02, 2008, 01:29:54 PM
In case you plan a trip to the UK:

http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/

http://www.iatwm.com/200804/HMTreasures/index.html

 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 02, 2008, 01:48:31 PM
HM and the Princess Royal attended the Memorial Service for Sir Edmund Hillary,St.George Chapel,Windsor.

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1207151654.html

Courtesy Mel,BRMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 20, 2008, 01:09:48 PM
HM The Queen will celebrate her 82nd birthday tomorrow!
 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 21, 2008, 07:00:24 AM
HM The Queen will celebrate her 82nd birthday tomorrow!
 :)

http://www.royalimages.nl/search.pp?specialid=1727&flush=1

 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 21, 2008, 08:31:54 AM
HM The Queen will celebrate her 82nd birthday tomorrow!
 :)

http://www.royalimages.nl/search.pp?specialid=1727&flush=1

 :)

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1208759067.html

Courtesy Brent,GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 21, 2008, 01:54:13 PM
Wonderful link thank you Lucien!
A few of my favourites
http://www.royalimages.nl/search.pp?page=2&ShowPicture=2506510&pos=14 (http://www.royalimages.nl/search.pp?page=2&ShowPicture=2506510&pos=14) (I like the the detail on the dress which matches the necklace)
http://www.royalimages.nl/search.pp?page=2&ShowPicture=1466210&pos=19 (http://www.royalimages.nl/search.pp?page=2&ShowPicture=1466210&pos=19) (The head scarf is rather becoming!)
http://www.royalimages.nl/search.pp?page=1&ShowPicture=6756203&pos=2 (http://www.royalimages.nl/search.pp?page=1&ShowPicture=6756203&pos=2) (Wonderful hair!)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ArchDss Louise-Henriette on April 21, 2008, 02:25:22 PM
1950's QEII
(http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/3466/1953amazingbf6.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ArchDss Louise-Henriette on April 21, 2008, 02:27:09 PM
From my private collection :

Princess Elizabeth sits in national park in Africa on 21th April 1947
(http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2473/princesselizabethsitsinvx0.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ArchDss Louise-Henriette on April 21, 2008, 02:36:24 PM
A few more ....

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/6108/arareqeiigc5.jpg

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/4421/awesomeqeiihm8.jpg



Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 22, 2008, 10:49:02 AM
Beautifull,thank you!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ArchDss Louise-Henriette on April 22, 2008, 10:54:29 AM
Beautifull,thank you!

You're Welcome ! :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 04, 2008, 07:55:27 AM
HM and the Duke of Edinburgh will pay a State Visit to Turkey next week from may 13th till may 16th.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 05, 2008, 01:46:14 PM
HM,in disguise..:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1209966949.html

Courtesy Hovite,BRMB.
 ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ArchDss Louise-Henriette on May 05, 2008, 03:38:41 PM
HM Elizabeth II  at Buckingham Palace's  'green room'  or blue  *  :-\ *
(http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/4002/copyofatbuckinghamtp6.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: emeraldeyes on May 08, 2008, 11:09:19 AM

As discovered and reported by Brock on the RJOTWMB, a new Canadian official photo portrait of HM - taken during the Golden Jubilee tour.

http://www.pch.gc.ca/special/reine-queen/index_e.cfm (http://www.pch.gc.ca/special/reine-queen/index_e.cfm) 

Amazingly detailed!


And below, an interesting comparison as posted by Baxter on the same board.  How many 'tweaks' can you find?

(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/qe.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 13, 2008, 03:46:35 PM
HM & The Duke arrived for their State Visit to Turkey this morning:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg.1210695454.html

Courtesy Baxter,GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 15, 2008, 03:43:15 PM
HM & The Duke arrived for their State Visit to Turkey this morning:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg.1210695454.html

Courtesy Baxter,GREMB.

State Banquet last night:

http://members2.boardhost.com/royal-jewels/msg/1210715070.html

Baxter,RJWMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on May 15, 2008, 04:08:34 PM
From the DAILY NEWS about the Queen order....


"The first sign that Turkish leaders attached special importance to the event was that President Gül wore a tuxedo, a dramatic change from his usual practice of wearing suits on special occasions. Gül did not wear a tuxedo even when he was sworn into office or on Republic Day. Gül also wore the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath that Queen Elizabeth bestowed on him, and the Queen put on the state medal, which she received from Gül. "
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 10, 2008, 02:48:50 PM
HM attended the Epsom races:

http://www.royalimages.nl/search.pp?mailingid=10007&flush=1

Courtesy Royalimages.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on June 16, 2008, 01:27:16 PM
HM looking lovely at the Garter ceremony today

(http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/81588350.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1934B869679A269F9CC8214F7D8F9BF4440E30A760B0D811297)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: emeraldeyes on June 24, 2008, 09:25:33 PM
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/emeraldeyes1969/qe.jpg)

So I emailed Canadian Heritage for a copy of the new portrait, and guess which version arrived?  NOT the tweaked one, but the original.  How very odd...

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 27, 2008, 04:14:48 AM
Dear Mister Mandela was welcomed by HM yesterday;"You look younger every time I see you."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029560/The-Nelson-Mandela-touch-charms-Her-Majesty-Buckingham-Palace.html

 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on June 29, 2008, 10:56:32 PM
Look at this!  According to article, the Queen now owns her own McDonald's.

"Would one like fries with that"?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23944195-13762,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23944195-13762,00.html)

I doubt if we'll see HM eating there (or going via "drive-through" for that matter).
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Mari on June 30, 2008, 12:46:36 AM
Although you might see the eventual great-grandchildren of William and Harry as their Mother took them to one when they were growing up. Perhaps even the occasional Grandchild of HM still grabs a Burger!  ;D 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 03, 2008, 01:10:10 PM
The Most Noble Order of The Thistle,Edinburgh:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1215060308.html

courtesy dear Marianne,GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 18, 2008, 01:24:52 AM
HM and the HRH The Duke of Kent attended the service of the Order of St.Michael and St.George at St.Paul´s  Cathedral:

http://www.royalimages.nl/search.pp?page=1&ShowPicture=7863783&pos=6

http://www.royalimages.nl/search.pp?page=1&ShowPicture=7863780&pos=7
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 22, 2008, 01:14:52 PM
State Visits to Slovenia and Slowakia this autumn.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page6108.asp
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on August 02, 2008, 04:41:47 AM
State Banquet exhibit at Buckingham Palace:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1216984562.html

Courtesy Joris & Marianne,BRMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on August 17, 2008, 02:23:34 AM
Portraits of a Queen.

http://www.royalimages.nl/search.pp?specialid=1727&savesearch=1&flush=1

Courtesy Royalimages.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on September 04, 2008, 02:34:49 PM
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/

Courtesy Royalblog.nl's HJA.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kimberly on September 14, 2008, 09:25:58 AM
A DEPUTY HEAD Royal coffee maid no less !!!!
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1055602/Revealed-Queens-coffee-maid-Royal-Family-eat-breakfast.html (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1055602/Revealed-Queens-coffee-maid-Royal-Family-eat-breakfast.html)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on September 25, 2008, 01:07:22 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7631793.stm

 ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on October 17, 2008, 10:43:09 AM
http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1224161538.html

Courtesy Nellie,GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on October 21, 2008, 10:14:06 AM
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2008/10/slovenia-readie.html

courtesy HJA's Royalblog.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 21, 2008, 01:59:23 PM
Thanks for the link...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on October 21, 2008, 05:25:22 PM
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2008/10/slovenia-readie.html

courtesy HJA's Royalblog.

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1224621304.html

Courtesy Brent,GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on October 22, 2008, 01:32:49 AM
The Imperial State Crown,explained by HM Herself...:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSyLLWZ5jp8

 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on October 22, 2008, 11:17:51 AM
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2008/10/slovenia-readie.html

courtesy HJA's Royalblog.

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1224621304.html

Courtesy Brent,GREMB.

Day 2:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1224680931.html

Courtesy Fernand,GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 22, 2008, 12:47:37 PM
Just got the story of the Queen and her recycled gowns.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on October 22, 2008, 09:25:05 PM
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2008/10/slovenia-readie.html

courtesy HJA's Royalblog.

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1224621304.html

Courtesy Brent,GREMB.

Day 2:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1224680931.html

Courtesy Fernand,GREMB.

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2008/10/queen-doesnt-ta.html

courtesy hja's Royalblog.nl/
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 23, 2008, 02:16:18 PM
Cute photo of Queen & horse
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on October 24, 2008, 12:04:35 AM
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2008/10/slovenia-readie.html

courtesy HJA's Royalblog.

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1224621304.html

Courtesy Brent,GREMB.

Day 2:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1224680931.html

Courtesy Fernand,GREMB.

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2008/10/queen-doesnt-ta.html

courtesy hja's Royalblog.nl/

"Tablecloth Lilly"
http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1224795774.html

Stunning daywear for dear Lillibeth:
http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1224795518.html


Courtesy Brent,GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: TampaBay on October 24, 2008, 07:40:51 AM
The daywear is stunning.  The black and white suit sets off her hair and jewery. I like the hat!

The queen looks so much younger when she smiles.  QEII looks as if she is having a great time.


TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on October 24, 2008, 08:06:50 AM
The daywear is stunning.  The black and white suit sets off her hair and jewery. I like the hat!

The queen looks so much younger when she smiles.  QEII looks as if she is having a great time.


TampaBay

Slowakia today:

The hat!Could be handed down by Queen Mary!!
All in all HM looks absolutely tres tres chic!

Look at that smile,you're right TampaBay,she IS having a great time:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1224851188.html

Courtesy Marianne,GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: TampaBay on October 24, 2008, 08:25:56 AM

The hat!Could be handed down by Queen Mary!!

Courtesy Marianne,GREMB.

Maybe she was having a bad hair day due to the weather!  LOL!  LOL!

QEII looks like a true queen in the coat and matching hat.  I would love to see this outfit on Princess Anne as the vintage style hat would look more chic on a younger person.  I wonder if QEII would loan the outfit to her daughter.  LOL!  LOL!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Princess Susan on October 24, 2008, 09:04:13 AM
She realy looks very good and elegant in that coat and hat! Everybody praised her young appearance in Bratislava and Poprad.

I am adding another photos from her state visit in Slovakia:

(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq329/lea81z/kraovna-v-bratislave7.jpg)

(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq329/lea81z/kraovna-v-bratislave5.jpg)

Qeen Elizabeth II. and Prince Philip in Grassalkovic (president's) Palace.

(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq329/lea81z/kraovna-v-bratislave4.jpg)

Qeen Elizabeth II. and President Ivan Gašparovič


Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Princess Susan on October 24, 2008, 09:18:40 AM

(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq329/lea81z/kraovna-v-bratislave2.jpg)

Royal couple and Mayor of Bratislava Andrej Ďurkovský.

(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq329/lea81z/kraovna-v-bratislave.jpg)

QE II. and I. Gašparovič in Devín (part of Bratislava).

(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq329/lea81z/alzbeta_hokej_2.jpg)

Friendly hockey match between HK Aquacity ŠKP Poprad and Guildfordom Flames Ice Hockey Club.

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 24, 2008, 12:50:02 PM
Love the black hat and coat...elegant...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Mari on October 25, 2008, 12:14:39 AM
Boy, her Dresser needs to be loaned out to the rest of the Family! That Black Outfit is perfect. Red looks good on her also.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Princess Susan on October 25, 2008, 03:22:17 AM
On banquet:

(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq329/lea81z/banket-s-kraovnou-albetou-ii.jpg)


(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq329/lea81z/banket-s-kraovnou-albetou-ii2.jpg)


(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq329/lea81z/banket-s-kraovnou-albetou-ii4.jpg)

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Princess Susan on October 25, 2008, 03:28:14 AM
In High Tatras:

(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq329/lea81z/kraovna-v-tatrach3.jpg)


(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq329/lea81z/kraovna-v-tatrach.jpg)


(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq329/lea81z/kraovna-v-tatrach-podpis.jpg)

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 25, 2008, 12:12:55 PM
Nice touch on the signiture page.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Norbert on October 26, 2008, 02:38:56 PM
poor Queen having to slum it with all these republicans ...tsk
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 27, 2008, 11:04:35 AM
Yes...She looked glum at some of these places...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on October 27, 2008, 07:45:46 PM
On banquet:

(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq329/lea81z/banket-s-kraovnou-albetou-ii.jpg)


(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq329/lea81z/banket-s-kraovnou-albetou-ii2.jpg)


(http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq329/lea81z/banket-s-kraovnou-albetou-ii4.jpg)



Can anyone identify the necklace the Queen is wearing in these photographs? i don't believe I've ever seen it before.
R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on October 28, 2008, 02:58:20 PM
HM wore this necklace before.. during her australia/singapore visit recently... it has also matching earrings (here the antique driple drops)...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on October 28, 2008, 08:21:25 PM
HM wore this necklace before.. during her australia/singapore visit recently... it has also matching earrings (here the antique driple drops)...

Thank you Alexander, I haven't seen the necklace or indeed earrings before. I assume they must be fairly modern judging by the colours the necklace produces.
R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on October 28, 2008, 10:38:35 PM
http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1224795774.html

Courtesy Brent,GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on October 29, 2008, 07:19:23 AM
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/alexander1917/42-16055376-1.jpg)
Royal Varity Dec 2005 with the antique girlande earrings

(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/alexander1917/42-16533314-1.jpg)
Melbourne March 2006

I thing the set was a gift from one of the arabian monarchs....
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 29, 2008, 12:19:02 PM
Lovely jewels
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on October 29, 2008, 07:34:12 PM
Lovely jewels

Indeed! and the Girls of Great Britian tiara is always a favourite of mine.
R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 30, 2008, 06:01:20 PM
It suits HM to perfection.  :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: architect on October 30, 2008, 06:36:45 PM
Can someone tell me why the Queen always has her handbag on her arm in just about every picture taken of her.  I am a huge supporter of her and the Royal Family, but sometimes it almost seems inappropriate, especially when she is in her home.  I can appreciate her wanting to have it around in case there is a need for her to get something out of it, but...  The latest photo on the Monarchy website shows her and the German Chancellor meeting in the Audience Room, you would think she could have put it down before photos were taken.  Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Mari on October 30, 2008, 08:37:02 PM
Helen Mirren talked about how important the gesture was to centralize her character in "The Queen"!  Carrying the handbag just so as Queen Elizabeth always does is an extension of herself...her costume...personal choice...habit...or all of the above.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 31, 2008, 02:31:59 PM
Yes one of HM's most important "props"...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on November 03, 2008, 07:04:28 PM
Can someone tell me why the Queen always has her handbag on her arm in just about every picture taken of her.  I am a huge supporter of her and the Royal Family, but sometimes it almost seems inappropriate, especially when she is in her home.  I can appreciate her wanting to have it around in case there is a need for her to get something out of it, but...  The latest photo on the Monarchy website shows her and the German Chancellor meeting in the Audience Room, you would think she could have put it down before photos were taken.  Any thoughts?

I imagine that Her Majesty rarely thinks of herself 'at home', perhaps more on duty. Her palaces and castles are quite vast and therefore I suspect she needs to keep her handbag with her most of the time. I have seen footage of her placing it near her while she gives an audience or during a dinner, but I think that even to set off to retire to bed takes a while, so to forget something essential to her, perhaps contained in her handbag, would not be desirable.
R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on November 03, 2008, 07:11:05 PM
It suits HM to perfection.  :)
As does the state diadem and the Vladimir. I wonder if she will ever start using the small crown made for Victoria? The Imperial State Crown must grow heavier each year, although she only wears it to open Parliament.
R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on November 04, 2008, 08:18:18 AM
Can someone tell me why the Queen always has her handbag on her arm in just about every picture taken of her.  I am a huge supporter of her and the Royal Family, but sometimes it almost seems inappropriate, especially when she is in her home.  I can appreciate her wanting to have it around in case there is a need for her to get something out of it, but...  The latest photo on the Monarchy website shows her and the German Chancellor meeting in the Audience Room, you would think she could have put it down before photos were taken.  Any thoughts?

A good book about the "handbag" question is What's in the Queen's Handbag and other Royal Secrets by Phil Dampier...written about what is in the handbag and also how she could give "signs" to her lady in waiting or other accompanies....
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Norbert on November 05, 2008, 11:49:36 AM
The handbag is like a business womans  designer jacket ,IT IS HER ARMOUR.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on November 06, 2008, 04:05:05 PM
I agree...very important to her.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on November 18, 2008, 03:10:36 AM
"A bunch of amateurs"..

http://www.royalimages.nl/search.pp?mailingid=11987&flush=1

courtesy Royalimages/

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1226983237.html

courtesy Marianne,GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on November 18, 2008, 08:08:35 AM
Nice link !
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on November 18, 2008, 08:32:15 AM
HM Queen Elizabeth II and HRH Prince Philip arrive at the Cinema & Television Benevolent Fund Royal Film Performance 2008 and World Premiere of 'A Bunch Of Amateurs' at Odeon Leicester Square on November 17, 2008 in London:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/200.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/201.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on November 18, 2008, 08:33:05 AM
HM Queen Elizabeth II and HRH Prince Philip arrive at the Cinema & Television Benevolent Fund Royal Film Performance 2008 and World Premiere of 'A Bunch Of Amateurs' at Odeon Leicester Square on November 17, 2008 in London:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/202.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/203.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on November 18, 2008, 08:34:00 AM
HM Queen Elizabeth II and HRH Prince Philip arrive at the Cinema & Television Benevolent Fund Royal Film Performance 2008 and World Premiere of 'A Bunch Of Amateurs' at Odeon Leicester Square on November 17, 2008 in London:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/204.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/205.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on November 18, 2008, 08:34:38 AM
HM Queen Elizabeth II and HRH Prince Philip arrive at the Cinema & Television Benevolent Fund Royal Film Performance 2008 and World Premiere of 'A Bunch Of Amateurs' at Odeon Leicester Square on November 17, 2008 in London:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/206.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/207.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on November 18, 2008, 08:35:14 AM
HM Queen Elizabeth II and HRH Prince Philip arrive at the Cinema & Television Benevolent Fund Royal Film Performance 2008 and World Premiere of 'A Bunch Of Amateurs' at Odeon Leicester Square on November 17, 2008 in London:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/208.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/209.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on November 18, 2008, 08:36:03 AM
HM Queen Elizabeth II and HRH Prince Philip arrive at the Cinema & Television Benevolent Fund Royal Film Performance 2008 and World Premiere of 'A Bunch Of Amateurs' at Odeon Leicester Square on November 17, 2008 in London:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/210.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/211.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on November 18, 2008, 08:36:45 AM
HM Queen Elizabeth II and HRH Prince Philip arrive at the Cinema & Television Benevolent Fund Royal Film Performance 2008 and World Premiere of 'A Bunch Of Amateurs' at Odeon Leicester Square on November 17, 2008 in London:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/212.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/213.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on November 18, 2008, 08:37:27 AM
HM Queen Elizabeth II and HRH Prince Philip arrive at the Cinema & Television Benevolent Fund Royal Film Performance 2008 and World Premiere of 'A Bunch Of Amateurs' at Odeon Leicester Square on November 17, 2008 in London:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/214.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/215.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on November 18, 2008, 10:52:49 AM
Nice shot of the Queen !
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Rani on November 24, 2008, 02:52:23 PM
Elizabeth in the 70´s

(http://i34.tinypic.com/2yo27sx.jpg)

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: TampaBay on November 25, 2008, 07:43:17 AM
The outfit QEII is wearing is still in style today.  I love the jacket with the wide leg pants.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on November 25, 2008, 09:36:03 AM
This seems to be a private holiday shot of the Queen.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on November 26, 2008, 04:04:21 AM
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/photos/visit_elizabeth_ii/index.html

courtesy Royalimages.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on November 26, 2008, 08:16:01 AM
I think the last photo is one of HM with Queen Paola of Belgium.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on November 26, 2008, 10:33:30 AM
The Queen and Duke visit the New Zealand Giant Rugby Ball, 25 November 2008:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/1-7.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/2-7.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on November 26, 2008, 10:34:26 AM
The Queen and Duke visit the New Zealand Giant Rugby Ball, 25 November 2008:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/3-5.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/4-5.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on November 26, 2008, 10:35:08 AM
The Queen and Duke visit the New Zealand Giant Rugby Ball, 25 November 2008:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/5-4.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/6-4.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on November 26, 2008, 10:36:27 AM
The Queen and Duke visit the New Zealand Giant Rugby Ball, 25 November 2008:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/7-4.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/8-4.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on November 26, 2008, 10:37:11 AM
The Queen and Duke visit the New Zealand Giant Rugby Ball, 25 November 2008:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/9-4.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/10-4.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on November 26, 2008, 10:37:55 AM
The Queen and Duke visit the New Zealand Giant Rugby Ball, 25 November 2008:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/11-3.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/12-3.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on November 26, 2008, 10:38:32 AM
The Queen and Duke visit the New Zealand Giant Rugby Ball, 25 November 2008:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/13-3.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/14-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on November 26, 2008, 10:42:24 AM
Love purple on the Queen !
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Victor on November 26, 2008, 02:39:48 PM
The gentleman to the Queens' right in the above picture-yellow tie,long black coat- is our [New Zealands'] new Prime Minister;John Key.National Party[conservative].Mr.Key met the Queen at the Palace earlier in the day.Emerging from the meeting Mr.Key had obviously been charmed by Her Majesty,said lovely things about her and made it clear New Zealand becoming a republic was not on his partys agenda.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Victor on November 26, 2008, 02:42:46 PM
p.s.Note the Queens' silver fern brooch-a symbol for N.Z. and the All Blacks.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on November 26, 2008, 02:48:35 PM
That looked good on her coat.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexandre64 on December 02, 2008, 03:52:15 AM
Elisabeth and  Family:
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/12281333901621061.jpg)

(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/12281333893053201.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 02, 2008, 10:12:27 AM
Old Christmas cards ?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexandre64 on December 02, 2008, 02:32:34 PM
yes
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Condecontessa on December 02, 2008, 03:33:38 PM
That's cool Alexandre, I just wish the cards were a little bigger. :D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 02, 2008, 05:43:34 PM
Yes...Did you bought them ?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexandre64 on December 03, 2008, 01:29:49 AM
No, the cards will be sold Dec. 17 in Paris
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on December 03, 2008, 05:59:03 AM
http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1228242875.html

Courtesy Marianne,GREMB.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7759872.stm
 ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on December 03, 2008, 06:33:54 AM
State Opening of Parliament,London today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7761245.stm

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1228305600.html

courtesy Marianne,GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 03, 2008, 08:23:33 AM
The Queen looked like "The Snow Queen" in white  from head to toe and glittering in gems.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on December 03, 2008, 09:12:04 AM
State Opening of Parliament,London today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7761245.stm

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1228305600.html

courtesy Marianne,GREMB.

http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=03-12-2008%20London

courtesy PPE/Nieboer.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 03, 2008, 03:37:15 PM
Thanks for the link.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 04, 2008, 08:11:18 AM
Some of the Queen Elizabeth photo-portraits:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/g.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/h.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 04, 2008, 08:12:16 AM
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/i.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/f.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 04, 2008, 08:12:56 AM
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/e.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 04, 2008, 08:13:38 AM
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/c.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 04, 2008, 08:14:14 AM
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/a-1.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/b.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 04, 2008, 08:22:46 AM
The State Opening Of Parliament 2008 (yesterday):

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/y.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/w.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 04, 2008, 08:23:48 AM
The State Opening Of Parliament 2008 (yesterday):

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/u.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/t.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 04, 2008, 08:24:45 AM
The State Opening Of Parliament 2008 (yesterday):

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/r.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/q.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 04, 2008, 08:25:35 AM
The State Opening Of Parliament 2008 (yesterday):

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/p.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/o.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 04, 2008, 08:26:15 AM
The State Opening Of Parliament 2008 (yesterday):

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/i-1.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/e-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 04, 2008, 12:16:40 PM
ABSOLUTELY REGAL !!!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Condecontessa on December 04, 2008, 04:01:14 PM
Pardon my asking, but what are the badges on the Queen's sash? And how come she has two of it?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 04, 2008, 04:12:45 PM
I think they are orders?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on December 04, 2008, 07:36:09 PM
Pardon my asking, but what are the badges on the Queen's sash? And how come she has two of it?

If you refer to the pink and blue ones, the pink one is the family order of her father George VI and the blue, her grandfather George V. Both of which are mounted on the blue sash of the Order of the Garter.
R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: architect on December 05, 2008, 07:40:18 AM
Where was the one photo of the Queen taken in the photo above - she is sitting in a chair in the center of a long corridor - green walls?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 05, 2008, 08:41:47 AM
I think that look more like Windsor Castle than Buckingham Palace to me.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on December 05, 2008, 09:13:37 AM
I think that look more like Windsor Castle than Buckingham Palace to me.

Yes thats Windsor...this photos are taken during the 1977 silver jubilee....
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 05, 2008, 10:31:12 AM
How time flies 25 years + ago
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Condecontessa on December 05, 2008, 02:47:00 PM
Thank you for answering my question. Would anyone know the provenance of the orders (as in when was it given to her)? Thank you. :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 05, 2008, 03:55:58 PM
I think the earlest one should be the George VI family order...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 06, 2008, 08:05:04 AM
Where was the one photo of the Queen taken in the photo above - she is sitting in a chair in the center of a long corridor - green walls?

At Windsor Castle (1977), at Grand Corridor (the part of the corridor above George IV Gateway)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on December 06, 2008, 08:31:49 AM
Hi Condecontessa,

In the pictures of her in her blue dress with the sapphire jewelery, the Orders are Canadian.
The Order of Canada and the Canadian Order of Merit.
These are official portraits taken of The Queen in Rideau Hall in Ottawa and these pictures hang in government buildings and elsewhere all over Canada.

As for her Family Orders:
Didn't she receive the George V Order in 1935 during his Silver Jubilee?
The George VI Order would have come later, during his reign.

What I'd like to know is - Did Princess Margaret ever receive any Family Orders from George V, George VI or Elizabeth II?
I have never seen a photo of her with any orders...

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 06, 2008, 08:52:43 AM
Hi Condecontessa,

In the pictures of her in her blue dress with the sapphire jewelery, the Orders are Canadian.
The Order of Canada and the Canadian Order of Merit.
These are official portraits taken of The Queen in Rideau Hall in Ottawa and these pictures hang in government buildings and elsewhere all over Canada.

As for her Family Orders:
Didn't she receive the George V Order in 1935 during his Silver Jubilee?
The George VI Order would have come later, during his reign.

What I'd like to know is - Did Princess Margaret ever receive any Family Orders from George V, George VI or Elizabeth II?
I have never seen a photo of her with any orders...

Larry

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/a-1.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/b.jpg)

This two official portraits made in Buckingham palace (at East Gallery), I'm 100% sure.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on December 06, 2008, 08:55:27 AM
Hi Condecontessa,

In the pictures of her in her blue dress with the sapphire jewelery, the Orders are Canadian.
The Order of Canada and the Canadian Order of Merit.
These are official portraits taken of The Queen in Rideau Hall in Ottawa and these pictures hang in government buildings and elsewhere all over Canada.

As for her Family Orders:
Didn't she receive the George V Order in 1935 during his Silver Jubilee?
The George VI Order would have come later, during his reign.

What I'd like to know is - Did Princess Margaret ever receive any Family Orders from George V, George VI or Elizabeth II?
I have never seen a photo of her with any orders...

Larry


(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/alexander1917/pmm.jpg)

Here Princess Margaret wears the
order of the crown of india
family orders
King George V (blue)
King George VI (pink)
Queen Elizabeth (yellow)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 06, 2008, 09:02:17 AM
Hi Condecontessa,

In the pictures of her in her blue dress with the sapphire jewelery, the Orders are Canadian.
The Order of Canada and the Canadian Order of Merit.
These are official portraits taken of The Queen in Rideau Hall in Ottawa and these pictures hang in government buildings and elsewhere all over Canada.

As for her Family Orders:
Didn't she receive the George V Order in 1935 during his Silver Jubilee?
The George VI Order would have come later, during his reign.

What I'd like to know is - Did Princess Margaret ever receive any Family Orders from George V, George VI or Elizabeth II?
I have never seen a photo of her with any orders...

Larry

Princess Margaret with family orders of the George V, George VI and Queen Elizabeth II:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/1954.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/237731798009.jpg)

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on December 06, 2008, 09:11:16 AM
Oh dear, how much better her sister has worn, though not half as pretty when young.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on December 06, 2008, 09:50:10 AM
PM in green is after her first stroke in 1998
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on December 06, 2008, 09:56:16 AM
Hi Alexander & Nicola,

Thank you both for posting those photos of Margaret and her Orders....
I had no idea that she had all of them and good for her!

The pictures of The Queen and her Canadian Orders were most definitely done at Buckingham Palace.  I was thinking about others done in Ottawa by Karsh;  but these are not them.
Thanks for the correction..

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 06, 2008, 10:03:39 AM
Some more official portraits of The Queen:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/c2.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/c1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 06, 2008, 10:08:43 AM
Some more official portraits of The Queen from Windsor Castle in 1977:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d2.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 06, 2008, 10:14:11 AM
The Quuen and Duke at Buckingham palace, 1972, after The State Opening of Parliament:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d5.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 06, 2008, 10:16:37 AM
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d6.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d7.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 06, 2008, 10:19:01 AM
Portraits by Cecil Beaton:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d8.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 06, 2008, 10:21:20 AM
Some nice portraits of the Queen and the Duke:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d10.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d9.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 06, 2008, 10:22:56 AM
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d11.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 06, 2008, 10:30:54 AM
The Queen and the Duke at Windsor castle, 1987:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d12.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 06, 2008, 10:35:55 AM
At Buckingham palace:
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d13.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 06, 2008, 10:36:53 AM
At Balmoral:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d14.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d15.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 06, 2008, 10:39:07 AM
At Windsor castle:
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d16.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 06, 2008, 10:44:01 AM
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d17.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d18.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 06, 2008, 10:46:19 AM
After The State Opening Of Parliament:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d19.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/d20.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Princess Susan on December 07, 2008, 02:56:31 AM
Very nice photos! ;)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 09, 2008, 10:20:47 AM
Love em ! Thanks for posting them.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on December 21, 2008, 05:10:14 AM
Thank you Nikola!!

A Windsor year:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/photos/visit_elizabeth_ii/index.html
Courtesy HJA´s Royalblog.nl/
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on December 21, 2008, 10:04:34 AM
Thank you Lucien :)

Soon, I will post some more photos of the Queen.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 21, 2008, 10:58:00 AM
Thanks ! Looking forward to it.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on December 25, 2008, 08:17:20 AM
Sandringham today:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1230208659.html

courtesy Marianne,GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 26, 2008, 10:20:14 AM
Wow ! William went bearded...!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on December 26, 2008, 12:14:01 PM
Wow ! William went bearded...!

Is this good or bad, Eric?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 27, 2008, 12:51:18 PM
Depends. I personally like it. He looks more like Henry VIII (as a young man of course) than Jonathan...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on December 27, 2008, 02:27:51 PM
Depends. I personally like it. He looks more like Henry VIII (as a young man of course) than Jonathan...

Jonathan?  Who's that?

In my opinion, the beard is okay but the other hair is in dire need of a make-over.  Prince William is heading dangerously close to comb-over territory - he already has a comb-back.  I think he should get it trimmed and tidied up as soon as possible, it really looks quite dated.  Then again, it's his hair, isn't it, not mine!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: alixaannencova on December 27, 2008, 03:19:19 PM
I think Eric was referring to the yummy Jonny Rhys Meyers Grace, he portrays Henry VIII in the made for television soap opera like 'The Tudors.' I see what Eric means about the hairy face making William reminiscent of an early likeness of Henry VIII that hangs in the NPG in London. The longish face and regularity of feature do come to mind, an echo perhaps but interesting. But I think Harry's colouring is more akin to his infamous ancestor. Now if William had inherited the red hair, comparisons to Henry VIII would probably be more evident.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on December 27, 2008, 04:52:58 PM
Yes...Since The English blood came back from Princess Diana, the Princes's look are more British than continental now.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Rani on January 01, 2009, 12:16:10 PM
(http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo319/DonaIsabella/01.jpg)

(http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo319/DonaIsabella/02.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on January 02, 2009, 12:14:38 PM
Lovely pics of HM The Queen. 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on January 02, 2009, 07:03:11 PM
Lovely pics of HM The Queen. 

Or even the young Princess Elizabeth, as she was then.

R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on January 03, 2009, 10:56:22 AM
She was good even then. Margaret was the naughty one even then.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexandre64 on January 09, 2009, 08:54:30 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/queendiamondanniversaryfamilypor-1.jpg)
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/queendiamondanniversaryfamilyportra.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on January 09, 2009, 08:59:13 AM
Nice photos. Thanks for posting.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexandre64 on January 09, 2009, 02:12:37 PM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/queenhoneymoon1.jpg)
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/60thanniversary1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Mari on January 10, 2009, 05:22:43 AM
That is a very charming picture. From Youth to Old Age and in exactly the same pose like years passing together.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on January 10, 2009, 01:32:23 PM
They looked lovely...companions for life. It is sad that people today don't do that anymore...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexandre64 on January 10, 2009, 01:54:20 PM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/stdinsb1.jpg)

(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/queenjuancarlos1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on January 11, 2009, 02:25:23 PM
It seems like France's first lady Carla charmed Prince Philip...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on January 17, 2009, 05:54:32 PM
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/T0014_0004_01.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexandre64 on January 18, 2009, 08:24:48 AM
The Queen:
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/queenuganda11-2007a1.jpg)

and the young Lady:
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/24525585lr71.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on January 18, 2009, 05:20:46 PM
Yes, the days of "Us Four".
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on January 27, 2009, 09:19:28 PM
The Queen Visits Flitcham Primary School, on January 27, 2009 in Norfolk, England:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/qe1.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/qe2.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on January 27, 2009, 09:20:25 PM
The Queen Visits Flitcham Primary School, on January 27, 2009 in Norfolk, England:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/qe3.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/qe4.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on January 27, 2009, 10:29:02 PM
Hi Nikola,

Thanks for these pictures of The Queen.  She looks so beautiful all in pink - Pretty in Pink!!!
And, when she smiles, she looks so young.
In just a few days, it will be her 57th anniversary as Queen - wonderful...

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on January 28, 2009, 08:18:36 AM
Hi Nikola,

Thanks for these pictures of The Queen.  She looks so beautiful all in pink - Pretty in Pink!!!
And, when she smiles, she looks so young.
In just a few days, it will be her 57th anniversary as Queen - wonderful...

Larry

Yes the Queen looks so beautiful and elegant on this pictures :)
I hope that we all will post interesting photos on the day on her 57th anniversary as Queen...

God Save The Queen 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on January 28, 2009, 09:34:27 AM
God Save The Queen !
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on February 02, 2009, 10:23:03 AM
http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/default.asp?action=article&ID=30

 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on February 02, 2009, 12:14:40 PM
I did the tour once. Well worth the money to see.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on February 04, 2009, 03:25:59 AM
Hi Nikola,

Thanks for these pictures of The Queen.  She looks so beautiful all in pink - Pretty in Pink!!!
And, when she smiles, she looks so young.
In just a few days, it will be her 57th anniversary as Queen - wonderful...

Larry

Yes the Queen looks so beautiful and elegant on this pictures :)
I hope that we all will post interesting photos on the day on her 57th anniversary as Queen...

God Save The Queen 

http://www.royalimages.nl/search.pp?page=1&ShowPicture=9115824&pos=3

courtesy Royalimages.
 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on February 04, 2009, 10:16:26 AM
A royal close up...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on February 04, 2009, 05:16:35 PM
The Queen Opens Carole Brown Health Centre, on February 3, 2009 in Dersingham, England:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Queen_s1.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Queen_s2.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on February 04, 2009, 05:17:36 PM
The Queen Opens Carole Brown Health Centre, on February 3, 2009 in Dersingham, England:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Queen_s3.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Queen_s4.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on February 04, 2009, 05:18:18 PM
The Queen Opens Carole Brown Health Centre, on February 3, 2009 in Dersingham, England:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Queen_s5.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Queen_s6.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on February 04, 2009, 05:19:06 PM
The Queen Opens Carole Brown Health Centre, on February 3, 2009 in Dersingham, England:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Queen_s7.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Queen_s8.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on February 04, 2009, 05:20:17 PM
The Queen Opens Carole Brown Health Centre, on February 3, 2009 in Dersingham, England:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Queen_s9.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Queen_s10.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on February 04, 2009, 05:20:56 PM
The Queen Opens Carole Brown Health Centre, on February 3, 2009 in Dersingham, England:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Queen_s11.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Queen_s12.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on February 04, 2009, 05:22:21 PM
The Queen Opens Carole Brown Health Centre, on February 3, 2009 in Dersingham, England:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Queen_s13.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Queen_s14.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on February 04, 2009, 05:22:56 PM
The Queen Opens Carole Brown Health Centre, on February 3, 2009 in Dersingham, England:

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Queen_s15.jpg)

(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/Queen_s16.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on February 05, 2009, 09:07:33 AM
The Queen has such a nice smile.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on February 06, 2009, 10:57:29 PM
HM has cancelled a State Visit scheduled for march due to "a busy agenda".Buckingham Palace has stated it has nothing to do with the
health of Prince Philip who apparently suffers of a back insury.HM will visit Trinida and Tobago this fall for a Commonwealth meeting.

HRH The Duke of Edinburgh has already cancelled several functions over the past month or so in connection "with his back".

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2009/02/queen-elizabeth-cancels-state-visit.html

courtesy Royalblog.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 07, 2009, 05:02:18 AM
Elizabeth and Dame-d'Honneur:
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/2673146bq51.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on February 07, 2009, 01:08:06 PM
I wonder who many ladies are still alive today ?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on February 07, 2009, 01:22:07 PM
I wonder who many ladies are still alive today ?

All ladies are still alive:

Lady Mary Russell
The Lady Rayne
The Baroness Willoughby De Eresby
The Lady Glenconner
Lady Rosemary Muir
Lady Moyra Campbell

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on February 07, 2009, 05:03:40 PM
Maybe they should do a reunion photo to mark the occation.  ;)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexandre64 on February 08, 2009, 07:25:16 AM
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/England/queen1m1.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on February 08, 2009, 01:12:14 PM
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2009/02/saluting-57-years-of-elizabeths-reign.html

courtesy Royalblog/
 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on February 08, 2009, 04:09:34 PM
I love QV's diamond necklace. It suited QE to perfection.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on February 09, 2009, 10:42:22 AM
HM has cancelled a State Visit scheduled for march due to "a busy agenda".Buckingham Palace has stated it has nothing to do with the
health of Prince Philip who apparently suffers of a back insury.HM will visit Trinida and Tobago this fall for a Commonwealth meeting.

HRH The Duke of Edinburgh has already cancelled several functions over the past month or so in connection "with his back".

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2009/02/queen-elizabeth-cancels-state-visit.html

courtesy Royalblog.

This `news` was denied as bullocks by the Palace.

Meanwhile,( a frail looking- ) Prince Philip attended church with HM yesterday:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090208/tuk-duke-attends-church-with-queen-6323e80.html

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on February 09, 2009, 12:37:01 PM
Indeed. The Duke did look frail. She looked more and more like his mother, Princess Alice, in old age.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on February 09, 2009, 01:25:17 PM
He does doesn't he.Very frail indeed.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on February 09, 2009, 03:03:55 PM
Pray that he will regain his strength soon. Amen.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 03, 2009, 03:08:12 AM
HM last week

http://www.ppe-agency.com/preview.php?start=15&id=28961&zoektype=2&search=24-02-2009%20London

http://www.royalimages.nl/search.pp?page=1&1ShowPicture=9274830&pos=7

courtesy Royalimages.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 03, 2009, 05:36:29 PM
The Queen look good in fur ! Philip looked much better too !
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 07, 2009, 10:58:09 AM
HM and The Duke visited Hull:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7926591.stm
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 10, 2009, 10:19:28 PM
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2009/03/queen-watched-hamilton-win-formula-1.html


courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 13, 2009, 01:38:58 PM
Isn't she a marvellous Lady.Just look at her,our Lady in Red...:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/85413225/Getty-Images-Sport

http://www.rexfeatures.co.uk/set/869465?pg=2&DirectSaleRestricted=HASH(0xd9f1064)&pl=20&cr=1
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on March 13, 2009, 06:19:33 PM
Funny...
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/queen_funny.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on March 14, 2009, 03:06:43 PM
Lovely Photo !:-)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 25, 2009, 12:49:19 PM
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2009/03/king-talks-to-queen-about-the-economy.html


courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 26, 2009, 11:31:28 PM
"" PM"" and Palace discussed reform:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7967142.stm

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 27, 2009, 12:07:26 AM
"" PM"" and Palace discussed reform:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7967142.stm



http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2009/03/for-whom-the-bells-toll-queen-in-foundry.html

courtesy hja
 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 30, 2009, 10:22:36 AM
http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1238425208.html

courtesy Marianne,GREMB.

http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?EventId=85596803#1

http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?EventId=85697588#

 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 30, 2009, 03:40:30 PM
http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1238425208.html

courtesy Marianne,GREMB.

http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?EventId=85596803#1

http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?EventId=85697588#

 :)

Who said a tablecloth and aquamarines don't match... ;D

State Banquet:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1238445213.html

courtesy Barbara,GREMB.

Items in the Royal Collection referring to Mexico on display during State Visit:

http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/microsites/mexico/
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on April 01, 2009, 01:36:54 PM
Hi,

Saw TV pictures of The Queen receiving the Australian and Canadian Prime Ministers and their wives at luncheon at BP.

And then, she and the Duke of Edinburgh received the Obamas at tea.

Everyone seemed to dwarf the poor Queen and the Duke and I was surprised to see that they looked rather frail...
But, they are both in their eighties!!!

It was announced today in Canada that The Queen and the Duke will visit here again, either this year or next.  It will be their 27th visit to Canada...

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on April 01, 2009, 02:17:38 PM
Queen and the President of Mexico
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/85704748.jpg)

Queen and Prime Minister Harper
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/85747128.jpg)

Queen and Prime Minister Rudd
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/85747131.jpg)

-Duke of NJ
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on April 01, 2009, 02:20:07 PM
Queen and Barack and Michelle
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/85753700.jpg)

Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, Barack and Michelle
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/85753702.jpg)

Queen, Hillary Clinton and President Sarkozy
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/85754056.jpg)

Queen and Chancellor Merkel
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/85754063.jpg)

-Duke of NJ
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on April 01, 2009, 02:21:34 PM
Queen and G20 Leaders
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/85754114.jpg)

-Duke of NJ
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on April 01, 2009, 02:50:54 PM
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/85753700.jpg)

Mrs. Obama looks like she's just thrown a cardie on and come straight from a trip to the supermarket.  Not a very dressy look to meet the Queen.  Just my opinion of course.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on April 01, 2009, 03:14:51 PM
Hi,

I agree Grace...
After all the hype about her clothes when getting on & off Air Force 1, I thought she'd look better for Buckingham Palace.
And, wearing black to meet The Queen - that just wouldn't be done back in the day, unless you were a widow or in mourning...
I thought Hilary Clinton looked better and she's supposed to be a fashion disaster!!  NOT...

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 01, 2009, 03:22:45 PM
I like Michelle but I do wish she would tone down the eyebrows! The should be less arched and follow the eye more IMO. It's as though she was applying the eyebrow pencil when the driver suddenly braked & her hand went up & away....
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on April 01, 2009, 04:04:09 PM
Hi Eddie,

Maybe she's trying for the Marlene Dietrich look - - you know, continually surprised!!

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: RoyalWatcher on April 01, 2009, 05:09:06 PM
The Obama's look incredibly happy and TALL! The coat Mrs. Obama had on prior to meeting the Queen was quite lovely...black satin/silk. I must agree that her choice of color and the cardigan were a fashion miss; however, I can forgive the color a bit because weren't they heading to the state reception and dinner following their private meeting, no?

It's so refreshing to see Mr. Obama rather than Mr. Bush representing the U.S.A. Onwards and upwards...no more dwelling on the past  :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on April 01, 2009, 06:26:38 PM
Yes. It is great to see Obama with the Queen.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Terence on April 01, 2009, 08:28:55 PM
Hi Eddie,

Maybe she's trying for the Marlene Dietrich look - - you know, continually surprised!!

Larry

LOL, well Nancy Pelosi's got that down.  Wish she'd take a vacation, get another facelift and stop spending our money like a drunken sailor.

All JMHO,
T
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on April 02, 2009, 06:47:50 AM
I think HM looks very good in this shade of pink... and of course the perfect background for the Williamsen Pink......
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 02, 2009, 09:24:49 AM
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2009/04/barack-obama-her-majesty-is-delightful.html

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2009/04/all-the-queens-men-and-a-few-women.html


courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on April 02, 2009, 12:09:44 PM
The Queen was outstanding in pink.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on April 02, 2009, 06:26:32 PM
The Queen was outstanding in pink.

Yes and as usual employing her radiant smile, that seems to light up the whole room. I'm not sure who is dressing H.M.'s hair at the moment but IMHO face on it looks slightly unusual, like it comprises of 3 different components.

R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on April 03, 2009, 11:49:31 AM
I understand your point Grace but I feel that Michelle actually made a good choice.  The black tends to de-emphasize the fact that she is much taller than QEII.  Also, one doesn't want to try and compete with the monach in her own home.  Actually I feel they look perfect together in that setting of informality.  Both are wearing just pearls and I would allow that the Queen wears an additional pin.   
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on April 03, 2009, 11:57:41 AM
QEII usually wears a wig in public.  She is known to have a large collection of wigs.  When she is photographed on her estates whilst on vacation  she is usually wearing a headscarf of some kind.




The Queen was outstanding in pink.

Yes and as usual employing her radiant smile, that seems to light up the whole room. I'm not sure who is dressing H.M.'s hair at the moment but IMHO face on it looks slightly unusual, like it comprises of 3 different components.

R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: RoyalWatcher on April 03, 2009, 12:10:49 PM
QEII usually wears a wig in public.  She is known to have a large collection of wigs.  When she is photographed on her estates whilst on vacation  she is usually wearing a headscarf of some kind.




The Queen was outstanding in pink.

Yes and as usual employing her radiant smile, that seems to light up the whole room. I'm not sure who is dressing H.M.'s hair at the moment but IMHO face on it looks slightly unusual, like it comprises of 3 different components.

R.I.


Really, I've never heard of that.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: RoyalWatcher on April 03, 2009, 12:11:54 PM
On a completely different note, I just LOVED HM's little patent leather handbag. It was adorable and such a better size than the other larger handbags she carries with her. I hope she continues this trend.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on April 03, 2009, 12:41:09 PM
QEII usually wears a wig in public.  She is known to have a large collection of wigs.  When she is photographed on her estates whilst on vacation  she is usually wearing a headscarf of some kind.

I don't know where you got this information from, Douglas, but the Queen does not wear wigs, in public or anywhere else.

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on April 03, 2009, 01:23:47 PM
QEII usually wears a wig in public.  She is known to have a large collection of wigs.  When she is photographed on her estates whilst on vacation  she is usually wearing a headscarf of some kind.

I don't know where you got this information from, Douglas, but the Queen does not wear wigs, in public or anywhere else.



Quite right Grace!

R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on April 03, 2009, 02:45:00 PM
When Michael Fagan broke into the Queen's bedroom in July 9, 1982 one of the things that he noticed was her collection of wigs that were sitting on her makeup table.  I thought it was common knowledge that she wears wigs as matter of convenience.



QEII usually wears a wig in public.  She is known to have a large collection of wigs.  When she is photographed on her estates whilst on vacation  she is usually wearing a headscarf of some kind.

I don't know where you got this information from, Douglas, but the Queen does not wear wigs, in public or anywhere else.



Quite right Grace!

R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on April 03, 2009, 03:04:12 PM
Queen Elizabeth's Anger at Berlusconi a You Tube hit
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/03/queen.elizabeth.berlusconi.youtube/index.html

What do you think?

-Duke of NJ
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on April 03, 2009, 03:31:19 PM
When Michael Fagan broke into the Queen's bedroom in July 9, 1982 one of the things that he noticed was her collection of wigs that were sitting on her makeup table.  I thought it was common knowledge that she wears wigs as matter of convenience.



QEII usually wears a wig in public.  She is known to have a large collection of wigs.  When she is photographed on her estates whilst on vacation  she is usually wearing a headscarf of some kind.

I don't know where you got this information from, Douglas, but the Queen does not wear wigs, in public or anywhere else.



Quite right Grace!

R.I.

Do you really think the observations of Michael Fagan, a mentally disturbed man who actually broke into the Queen's bedroom, have any credibility to them?  And that she would have wigs on display on a 'makeup table' anyway?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on April 03, 2009, 03:45:29 PM
Queen Elizabeth's Anger at Berlusconi a You Tube hit
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/03/queen.elizabeth.berlusconi.youtube/index.html

What do you think?

-Duke of NJ

Thanks for posting this, Duke.  I don't think the Queen was 'angry' at all, she was just having a bit of banter with everyone to lighten the air.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on April 03, 2009, 03:53:21 PM
Women of her age do not have that much hair. Her use of wigs has been written  in biographies about her private life.  And yes, Mr. Fagan's observations are quite reliable.

 She has used wigs for 40 years as a convenience due to her numerous appearances.  She doesn't like to have people fussing about her and she usually does her own makeup.  Having someone on hand to do her hair is the last thing she would want as an intrusion upon her privacy.

Mr. Fagan did not report that he saw "a wig", he said that he saw several wigs on styrofoam wig stands.  

I would say that the monarch's  bedroom would be considered a rather private place and for her to have wigs on a makeup table would seem very normal.  

This discussion is stranger than her using wigs.  :-)





When Michael Fagan broke into the Queen's bedroom in July 9, 1982 one of the things that he noticed was her collection of wigs that were sitting on her makeup table.  I thought it was common knowledge that she wears wigs as matter of convenience.
QEII usually wears a wig in public.  She is known to have a large collection of wigs.  When she is photographed on her estates whilst on vacation  she is usually wearing a headscarf of some kind.
I don't know where you got this information from, Douglas, but the Queen does not wear wigs, in public or anywhere else.
Quite right Grace!
R.I.
Do you really think the observations of Michael Fagan, a mentally disturbed man who actually broke into the Queen's bedroom, have any credibility to them?  And that she would have wigs on display on a 'makeup table' anyway?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on April 03, 2009, 03:55:06 PM
There was a video during the 1985 Commenwealth meeting group photo was taken.. I think it's the royal "cheese".....
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on April 03, 2009, 03:55:17 PM

This discussion is stranger than her using wigs.  :-)

That is one thing I will agree with you on!


Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on April 03, 2009, 04:09:07 PM

This discussion is stranger than her using wigs.  :-)

That is one thing I will agree with you on!




my opinion.....but may it's also differnt if you only visit the neighbor's city or if 20 heads of state will come to you... I only remember or chancellor Ms Merkel... sometimes she got also a "bad hair day" ...

I think we close this hair stuff ......
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: RoyalWatcher on April 03, 2009, 04:23:44 PM
Queen Elizabeth's Anger at Berlusconi a You Tube hit
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/03/queen.elizabeth.berlusconi.youtube/index.html

What do you think?

-Duke of NJ

Thanks for posting this, Duke.  I don't think the Queen was 'angry' at all, she was just having a bit of banter with everyone to lighten the air.

Agreed. I think she was in an excellent mood and having a bit of fun in this relaxed situation, which was wonderful to see. The G20 Leaders also seemed quite jovial...a very pleasant and encouraging thing to witness considering the economic situation were all facing right now. 

If I'm not mistaken, even though HM doesn't often show her sense of humor, when it does surface in the media spotlight, it seems to me that she has a very dry sense of humor...my favorite kind!!!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 04, 2009, 02:30:21 AM
Women of her age do not have that much hair. Her use of wigs has been written  in biographies about her private life.  

What do you base this opinion on?! I've met numerous women in there 80's + (one was 103!) that have had amazing thick hair!!!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on April 04, 2009, 10:07:53 AM
I still didn't know which book this say.....
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lilly on April 04, 2009, 10:38:57 AM
I have read many books about the Queen, but never this. I am a Nurse and my Pat are often old and have had thick hair.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Keith on April 04, 2009, 11:12:28 AM
I've gone through the bios I have of the Queen, about six, and granted just checked index on personal appearance and Michael Fagan, and none of them mentioned wigs or thinning hair. This doesn't seem to be quite as common knowledge as Douglas thinks it is, so perhaps he'll let us know what bios he read this info in.

As for the wearing of headscarves, wouldn't that be because she is outside, and ladies of her generation usually wore them so their hair, not wigs, wouldn't get messed up.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on April 04, 2009, 02:38:27 PM
Hi,

Perhaps these 'wigs' were only hair pieces..

In 2005, she came to Calgary and attended a Centennial Banquet;  she was in full regalia sapphire tiara and all...
I attended but wasn't that close to her or Prince Philip, so I only saw her at a distance.
But, my parents were there too and my mother sat with Prince Philip's table.  She had a plain view of the back of The Queen's head and noticed that she availed herself of a little hairpiece, called a "hightener" at the back of her tiara.  To give the head height, I guess!!
But, it was not a full wig, mostly her own hair in its traditional style.  And, my mother would know, believe me!!

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on April 04, 2009, 11:57:36 PM
Vecchiolarry, good for your mom.   She noticed something....

One doesn't  need to take my word about QE II wigs.  I have a large collection of photos of Her Majesty in left profile, full face and right profile.  These were taken over a period of many months.

Her hair style is exactly the same for each side and front in every photo....wave for wave, curl for curl.  The left side of this wig has a series of very distinct curls.  You see these same exact series of curls in dozens of photos over many months. The right side is basically a clump of hair forward of her ear.

She must really like one particular wig as she wears it constantly.  I actually don't blame her.  I admire her for doing what is convenient for her lifestyle.

I asked a theatrical expert in wigs and she said, "yes, it's a wig and a very expensive one."

Don't misunderstand me, I admire Her Majesty.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on April 05, 2009, 01:22:37 AM
Douglas, you claiming the Queen 'usually wears a wig in public' and Vecchiolarry saying his mum noted her wearing a small hightener hairpiece in conjunction with a tiara are two entirely different things. 

I've said my piece about wigs and hair now anyway...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 05, 2009, 02:24:25 AM
Vecchiolarry, good for your mom.   She noticed something....

One doesn't  need to take my word about QE II wigs.  I have a large collection of photos of Her Majesty in left profile, full face and right profile.  These were taken over a period of many months.

Her hair style is exactly the same for each side and front in every photo....wave for wave, curl for curl.  The left side of this wig has a series of very distinct curls.  You see these same exact series of curls in dozens of photos over many months. The right side is basically a clump of hair forward of her ear.

She must really like one particular wig as she wears it constantly.  I actually don't blame her.  I admire her for doing what is convenient for her lifestyle.

I asked a theatrical expert in wigs and she said, "yes, it's a wig and a very expensive one."

Don't misunderstand me, I admire Her Majesty.

Oh dear Douglas,I'm afraid your theatrical expert was a bit too theatrical... ::)
Her hairdresser/style hasn't changed for over decades,nor has my Trix's "helmet",and that's not a wig either....
To much flan and taco's during winter hibernation I suppose,didn't you dear,halucinating now and then.....  :P.............

HM and Italy's Duce due...Nothing to do with wigs tho...
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2009/04/queen-berlusconi-no-offense-just-a-joke.html

courtesy hja

 ::)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 05, 2009, 04:13:42 AM
Her use of wigs has been written  in biographies about her private life.  


Which biographies please?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on April 05, 2009, 04:16:43 PM
I'm really enjoying the comments on this thread.  There is nothing new about royals wearing wigs.  If anyone has studied history you will recall that Queen Elizabeth I  [1533- 1603] had a collection of 80 wigs...including one that was considered to be bright red.  You can still see her wearing it in several oil portraits from centries ago. 

Dear Lucien states, "...her style hasn't changed over  decades...." ....I don't think you realize what you just said.  ;-)

Let us not be so gaga over the Queen that we can't understand that she's a very practical and down to earth sort of person. 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on April 05, 2009, 04:31:20 PM
No one is going 'gaga', Douglas, about this, nor have we been discussing Elizabeth I.  You were simply asked to provide some biographical information concerning Elizabeth II and her wearing/ownership of wigs.  You have yet to do so.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on April 05, 2009, 05:34:48 PM
From 2007 in a BBC article about her glamour:

""She has a very iconic hairstyle," says Mr Wilson. "It's very important for women in fashion to have an iconic hairstyle that can be recognised from every angle, take Anna Wintour. I think the Queen was the instigator of this trend." "
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 06, 2009, 02:20:46 AM
I'm really enjoying the comments on this thread.  There is nothing new about royals wearing wigs.  If anyone has studied history you will recall that Queen Elizabeth I  [1533- 1603] had a collection of 80 wigs...including one that was considered to be bright red.  You can still see her wearing it in several oil portraits from centries ago. 

Dear Lucien states, "...her style hasn't changed over  decades...." ....I don't think you realize what you just said.  ;-)

Let us not be so gaga over the Queen that we can't understand that she's a very practical and down to earth sort of person. 

Oh yes yes Tsar cutee you scoundrel you,I do realise,but still,HM doesn't have a wig,nor anyone else in the family.
You must still be overwhelmed by the Elisabeth I production starring Bette Davis in your Dollywood days dear.....
Anna,get his smelling salt please... ::)..he' s drifting away again....
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on April 06, 2009, 06:34:21 AM
From 2007 in a BBC article about her glamour:

""She has a very iconic hairstyle," says Mr Wilson. "It's very important for women in fashion to have an iconic hairstyle that can be recognised from every angle, take Anna Wintour. I think the Queen was the instigator of this trend." "

That's true...and somewhere she said, she need a hairstyle which she can do without help...

in a doku the Empress Farah said about her hairdo, the people expect so see it.. and her's also from the 60's.....as you said... an iconic hairstyle....
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on April 06, 2009, 07:13:25 PM
Dear Lucien states, "...her style hasn't changed over  decades...." ....I don't think you realize what you just said.  ;-)

It is true to say that H.M. has sported the same 'Italianesque' hair style, since shortly after becoming Queen (around 1954 I think). I remember reading or viewing that her hair is dressed everyday, which is more than plausable given her status and public duties. As to her wearing a wig, I'm very doubtfull regarding this 'fact'. I very much doubt that the likes of Trevor Sorbet et al. would be engaged as her royal hairdresser just to tease a wig from time to time. As we know H.M. is far from vein, even her jewels she sees as 'props' to do her job. Indeed if there were ever a candidate for wearing a wig I believe it would have been the Queen Mother, in view of her thinning coifure. She obvioulsy wasn't concerned about such frivolities, and I seriously doubt her daughter is either! I merely commented on the fact, that of late H.M.'s hair seems not to be as it always has (I thought the sides nore plumped up than usual) possibly due to age related thinning. As to any 'evidence' that she wears a wig, I await it with anticipation!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on April 06, 2009, 10:39:11 PM
My fellow thread posters seem to feel that it is somehow embarrassing and beneath the dignity of the monarch to wear a wig.  The truth is that she does so as a convenience. 

Yes, Alexander, she does have a "hair style that she can do without help."  That's because she always has her 'hair' waiting for her on her makeup table.

And yes, she keeps her wigs on the makeup table in her bedroom.  This is because she considers her bedroom a 'private place'.  Why would she need to hide them herself?  Yes, Dominion, she is not concerned with frivolities like hair styles....that's exactly why she wears wigs in public.

  If you look at the hair that occasional peaks out from her scarfs at Balmoral, you will notice that it is a completely different color than the gleaming white wigs she wears in public.

Helen Mirren, who you all know played the monarch in the 2006 film,  was supplied a wig from the same company that makes QEII's wigs.

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on April 07, 2009, 03:24:16 AM
My fellow thread posters seem to feel that it is somehow embarrassing and beneath the dignity of the monarch to wear a wig.  The truth is that she does so as a convenience. 

Yes, Alexander, she does have a "hair style that she can do without help."  That's because she always has her 'hair' waiting for her on her makeup table.

And yes, she keeps her wigs on the makeup table in her bedroom.  This is because she considers her bedroom a 'private place'.  Why would she need to hide them herself?  Yes, Dominion, she is not concerned with frivolities like hair styles....that's exactly why she wears wigs in public.

  If you look at the hair that occasional peaks out from her scarfs at Balmoral, you will notice that it is a completely different color than the gleaming white wigs she wears in public.

Helen Mirren, who you all know played the monarch in the 2006 film,  was supplied a wig from the same company that makes QEII's wigs.



I understand what you assert and maintain. As you have previously stated this "fact" is mentioned in several biographies of H.M. So could you identify which ones, and the pages etc? As this is a revalation to most of us, perhaps you could provide some evidence for your assertion, aside from the hearsay you have already contributed. Thank you in advance.

R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on April 07, 2009, 07:23:53 AM
My fellow thread posters seem to feel that it is somehow embarrassing and beneath the dignity of the monarch to wear a wig.  The truth is that she does so as a convenience. 

Yes, Alexander, she does have a "hair style that she can do without help."  That's because she always has her 'hair' waiting for her on her makeup table.

And yes, she keeps her wigs on the makeup table in her bedroom.  This is because she considers her bedroom a 'private place'.  Why would she need to hide them herself?  Yes, Dominion, she is not concerned with frivolities like hair styles....that's exactly why she wears wigs in public.

  If you look at the hair that occasional peaks out from her scarfs at Balmoral, you will notice that it is a completely different color than the gleaming white wigs she wears in public.

Helen Mirren, who you all know played the monarch in the 2006 film,  was supplied a wig from the same company that makes QEII's wigs.




"hair style that she can do without help."  this HM said in the 50's and I do not think that she need in her late 20ies a wig......but its still missing in WHICH BOOK this is written


(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/alexander1917/Kelly20Hoppen.jpg)
from official website ...March 2009
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 09, 2009, 08:53:19 AM
This is interesting
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/26/20090409/ten-outfits-worn-by-queen-on-travels-gat-2f67e70.html (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/26/20090409/ten-outfits-worn-by-queen-on-travels-gat-2f67e70.html)

I wish the Queen would wear some of these vintage oufits again! They are classics & supers stylish!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 10, 2009, 04:27:05 AM
HM and The Duke attended the Maundy Service at Bury St.Edmunds yesterday:

http://www.royalimages.nl/search.pp?page=1&ShowPicture=9562529&pos=3

courtesy Royalimages.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 12, 2009, 03:26:24 PM
Easter at Windsor:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1239546562.html

courtesy Marianne.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: joan_d on April 12, 2009, 04:05:01 PM
Princess Anne's hat - good grief !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

However, the Queen always seems to be dressed just right these days, which wasn't always the case.   I believe it is down to a personal assistant/dressmaker called Angela Kelly - a Liverpudlian lady.  Well done, Angela.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on April 12, 2009, 10:31:39 PM
Yes, Joan, this is Anne's bow to the recession.  Just a dab of fruit stuck on the boot of the hat.  Nothing fancy like Carmen Miranda.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on April 13, 2009, 02:36:24 AM
It does look a bit strange but, oh well...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: joan_d on April 13, 2009, 09:16:33 AM
In today's "Daily Mail", it has been likened to a Vietnamise rice picker's hat.   Hhmmm......
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on April 13, 2009, 03:02:47 PM
Yes, it is a coolie hat.  But the real problem is that she has it on backwards.  Wouldn't the faux fruit go in front?  It's like having a tiara with the crown in the back. Pathetic really.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: RoyalWatcher on April 13, 2009, 03:46:34 PM
I truly believe she does these things on purpose as she thinks dressing nicely (and fashion in general) is a waste of her time. It's like her personal little joke.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on April 13, 2009, 04:14:19 PM
Perhaps, but Princess Anne has never really struck me as having very much of a sense of humour.  I just think she cares so little about clothes and fashion, she probably just pinned the fruit onto the nearest hat available and was out the door!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on April 13, 2009, 04:49:37 PM
Hi,

A strange fashion but Audrey Hepburn wears a similar hat in "My Fair Lady" near the end.  She was dressed by Cecil Beaton, so who knows - maybe Anne had just come from a viewing of MFL and thought she was being stylish???!!!
I always thought that hat by Beaton was rather odd too...

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on April 13, 2009, 04:53:25 PM
If she did the backward hat thing as a joke, she was successful.  She does indeed look goofy.  I'll buy that.....:-)

The royals are famous for their naughtiness and clever ways to flout proper conventions.

The Princess Royal to the world..., "Naff off...!"
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: joan_d on April 14, 2009, 04:13:26 PM
I truly believe she does these things on purpose as she thinks dressing nicely (and fashion in general) is a waste of her time. It's like her personal little joke.


There can be no other possible reason !!!!!!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Marie-Mathilde on April 14, 2009, 06:59:19 PM
Just had a look at the Daily Mail article which compares Anne and Zara's looks. Yes they do resemble one another, but I was stricken by their resemblance to Anne's grandfather George VI. They look more like him than his own daughter the Queen (who I think resembles her mother, the QM, more and more with age)!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Rani on April 15, 2009, 09:18:35 AM
I love this picture: Agyness Deyn as Elizabeth

(http://i43.tinypic.com/25qx47s.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on April 15, 2009, 09:33:45 AM
Hi,

Actually, I think Queen Elizabeth II looks more and more like her grandmother, Queen Mary, everyday....
I just wish she'd start wearing more of Queen Mary's jewels now that she's approaching her 60th anniversary as Queen.

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: TampaBay on April 15, 2009, 10:03:40 AM
I love this picture: Agyness Deyn as Elizabeth

(http://i43.tinypic.com/25qx47s.jpg)


Love that necklace!  I WANT IT NOW!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on April 15, 2009, 01:12:31 PM
Hi,

Actually, I think Queen Elizabeth II looks more and more like her grandmother, Queen Mary, everyday....
I just wish she'd start wearing more of Queen Mary's jewels now that she's approaching her 60th anniversary as Queen.

Larry

To true Larry!

I don't understand what the magazine cover is about Rani, was it a tribute to EII?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: RoyalWatcher on April 15, 2009, 05:07:42 PM
Hi,

Actually, I think Queen Elizabeth II looks more and more like her grandmother, Queen Mary, everyday....
I just wish she'd start wearing more of Queen Mary's jewels now that she's approaching her 60th anniversary as Queen.

Larry

I totally agree, Larry. I don't see any resemblance between the late Queen Mum to HM. The Teck genes are incredible strong in the Royal Family. However, there are two members of the Royal Family who I do think bear a slight resemblance to the late Queen Mum: HRH Prince Charles and HRH Princess Eugenie.

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Margot on March 01, 2010, 08:20:12 PM
I found the most charming little report about the Queen and her beloved dogs! I must say that although they seem to be a bit yappy the Queen's dogs seem rather endearing! I especially 'that thing' as HM refers to the hairy black and brown 'dorgi',  which looks rather like a lavatory brush on legs to me! Very sweet!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glrN7sm9wxo&NR=1
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 04, 2010, 09:35:00 AM
Zuma of South Africa is on a State Visit to the UK:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1267524610.html

courtesy the posters of the GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 17, 2010, 11:36:40 AM
Buckingham Palace confirmed Papal visit in september.

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/03/buckingham-palace-confirms-papal-visit.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 17, 2010, 12:01:45 PM
HM hosted a reception for the British Clothing Industry:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1268842646.html

courtesy Marianne.GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Margot on March 18, 2010, 10:42:26 AM
Thank you Lucien for the link!

Good Heavens! I can't believe Bailey looks like he has just thrown on a jacket over his 'lounge at home' clothes to nip down to the corner shop to buy some ciggies! He looks wonderfully, deliberately 'I'm just a photographer not some poncey designer' dressed down for a chin wag at the palace...but even if he does take marvelous photographs, he really could have made a bit of an effort surely! I can't believe he is wearing jeans!!!!!!!

I love his expression too!

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 04, 2010, 12:55:54 AM
Royal Maundy service last thursday:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/04/queen-hands-out-coins-on-maundy-thursday.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on April 07, 2010, 04:00:00 PM
I think this can go into this political-constitutional thread, which deserves to be bumped up:

Quote from: Margot, in one of the ducal threads
A particular set of robes are worn by new peers and peeresses when they they undertake their 'Introduction' into the House of Lords. Interestingly the use of the term 'trusty cousin' has been changed to 'trusty councillor' in the case of Privy Councillors (Martin the peer being introduced below is a Member) I have noticed that in other introductions 'cousin' has now been dropped completely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vglpk3Nuqlc&feature=related

Do you guys think EII should have risked a constitutional crisis rather than let herself be "adviced" to be a willing, constitutional tool and make the absolutely contemptable Speaker Michael Martin a peer, knowing that the majority of her subjects probably would have supported her stance? I imagine QV would not have let herself be abused like that.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: darius on April 07, 2010, 05:21:51 PM
I think Her Majesty has allowed her position to be abused quite too much by the last few governments. I feel that there are many issues where she should have dug her constitutional heels in - and perhaps in quite a few of these situations she would actually have expressed the actual will of the people much more than these figures who presently occupy the corridors of power.

A recent and recurring example is the Northern Ireland situation where in Jeremy Paxman´s words "a lost tribe" of Unionists are being shunted down the line towards a united Irish Republic against their will and at the mercy of political parties.

I am sometimes disappointed with HM´s role. Remember, it is difficult to make an omelette without breaking eggs. Perhaps time will show us the influence Elizabeth II has held on her governments.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 13, 2010, 02:17:29 PM
The State Opening of Parliament by HM will be on the 25th of may.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 21, 2010, 02:23:58 PM
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II celebrates her 84th birthday today.Many happy returns Ma'am.

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1271805142.html

courtesy Marianne and the posters of the GREMB! :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on April 21, 2010, 05:22:45 PM
Yes, this is from the Daily Mail, but the pictures are well worth the visit:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267610/Queens-84th-birthday-Pictures-released-Elizabeth-II-chubby-cherub.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267610/Queens-84th-birthday-Pictures-released-Elizabeth-II-chubby-cherub.html)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 22, 2010, 12:48:44 AM
Yes, this is from the Daily Mail, but the pictures are well worth the visit:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267610/Queens-84th-birthday-Pictures-released-Elizabeth-II-chubby-cherub.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267610/Queens-84th-birthday-Pictures-released-Elizabeth-II-chubby-cherub.html)

Oh Grace these pics are gems aren't they?All that,84 years ago....heavens..and she's still a gem today! ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on April 22, 2010, 04:36:55 AM
I'm happy you enjoyed them, Lucien!  Aren't they just superb?  The one taken from the back...too sweet!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: GrandDuchessAlix on April 22, 2010, 04:58:39 AM
How lovely  =)

God save the queen! Long live the queen! 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on April 22, 2010, 07:31:15 AM
Marcus Adams: Royal Photographer

"The pieces were mostly commissioned by King George VI and Queen Elizabeth. Their daughters, Princess Elizabeth (now HM The Queen) and Princess Margaret, attended Adams’ Children’s Studio at 43 Dover Street in Mayfair regularly between 1926 and 1941.
 
The Queen’s eldest children – Prince Charles (now HRH The Prince of Wales) and Princess Anne (now HRH The Princess Royal) – also attended the studio on several occasions between 1949 and 1956.   
 
The selected photographs chart the development of the royal children as well as reflecting events in the life of the Royal Family
 
These portraits are fine examples of Adams’ work. His technical mastery is second to none, as is his ability to capture a natural pose, a transient expression, a mood."

exhibition microsite:
http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/microsites/MA/
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Nikola on April 22, 2010, 10:26:34 AM
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p67/NikolaKg/4382407784_aafb126a60_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on April 22, 2010, 11:53:23 AM
Do I remember correctly that the rounds in his weapon were blanks?  STILL, the potentional for deadly harm was realized!    AP
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Michael HR on April 22, 2010, 12:32:43 PM
He was soon sectioned off as I recall from memory. Stunned the people mind you
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 29, 2010, 12:23:28 AM
HM and the Duke in Wales yesterday:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1272466346.html

courtesy Karen,BRMB :)

and:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8646892.stm
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 02, 2010, 11:58:11 PM
HM by Rupert Alexander:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c648253ef0133ed0cd1a1970b-pi

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 11, 2010, 09:47:27 PM
HM requested David Cameron to form a new government,and saw Gordon Brown off:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1273612255.html

courtesy Pedro,GREMB.

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/05/queen-elizabeth-appoints-cameron-as-pm.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on May 11, 2010, 11:24:02 PM
Great portrait
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on May 13, 2010, 01:48:55 PM
Cameron's youthfulness is very evident compared to the experience of HM.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on May 13, 2010, 07:54:44 PM
Do I remember correctly that the rounds in his weapon were blanks?  STILL, the potentional for deadly harm was realized!    AP


Yes they were blanks, and thank god they were.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on May 13, 2010, 08:51:12 PM
My gut feeling about Cameron is he says what he thinks people want to hear and there is not a lot of substance and that will ring hollow with the Queen who is the polemic opposite.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Margot on May 14, 2010, 12:31:19 AM
Yet on at least one occasion the Queen has been obliged to say what the people purportedly wanted to hear, as demonstrated by her the 'As a Grandmother...' speech in September 1997! The Queen just doesn't do it habitually, but rather, when she absolutely has to! She isn't the one seeking a job or position, she is merely one trying to hang on to a job/position she only occupies by accident of birth! When needs must, even the Queen knows when it is time to compromise and use sound bytes! That infamous speech demonstrated just how far the Queen was willing go when necessary, to try and safe guard her position and say what was required even if she herself did not write the entire speech which she gave!

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on May 14, 2010, 12:37:01 AM
I think her letting herself be "adviced" to be a willing, constitutional tool and make the absolutely contemptable Speaker Michael Martin a peer was much worse than the Diana eulogy in terms of compromizing her dignity as monarch.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on May 14, 2010, 12:57:49 AM
My gut feeling about Cameron is he says what he thinks people want to hear and there is not a lot of substance and that will ring hollow with the Queen who is the polemic opposite.

All politicians do that, always have, always will.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Margot on May 14, 2010, 01:26:10 AM
I see your point about Martin FP! It was a huge error of judgement, which only goes to show just what a farce the Lords is! But the 'As a Grandmother' speech reveals a far more interesting side to the Monarch, where the need to relinquish tradition and go on TV and try and empathize when we all know she was cornered into it, demonstrates that she is prepared to act in an untraditional way when her own position is compromised! She could have easily used her prerogative and refused to make Martin a peer, which ironically would have no doubt been in tune with public feeling at the time! But she did not! She chose to follow tradition, as previous Speakers have been elevated, even though we are told no one actively recommended his elevation to her! It makes one wonder who the Queen is serving when she consents to Martin being elevated and yet goes on TV to share her sorrow, when we are all quite aware that she would never have considered such a thing unless she felt it served her own interests! There is a contradiction in such comparisons which I feel is worthy of deeper study and contemplation!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on May 14, 2010, 01:29:53 AM
She could have easily used her prerogative and refused to make Martin a peer, which ironically would have no doubt have been in tune with public feeling at the time! But she did not! She chose to follow tradition, as previous speakers have been elevated, even though we are told no one actively recommended his elevation to her!

Oh, I didn't know this - that she so easily could have avoided it, without risking a constitutional crisis. What a juicy goodie, thanks! Perhaps she has gotten a bit laissez-faire and Machiavellian in old age? :-) Finally a reason for looking forwards to Charles's reign? He is certainly less afraid of stirring the pot.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Margot on May 14, 2010, 01:41:15 AM
You are welcome! The monarch is never obliged or impelled to grant the Royal Assent to pass the Great Seal over letters patent apparently! Today, the peerage is made up of a list of recommendations from the Government, Opposition and various other public bodies which make recommendations to the Palace for the Monarch's consideration. In Martin's case there was no recommendation but rather, stony silence as I have heard or not heard as the case may be! No party or institution felt able to bring themselves to be his sponsor! Conveniently, the Speaker is always an Independent once they take their seat as Speaker, thus they no longer take the Whip of the party for which they stood when initially elected to sit in Parliament! Very convenient should the Speaker compromise their position as Martin did!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on May 14, 2010, 01:56:57 AM
Yes Grace you are right, which is why İ prefer statesmen.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Margot on May 14, 2010, 01:58:22 AM
I often ponder why the Queen gave her assent to Martin's elevation! Perhaps it was a ploy to demonstrate just how ludicrous the present elevation procedure is and to hopefully galvanize the media into campaigning for some sort of check on future elevations! I don't know, because the media never really bit this one so to speak! They grumbled and pilloried but then the story faded, and Martin is now lauding it it up in comfort in the upper house! I find it it extraordinary that no one has used Martin's elevation as an example of just how rotten the whole ethos of the Lords is as it stands today! Mayhap the Palace does too! Who knows!? We may speculate at our leisure! To add fuel to the fire I may well ask, why is Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare still permitted to sit in the Lords as a Life peer and a convicted felon? The whole system is rotten! I simply see the Queen carrying on as though nothing has happened unless it affect her position as happened in 1997! That is why I question the role of the monarchy today and in whose interest the monarch serves?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on May 14, 2010, 04:34:26 AM
Margot

I agree with all you say about Jeffrey Archer. The problem is that, under the current law, the only way to deprive a person of a peerage is via an Act of Attainder for treason (last used in the case of the 12th Lord Lovat after the 1745 rising). Provisions allowing a person to be deprived of a peerage following a criminal conviction were included in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill 2009, but not in the Act which became law. This is because the Bill ran out of parliamentary time when the election was called, and the elements which had been agreed were rushed through (such as peers and MPs being treated for tax purposes as if domiciled in the UK, even if they are not), while the rest was dropped.

As to Martin, I think a constitutional convention has developed whereby the Queen will not reject letters patent for a peerage! Otherwise it is hard to see that all these dodgy characters (Martin is only one of a long succession of party hacks) would ever get peerages.

As to the occasion when the Queen was shot at during Trooping the Colour, if I remember correctly, the weapon was actually a starting pistol, so could only fire blanks. The defendant was prosecuted under the Treason Act 1842, which makes it an offence to discharge a firearm in the presence of the sovereign. It was passed after a series of incidents in which Queen Victoria was shot at with muzzle-loading pistols loaded only with powder and wadding, not a ball, so that there was no actual danger and so difficulty in finding an offence under the ordinary law where it would be possible to get a conviction. I have a feeling this was the only time it has actually been used, at any rate in the UK, though Prince Charles was shot at with a starting pistol on a visit to Australia a few years ago (he carried on with his speech as if nothing had happened - good for him!)

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Margot on May 14, 2010, 07:32:42 AM
I for one find it fascinating that Marcus Serjeant could have started off a starting pistol in the Queen's presence and been banged up for it and yet Jeffrey Archer may continue to be a right trusty cousin and what have you, in the Lords! It is self evident who has caused more damage to the institution! I often wonder whether the Queen is actually behaving in a fashion relative to a normal human being over such matters, or whether others decide for her within the establishment and involved in her Government do so on her behalf! The damage done by Archer was far worse than that done by Fagan or Serjeant as has been seen! Martin's elevation is merely a point in fact of how redundant and vacuous the Queen's present position is today! If so, her actions in 1997 demonstrate that the Monarch may act on her own behalf when she wishes, but she evidently appears to do so only when she feels it is needed to save herself!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on May 14, 2010, 07:55:41 AM
Geoffrey Archer is not alone.  There was Lord Lucan and more recently Lord Black who Black ened  their titles.  i think the concept of taking away titles causing more problems than it solves.  It should be accepted that there will be some bad apples in the barrel and it should be a lesson in PMs being more careful about who they elevate.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on May 14, 2010, 08:22:55 AM
Constantinople

You are right to mentioned Black, and there have been several others. However, Lord Lucan in all probability committed suicide within days of the murder of which he is assumed to be guilty.

The oddity is that it is possible to strip a person of a knighthood and this happens reoutinely when someone is convicted of a serious offence - the most recent one I am aware of was Jack Lyons, one of those convicted in the Guinness Affair. Lord Kagan, a pal of Harold Wilson's, was stripped of his knighthood after being convicted of business fraud, but he could not be stripped of his peerage.

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on May 14, 2010, 09:11:04 AM
(http://i40.tinypic.com/10d5l5c.jpg)

I love this picture, looks like advertising of  a perfum xDD
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on May 14, 2010, 10:33:26 AM
That picture was obviously taken before the Queen's accession, since the Duke is still a Lieutenant-Commander. 1950ish is my guess.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 14, 2010, 11:36:53 PM
Boys and toys in the backyard....

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/05/queen-looks-at-military-display-at-windsor.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on May 15, 2010, 01:11:37 AM
yes there is nothing better than having the warm and maternal look when you are looking at new machine guns and mortars for your household.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 16, 2010, 04:00:50 AM
Nothing better then a good laugh,just lovely!The sense of humour of dearest Lillibeth,the naughtiest octaginarian you simply have to love:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/05/queen-is-having-a-good-laugh-at-horse-show.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Margot on May 16, 2010, 06:13:59 AM
The bruise on her hand looks absolutely awful!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on May 16, 2010, 06:26:33 AM
Possibly because she decided to try before buying.  Nobody messes with Elizabeth.  There is nothing like a 25 cal gpmg to keep the neighbours respectful.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on May 16, 2010, 07:00:12 AM
some of the best pictures of the Queen come from horsy events. I will never forget one from Ascot, when one of her horses won a race. The Queen had her arms flung out and a big smile on her face, while three or four top-hatted hangers-on stood by literally open-mouthed.

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: jfkhaos on May 16, 2010, 11:04:51 PM
Has anyone noticed what I assume to be a bruise (or simply a trait of older age) on HM's hand in the pictures of her enjoying herself at the Horse Show above?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 16, 2010, 11:28:37 PM
Has anyone noticed what I assume to be a bruise (or simply a trait of older age) on HM's hand in the pictures of her enjoying herself at the Horse Show above?

Ofcourse we did,look at the previous page.

Might just as well happened when she had to flee a room as her corgi's were at it fighting again,
which they regularly do I'm told and all,even HM,flees a room seeking shelter in another then.Or,
she slabbed poor Philip as he was naughty again the poor dear,or just an elderly thing,they accidently
clabang into something and they have a bruise before you say one two three.Nothing serious.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on May 17, 2010, 03:30:41 AM
This is typical of the Queen.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7128437.ece
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on May 17, 2010, 11:48:47 AM
Meeting someone from her generation fighting in the war bring back memories when she was a girl...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: CHRISinUSA on May 18, 2010, 11:06:04 AM
Yesterday, BBC WM DJ Danny Kelley played the national anthem and somberly told a quarter of million listeners that he had some astonishing news to deliver. He then said "Queen Elizabeth II has now died."

Danny Kelly, who works for BBC WM in the West Midlands, made what he later descried as a "joke" during his Birmingham-based afternoon show.  Mr Kelly will not present his show for the remainder of the week and a formal apology was made at the start of today's show.

How in the world would somebody think that was funny?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on May 18, 2010, 12:18:36 PM
Well if you follow what Russell Brand got up to you would understand why someone thinks this is funny.  Tasteless is the only word i can imagine.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 25, 2010, 12:57:49 PM
Houses of Parliament,Westminster Palace today:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1274783571.html

courtesy Marianne,GREMB :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on May 25, 2010, 01:10:20 PM
Thank you for sharing Lucien! The necklace the Queen is wearing I have not seen before!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: PAVLOV on May 25, 2010, 02:42:57 PM
Corgis can be very temperamental. They look very cuddly and sweet, but tend to be quite viscious sometimes and I am sure that HM has had some nasty bites in her time ! And yes they do tend to fight with each other. They also have a tendency to go for one's ankles when you turn your back on them, if they dislike you. Other than that, they are amusing and loyal dogs.
Perhaps that is where the bruise on her hand came from, I wont be in the least surprised.......see previous post.



   
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 25, 2010, 09:28:45 PM
Thank you for sharing Lucien! The necklace the Queen is wearing I have not seen before!

Was wondering on that too,it's a far cry from what May Teck would have stuffed her neck with,but I like it.

A closer view:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8702267.stm
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on May 26, 2010, 09:27:41 AM
Thank you for sharing Lucien! The necklace the Queen is wearing I have not seen before!

Was wondering on that too,it's a far cry from what May Teck would have stuffed her neck with,but I like it.

A closer view:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8702267.stm

I think it's the Hannoverian Necklace with clasp in front, and Queen Victoria's Pearl drop earrings
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 26, 2010, 02:05:03 PM
Thank you for sharing Lucien! The necklace the Queen is wearing I have not seen before!

Was wondering on that too,it's a far cry from what May Teck would have stuffed her neck with,but I like it.

A closer view:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8702267.stm

I think it's the Hannoverian Necklace with clasp in front, and Queen Victoria's Pearl drop earrings

Thanks for that Alexander1917.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on May 26, 2010, 03:52:24 PM
I think it's also a sign of the financial diffucoulties all around. of course those pearls are sooo large, but may not so extreme than the "glittering stuff" from the vaults.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 28, 2010, 03:10:59 AM
HM and The Duke at Eton:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1274976011.html

courtesyMarianne,GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 28, 2010, 03:39:16 AM
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/05/somber-message-amidst-the-pageantry.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 30, 2010, 10:53:19 AM
HM will not attend the Commonwealth Games in New Dehli:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/05/queen-skips-commonwealth-games.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on May 30, 2010, 11:26:04 AM
yes Lucien,
  If i knew that Sarah was back in Engliand, i wouldnt go anywhere either in case she loots one of the palaces
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ashdean on June 01, 2010, 07:04:44 AM
yes Lucien,
  If i knew that Sarah was back in Engliand, i wouldnt go anywhere either in case she loots one of the palaces
Meow !! LOL
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 02, 2010, 10:19:11 PM
HM shares in grief and horror after the drama:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/06/queen-elizabeth-shares-in-national-grief.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 03, 2010, 09:06:34 AM
Road rage or random rage is spreading. People feel helpless and dispair had turned to violence. It is hard for people in HM's generation (whose emphasis on duty and loyalty above all) to undertand this.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on June 03, 2010, 09:11:09 AM
it is becoming more and more difficult for people to survive in Britain.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 03, 2010, 09:17:21 AM
Yes. I heard unemployment is about 40%...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on June 03, 2010, 10:01:38 AM
I dont think it is that high but there are also a lot of people whose jobs dont pay even a subsitance.  Personally I find it difficult to live there on less than £40,000
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on June 03, 2010, 10:38:31 AM
It rather depends how you define unemployed. The official definition covers only people receiving Jobseekers Allowance, which is quite narrow. If the estimated 5 milllion people not working and reciving other benefits is included, the proportion becomes very much higher.

If you are single and don't have a large mortgage, it is possible to live comfortably on £40,000 per year, though Sarah Ferguson certainly couldn't manage it!

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kimberly on June 03, 2010, 11:23:30 AM
£ 40,000 is not the average wage in the UK !!!
Its more like £25,000. according to the median charts I've been reviewing.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on June 03, 2010, 02:11:30 PM
Indeed. £40,000 is a respectable but unspectacular salary, and there are plenty of people getting less than half that for full-time jobs.

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 03, 2010, 08:06:13 PM
Yes. In this time of trouble. The Royals are careful not too look too showy of their wealth.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on June 03, 2010, 10:16:07 PM
I was actually earnning more than that with my bonuses etc but I pretty well had to live in London and due to my working hours IL pretty well had to eat lunch out in the city and a lot of dinners too.  But I certainly did not have a car, and apart from buying good suits and clothes was not that exorbitant in my spending habits. 
   Now that I am out of London and out that field of work I can save money on $25,000 a year
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 04, 2010, 06:06:16 AM
Yes. In this time of trouble. The Royals are careful not too look too showy of their wealth.

That is not the discussion,point 1,and point two,you have an uncanny and tiresome way to post at times eric.

The item is a lunatic who goes out and kills.Too bad not all are millionaires yes,but no need to go out and kill
whomever you like just like that.Whatever the guys reasons,they are never an outcome or solution.His dead is,
good,it will save the british taxpayer a bunch on housing and feeding in prison.Next!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 04, 2010, 10:21:23 AM
I was not the one who bought this subject up. You are getting personal in calling someone "tiresome" & "uncanny".

The point is that in times of recession, people grew sensative to any show of wealth. It happened many times in history. I would think the Queen for one would understood that.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 04, 2010, 02:08:51 PM
I was not the one who bought this subject up. You are getting personal in calling someone "tiresome" & "uncanny".

The point is that in times of recession, people grew sensative to any show of wealth. It happened many times in history. I would think the Queen for one would understood that.

Don't start whining you're not the only one,you were the one I spotted first and I don't do whiners..

People growing sensitive in times of recession.The recession is on the out and people ,generally,can turn into
real jealous critters I have absolutely no business with.At all.People complain way too easy!And if
they're short on the do,let them take to the politicians they voted for themselves who let it all happen.

The issue was the killer ,not HM wealth,to happily continue on that o/t line as you did,
is what I call uncanny and tiresome,yes.Now and tomorrow.Always.Your one-liners take
up space,hardly ever contribute let alone on this specific issue,Eric.I'm the portavoz to many here on that,sorry.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 04, 2010, 02:59:53 PM
Please reframe from calling me names. It is people like you that are driving people away from the forums. People can comment on what they like as long as it is not offensive and off topic.  :o
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: darius on June 04, 2010, 05:45:25 PM
Isn´t the topic Queen Elizabeth II Part 3? There are other places to comment on salaries in the UK and current affairs (PMs for example). There is also a website etoile.co.uk where links are published to royal news stories.
I think this thread would be much more interesting if it concentrated on discussion of HM herself.
 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on June 04, 2010, 11:26:22 PM
You mean instead of commenting on deviations from the core topic?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 05, 2010, 05:21:17 PM
I think some deviation makes it interesting, but should not go completely off topic.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 10, 2010, 03:19:25 AM
HM and the milkman:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/06/queen-honours-vigilant-milkman.html

And HM will visit Ground Zero on her visit to the US next month:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/06/queen-elizabeth-to-visit-nys-ground-zero.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on June 10, 2010, 04:25:10 AM
The subtitle says that he is 51 but they look about the same age.  Worth looking at for the suit.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: architect on June 11, 2010, 08:00:55 AM
Has anyone noticed the photos on Getty Images of the Queen at King Constantine Of Greece's 70th Birthday Party on June 2.  Something was spilled all over the side of her dress.  How unfortunate.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on June 11, 2010, 11:35:13 AM
Re Reply # 500:  Yes, on the right side, if I remember correctly. Her Majesty is right-hand dominant, thus COULD have easily jarred a liquid or dropped a portion of a food item-----happens to us all at the most unfortunate moments, I'm afraid! After a discreet clean-up attempt, one simply pretends not to notice it, and "the show goes on." I believe that this was mentioned and pictured on the "Glittering Royal Events Message Board."  Regards,  AP.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on June 11, 2010, 04:34:02 PM
It's supposedly a coffee spill and not one made by Her Majesty herself.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on June 11, 2010, 05:26:03 PM
Re Reply #502:  Thanks, "Grace"! Then obviously someone with coffee (servant or otherwise) was VERY near the Royal Presence!  Regards,  AP.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on June 11, 2010, 06:19:38 PM
Hi,

Spills, Thrills & Chills:
Many years ago in the early 60's, I was at lunch in a NYC restaurant and across the aisle was actress Ilka Chase and three of her grandchildren.
She was dressed in a gray & coral chiffon dress.  As the waiter approached with a large tray of spaghetti & maranara sauce, one child leaped up and spilled the whole tray on Miss Chase.
As the waiter & staff quickly cleaned up Ilka, he apologized profusely;  and she calmly smiled, "Oh not your fault, my dear, and it all does match the dress!!!"....
I said to her that she had taken it very graciuosly;  and she said to me, "It's rather hot though - I wish someone would spill ice water on me!!"...
Classy lady...

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 12, 2010, 07:57:42 AM
The Official Birthday of HM Queen Elizabeth II:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1276343457.html

courtesy the posters of the GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 12, 2010, 08:12:02 AM
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN !!! :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 12, 2010, 10:04:29 AM
The Queen & the Duchess look wonderul, I love Camillas necklace.

The York Princesses, as usual, never get it quite right.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 12, 2010, 12:32:03 PM
The Queen & the Duchess look wonderul, I love Camillas necklace.

The York Princesses, as usual, never get it quite right.

http://picture.belga.be/belgapicture/editorial/all/coverage/2114977.html?page=1

 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on June 13, 2010, 03:47:59 AM
The Queen & the Duchess look wonderul, I love Camillas necklace.

The York Princesses, as usual, never get it quite right.


Hmmm looks as though they've just stepped out of a cheap shop.
Not that I'm against cheap shops....................I've used them myself, but they seriously need some help in the dress dep't.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 13, 2010, 06:53:08 AM
I strongly concur Lindelle, they really have no excuse not to dress well.

All they need to do is base themselves on a style icon aka Grace Kelly or Jackie Kennedy - or even better the Queens 1950s & 60s look. They would look fabulous then.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on June 13, 2010, 08:00:50 AM
Yes, even their grandmother still looks lovely in her attire. I particurlarly liked the evening dress she was wearing when the drink was spilt over it. That dress showed her figure nicely.

Maybe the girls could take a leaf or two and ask grandmother for help - and with hats as well.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on June 13, 2010, 09:48:33 AM
Hi,

Unfortunately, they both look like they've landed from the planet Pluto and put the flying saucers on their heads!!!
It is to laugh!!!

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 13, 2010, 03:17:56 PM
More from yesterday:

http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=12-06-2010%20London


HM was out and about today to watch a game of polo at the Guards Polo Club:

http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=13-06-2010%20Polo

courtesy ppe ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on June 13, 2010, 04:41:27 PM
I don't think the York princesses will seek help with their fashion choices - from anybody.  Beatrice and Eugenie have now each had two decades of foolish and fawning parents telling them and the world they can do no wrong and praising them to the skies every time they open their mouths, so it simply doesn't occur to the girls that perhaps they could do better.  That will probably continue to be the case unless in the future they recognise there would be benefits from establishing their own identities further removed from both Sarah and Andrew.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on June 13, 2010, 08:46:58 PM
I am curious about what is in those boxes.  Was she handing out brief cases?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 14, 2010, 12:32:31 AM
Garter Day at Windsor today.

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1276488000.html

courtesy Marianne,GREMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 14, 2010, 02:32:12 AM
I am curious about what is in those boxes.  Was she handing out brief cases?

I have no idea,silver anyway ,but what exactly?I will have to ask C about that.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on June 14, 2010, 04:21:29 AM
In spite of the importance of the day, I refuse to wear garters
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 14, 2010, 05:08:34 AM
In spite of the importance of the day, I refuse to wear garters

Oh now,don't spoil the fun!!I know they platzt kaput last year but please do wear your feathers,so becoming you ::) ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on June 14, 2010, 09:38:55 PM
Re Reply #502:  Thanks, "Grace"! Then obviously someone with coffee (servant or otherwise) was VERY near the Royal Presence!  Regards,  AP.

Alek and friends...............spilled coffee on HM the Queen.

http://topics.abcnews.go.com/photo/0fbw2Pg1GagpE

I suppose she could have spilled it herself.  These things do happen.  She was not at her own home, so what could be done.  If she had been at her palace, she could have changed immediately.

Also, the Queen wouldn't want to be seen dabbing at her dress to soak up the liquid, as that is very much beneath her.  A mere dress is the least of her worries.......she has lots of them. 

As has been said, the Queen never runs anywhere, even in the rain.  Monarchs are above such trifles as spilled water.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on June 14, 2010, 11:08:45 PM
I suppose she could have spilled it herself.  These things do happen.  She was not at her own home, so what could be done.  If she had been at her palace, she could have changed immediately.

Also, the Queen wouldn't want to be seen dabbing at her dress to soak up the liquid, as that is very much beneath her.  A mere dress is the least of her worries.......she has lots of them.  

As has been said, the Queen never runs anywhere, even in the rain.  Monarchs are above such trifles as spilled water.

It was not water. The photos clearly show brownish stains - tea or coffee most likely.  As it was Constantine's 70th birthday celebration and not an extremely formal event, she obviously decided just to leave it but otherwise she would have gone somewhere private and had her lady-in-waiting try to remove the marks for her because that's their job.  No doubt they carry some little magical product in their handbags for when something like this happens.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 15, 2010, 12:08:02 AM
Garter Day at Windsor today.

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1276488000.html

courtesy Marianne,GREMB.

On feathers and stumbling Dukes:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/06/duke-takes-a-tumble-at-st-georges.html

courtesy hja

Royal Ascot starts today.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 15, 2010, 12:33:11 AM
http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=14-06-2010%20Windsor

courtesy ppe
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 15, 2010, 12:35:22 PM
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/06/royal-ascot-gets-traditional-royal-start.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 16, 2010, 03:43:08 AM
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/06/royal-ascot-gets-traditional-royal-start.html

courtesy hja

Stunning Princess Alexandra:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1276675861.html

courtesy Marianne,GREMB. :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 17, 2010, 09:02:03 AM
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/06/royal-ascot-gets-traditional-royal-start.html

courtesy hja

Stunning Princess Alexandra:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1276675861.html

courtesy Marianne,GREMB. :)

HM absolutely enjoyed herself at Royal Ascot:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/06/ascot.html

courtesy hja :D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 18, 2010, 12:54:51 AM
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/06/royal-ascot-gets-traditional-royal-start.html

courtesy hja

Stunning Princess Alexandra:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1276675861.html

courtesy Marianne,GREMB. :)

HM absolutely enjoyed herself at Royal Ascot:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/06/ascot.html

courtesy hja :D

Ladies Day:

http://members5.boardhost.com/Infanta/msg/1276796902.html

http://members5.boardhost.com/Infanta/msg/1276790453.html

Courtesy Anabolena!Good work,Gracias a Ana! :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on June 19, 2010, 07:57:11 PM
Here is Queen Elizabeth II using the Swedish Vasaorden in 1956.  


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Douglas606/QE2usingvasa.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 20, 2010, 03:11:15 AM
Is the Queen wearing a wig in that photo Douglas?  ;) ;) ;D

Princess Anne's outfit was better on the second day & quite nice infact. But she looks amazing for nearly 60!!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 25, 2010, 04:00:15 AM
HM was on a visit to Wimbledon yesterday,het first since 1977:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/06/tennis-players-bow-and-curtsy-for-queen.html
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on June 25, 2010, 07:31:00 AM
Hello Lucien!
Fascinating how  one little old lady can pull a crowd like that.
She looked like any other granny waving on that balcony.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on June 25, 2010, 08:17:13 AM
The Queen is the Queen and she has a mystique about her.

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 25, 2010, 10:45:18 AM
Yes...but no mystique on Camilla though...

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: RoyalWatcher on June 25, 2010, 01:31:37 PM
How sentimental that she went to a match. She really looks like she is slowing way down. Her gate looked labored a tad (perhaps her back is and has been acting up...I can relate) and she just doesn’t seem too chipper or have that certain glint in her eye. I hope all is well with her. She is such a dear lady of whom I have enormous respect. Long live the Queen!

Eric: No Camilla isn't on the same level of the Queen and she never will be. She's new to being a royal after all. But, she is absolutely amazing in her dedication to the British troops. Her presence at home comings, services and awards ceremonies has moved me. I wonder how she is perceived by the troops themselves?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 25, 2010, 02:22:17 PM
Yes...but no mystique on Camilla though...



Nor on yourself,no,we're not talking about her here,Eric.She has a thread of her own as she deserves,
any comments go there,if true and not just unfounded hearsay or ragtime nonsense,the most
favorouble emotions always go to the old Lady on the Throne,ask edward VII.... :).

This thread is dedicated to the loveliest octaginarian on the British Isles,according to millions.
Alltho,she has her odd moments,one of them being sending the 7th in line to the Throne
to the wedding in Stockholm as all other RF's were represented by massive chunks of these RF's.
She does have the style of an islander in these matters I'm sorry to say.But alas... ::)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ashdean on June 25, 2010, 02:26:11 PM
How sentimental that she went to a match. She really looks like she is slowing way down. Her gate looked labored a tad (perhaps her back is and has been acting up...I can relate) and she just doesn’t seem too chipper or have that certain glint in her eye. I hope all is well with her. She is such a dear lady of whom I have enormous respect. Long live the Queen!

Eric: No Camilla isn't on the same level of the Queen and she never will be. She's new to being a royal after all. But, she is absolutely amazing in her dedication to the British troops. Her presence at home comings, services and awards ceremonies has moved me. I wonder how she is perceived by the troops themselves?
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE with you on both counts....
Camilla may never be loved like the Queen or idolised like Diana..but then she would not expect that AND unlike her predecessor she does not play games...she seems to be a very down to earth,caring lady.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ashdean on June 25, 2010, 02:29:02 PM
Yes...but no mystique on Camilla though...



Nor on yourself,no,we're not talking about her here,Eric.She has a thread of her own as she deserves,
any comments go there,if true and not just unfounded hearsay or ragtime nonsense,the most
favorouble emotions always go to the old Lady on the Throne,ask edward VII.... :).

This thread is dedicated to the loveliest octaginarian on the British Isles,according to millions.
Alltho,she has her odd moments,one of them being sending the 7th in line to the Throne
to the wedding in Stockholm as all other RF's were represented by massive chunks of these RF's.
She does have the style of an islander in these matters I'm sorry to say.But alas... ::)
I too always wonder why the Queen has so seldom gone to foreign Royal events.....and her grandchildren seem totally alien to their royal kin/contemparies...apart from perhaps the greek cousins....












Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: toscany on June 25, 2010, 02:46:01 PM

[/quote]I too always wonder why the Queen has so seldom gone to foreign Royal events.....and her grandchildren seem totally alien to their royal kin/contemparies...apart from perhaps the greek cousins....[/quote]

At this point in her life, Queen Elizabeth II is the grand monarch of them all. Aside from her many Common Wealth visitors, she does receive foreign royal visitors as well. Of course, we see in the media, when the "cousins" visit, and they are at the 'top of the list'. I do not expect that media or paparazzi are at every moment, aware of every Royal's coming and going.

It does appear that the younger family around her have their own lives, however, there are certain duties that all monarchs attend to, by obligation.













[/quote]
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 25, 2010, 03:01:03 PM
WW II made the links less than before. With the German cousins in disgrace, the Queen only identified with closely related heads of State (like Norway) and with her in-laws (Philip's relatives). Elizabeth II was a very British Queen in taste and sentiment. Although weare not talking about Camilla here in detail, the comparsion with the next female consort cannot be avoided. The Queen had the kind of absolute royal about her, while not even her son and grandchildren will ever had that again...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on June 25, 2010, 03:35:12 PM
Curiously, a Queen (regnant, not consort) has more mystique nowadays than a King.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 25, 2010, 04:18:55 PM

I too always wonder why the Queen has so seldom gone to foreign Royal events.....and her grandchildren seem totally alien to their royal kin/contemparies...apart from perhaps the greek cousins....[/quote]

At this point in her life, Queen Elizabeth II is the grand monarch of them all. Aside from her many Common Wealth visitors, she does receive foreign royal visitors as well. Of course, we see in the media, when the "cousins" visit, and they are at the 'top of the list'. I do not expect that media or paparazzi are at every moment, aware of every Royal's coming and going.

It does appear that the younger family around her have their own lives, however, there are certain duties that all monarchs attend to, by obligation.
[/quote]
[/quote]

HM is the grand Monarch,only in the UK and Commonwealth,and only there,but there's a world out there where there are more countries with grand Monarchs,
think of Daisy and my very dearest Beatrix and their countrymen think the very same,and with good reason..But it would be nice if she would welcome the 21st century a tad more,as would do for her fellow countrymen,who think the end of the world is near when aunt Lillibeth decides to move to a vault in St.Georges.It's not,Nothing will happen other then there will be a new Monarch,new styles,new everything,it will continue to function as it always did,except with more personal to and fro visits then already take place with several members except HM and the DoE,to the countreparts across Europe.Especially Charles and Camilla and Edward and Sophie are highly respected and often invited privately and welcome across Europe,at least they are here.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 25, 2010, 04:50:26 PM
Well...The world have changed a lot since the Queen came to the throne 50+ almost 60 years ago. The changes she had seen would have shocked QV or QM. The Empire had ended but the Commonwealth is alive and well. However noone will ever have the absolute awe and respect the Queen will have after so many years on the thone. She never put a foot wrong and quick to change for the dynasty. She would be the last of the great monarchs.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on June 25, 2010, 06:23:11 PM
Hi Everyone,

I'm happy to see The Queen went to Wimbleton and had a nice visit with the Duke of Kent.  It would have been nice too if the Duchess was there.

Elizabeth needs to reserve her strength & energy for her whirlwind visit to Canada, starting Monday.
I certainly hope that she and Prince Philip are not expected to 'boogey like it's 1999' at their advanced ages now.
She also needs to stay in good health for her 2012 Diamond Jubilee;  and I hope he does too!!

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 26, 2010, 12:30:31 AM
Hi Everyone,

I'm happy to see The Queen went to Wimbleton and had a nice visit with the Duke of Kent.  It would have been nice too if the Duchess was there.

Elizabeth needs to reserve her strength & energy for her whirlwind visit to Canada, starting Monday.
I certainly hope that she and Prince Philip are not expected to 'boogey like it's 1999' at their advanced ages now.
She also needs to stay in good health for her 2012 Diamond Jubilee;  and I hope he does too!!

Larry

Oh yes Larry,I think we all very much look forward to that,it will be grand no doubt!

Btw,HM and the DoE are not only visiting Canada,they will be in the US too as they will
visit Ground Zero as well.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on June 26, 2010, 09:44:04 AM
Hi Lucien,

Yes, I know they are going to NYC and Ground Zero.
I have a friend who's scheduled to meet them (at the Pierre Hotel, I think) and she is practicing her curtsey!!!

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on June 26, 2010, 12:26:22 PM
I wonder if she will visit historic Trinity Church (only a few blocks away from Ground Zero) as she did in 1976? I took this photo when we went to NYC over Spring Break this year:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/grandduchessella/New%20York%20City%20Day%202/DSCF9266.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 26, 2010, 03:05:11 PM
I think the Queen is remarkable in her travels. QV had retired from that at a much younger age.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on June 26, 2010, 07:27:06 PM
I would've too if I hadn't pledged first.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 27, 2010, 12:23:10 PM
I think the Queen is remarkable in her travels. QV had retired from that at a much younger age.

And QV didn't even have British Airways ,otherwise she would have retired from travelling sooner still
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 27, 2010, 02:43:53 PM
I do not know what you mean about the crack about BAS. The Queen and  most of the rest of the RF  use them. Even charter BA for  overseas  visits hat BA does even fly to.
 And Personally, I am very loyal to BA, use them exclusively  for my trips to and within Europe. Excellent airline with impeccable  cabin service. I have never had a problem with them.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on June 28, 2010, 12:59:40 AM
British Airways is by far the worst airline I have flown by and that includes Kuwaiti Air.  Possibly Air Canada is worse but it is hard to tell.  The last flight that I flew with BA, they had 3 of the toilets duct taped closed and when I couldnt get a flight attendant, I walked back to find one.  All 8 of them were standing in a circle near the rear pantry having a good chat and when I asked them for something, they gave me a look that let them know that I was disturbing them.  I don't fly Air Canada either for the same reason.  Probably the best airlines that I have flown include Lauda Air, Continental on international routes, and Lufthansa and KLM.
      By the way, if the Queen travells by scheduled commercial flight she has the entire first class booked so perhaps her experience on BA has been different than mine.
   Most of the Queen's travel is by private jet and when she is travelling to Canada, she is transported by the government's private Canadair jet
when she is travelling to Australia she is transported by the Australian government's Boeing private jet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_transport_of_the_Royal_Family_and_government_of_the_United_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australian_Air_Force_VIP_aircraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces_VIP_aircraft
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on June 28, 2010, 03:33:02 AM
'No Camilla isn't on the same level of the Queen and she never will be. She's new to being a royal after all. But, she is absolutely amazing in her dedication to the British troops. Her presence at home comings, services and awards ceremonies has moved me. I wonder how she is perceived by the troops themselves?'

I imagine that the troops have a high regard for Camilla. She is interested in them, and is down to earth. And bear in mind that she was once an army wife herself.

But back to the Queen. I think that she and the Duke are doing rather less than they used to and pacing themselves a bit, but it is really quite incredible what they do when aged 84 and 89 respectively.

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 28, 2010, 09:53:09 AM
I do not think the Queen flys scheduled flights. Her's are almost always chartered, as  they need the entire aircraft. I think the other royals are encouraged to use scheduled flights however.
 All I can say about BA is that I have been flying them on average, 6 times a year for over 30 years and have never had a negative experience. I would not say they are the "worst" airline just because you had a negative experience. To me, they are the best. They do not fly to Asia from SFO  so I have used other carriers. United, in my opinion, that is the WORST, Japanese airlines, which are quite good, and Air China which was not exceptional but not bad either. I do not fly domestic very often, so it doesn't matter to me  which one we use.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 28, 2010, 03:54:48 PM
I do not think the Queen flys scheduled flights. Her's are almost always chartered, as  they need the entire aircraft. I think the other royals are encouraged to use scheduled flights however.
 All I can say about BA is that I have been flying them on average, 6 times a year for over 30 years and have never had a negative experience. I would not say they are the "worst" airline just because you had a negative experience. To me, they are the best. They do not fly to Asia from SFO  so I have used other carriers. United, in my opinion, that is the WORST, Japanese airlines, which are quite good, and Air China which was not exceptional but not bad either. I do not fly domestic very often, so it doesn't matter to me  which one we use.

Np,not so,HM uses scheduled flights too,fe to New Zealand she flies Air New Zealand,Business Class.Her entourage is never all that big,depending on the duration of the trip really.

But now she,and her husband as she calls dear DoE,arrived in Canada:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/06/nova-scotia-welcomes-queen-prince-.html
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on June 28, 2010, 04:18:49 PM
Well...still I think it is remarkable that she continue to fly the flag for Britian in such an age. Her mother, HRH Queen Elisabeth (the Queen Mum) started to relaxed after she reached a certain age. Well I would not bring up the years Camilla act as an army wife, she was constantly enteraining Prince Charles then and also involved with the horsey set. Not your average army wife if you ask me. No...she would not be able to fill the Queen's shoes, and not even the Queen Mum's. That era of elegance has passed.  :(
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 28, 2010, 05:35:49 PM
Lucien, obviously I disagree. Just look at the logistics-   The Queen usually travels, on elaborate state visits, with an entourage of ladies, dressers, including a hairdresser, sectaries, aides, security and footmen [who handle the luggage amongst other duties] Prince Phillip has a staff as well.  Add to this the press corps..
 Also, the Queen's Flight would normally arrive at a high security VIP   gate. So,  the  regular passengers would have to stay on board until  the plane is relocated to the  normal gates. And speaking of the regular passengers, every one of them would have to be vetted and not a few probably dislocated.
 I am  just speaking of long haul flights.
 Perhaps those days are over, but that is the way I have understood the Queen's travel for years. But still, I can't imagine her traveling business class, as nice as that might be, from London to New Zeeland.
It barely eases the discomfort of travel from San Francisco to Heathrow, at that is just 10 hours in the air. Add to that the time differences, and it can seem exhausting.  I have no idea what the time cost is  with flights to Australia & NZ.
 I also think we may be misunderstanding each other.  The airlines may well be scheduled, but the flights are not.
It was a pity the original Queen's Flight went the way of the Britannia.  If not, we would not even be discussing this.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 29, 2010, 12:05:41 AM
Lucien, obviously I disagree. Just look at the logistics-   The Queen usually travels, on elaborate state visits, with an entourage of ladies, dressers, including a hairdresser, sectaries, aides, security and footmen [who handle the luggage amongst other duties] Prince Phillip has a staff as well.  Add to this the press corps..
 Also, the Queen's Flight would normally arrive at a high security VIP   gate. So,  the  regular passengers would have to stay on board until  the plane is relocated to the  normal gates. And speaking of the regular passengers, every one of them would have to be vetted and not a few probably dislocated.
 I am  just speaking of long haul flights.
 Perhaps those days are over, but that is the way I have understood the Queen's travel for years. But still, I can't imagine her traveling business class, as nice as that might be, from London to New Zeeland.
It barely eases the discomfort of travel from San Francisco to Heathrow, at that is just 10 hours in the air. Add to that the time differences, and it can seem exhausting.  I have no idea what the time cost is  with flights to Australia & NZ.
 I also think we may be misunderstanding each other.  The airlines may well be scheduled, but the flights are not.
It was a pity the original Queen's Flight went the way of the Britannia.  If not, we would not even be discussing this.

And still Robert,HM uses scheduled airlines regurarly,she needs less then halve the pumped up staff any of your presidents need.Now to Canada
she uses a military triple 7 aircraft,and all flights HM is on are called the Queens Flight,it is announced as such to the controle towers.
HM flies,or used to fly,in the First if availeble or Business Class section,and I am very well aware how that looks.And no,none of any of the passengers
ever complained for a little wait,contrary,they took pride in being on the same flight.

The "press corps",or for Britain better the rags corps,flies scheduled BA flights to any destination HM visits,always has.

But on long haul flights she does use scheduled airlines,or used to,as she doesn't travel all that much anymore....she thinks...but for an octaginarian,still.
Oh well,we're all well aware there is a difference in a Queens Flight and a queen flying... ;D

Rainy Halifax yesterday:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1277783808.html

courtesy Joey,GREMB
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 29, 2010, 10:01:53 AM
Lucien,just Goggle  The Queen's Flight. There you will find the line....the Queen no longer uses  scheduled flights.... this comes from the Palace. Again, there is a difference between a scheduled airline and a scheduled flight.
 I notice that  upon arrival in Canada, she was ona Canada  military plane. Not a scheduled flight.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 30, 2010, 02:41:20 AM
Lucien,just Goggle  The Queen's Flight. There you will find the line....the Queen no longer uses  scheduled flights.... this comes from the Palace. Again, there is a difference between a scheduled airline and a scheduled flight.
 I notice that  upon arrival in Canada, she was ona Canada  military plane. Not a scheduled flight.

I never have to Google for anything,I do know the difference between the one and the other.pls read my post again.

Meanwhile,HM celebrates with the Royal Canadian Navy:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/06/royal-canadian-navy-celebrates-with-queen.html

Lunch with Harper:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/06/harper-welcomes-queen-to-lunch.html

courtesy hja ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Margot on June 30, 2010, 10:46:30 AM
Perhaps due to the threat of manifold security issues that have obviously become a huge issue in the last nine year HM no longer uses scheduled flight!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 01, 2010, 09:27:29 AM
Oh dear,HM had to have a "good look" on herself...I first thought it was an efigy of QE I...:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/07/canadas-queen-has-good-look-at-herself.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on July 01, 2010, 09:34:10 AM
The present queen is much more fulfilled than her great great grandmother QV.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 03, 2010, 04:42:32 AM
The present queen is much more fulfilled than her great great grandmother QV.

Oh really?I think QV was as "fulfilled" as a victorian lady of her status could posibly be at that time
which was a totally different time then this time at anytime most of the time.

Anyway,Canada,and HM enjoys the stay and looks smashing :


http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/07/canada-celebrates-birthday-with-the-queen.html

courtesy hja

And Brock,a well respected poster at the GREMB made her very own series of pics of the visit

Click on the image for the series:

Ottawa

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1277926524.html


At Parliament Hill:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1278035769.html

courtesy Brock,GREMB
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on July 03, 2010, 08:25:19 AM
The last picture is the Queen with the Bare Naked ladies
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on July 03, 2010, 09:46:16 AM
Hi,

Yikes!!!  I hate that statue head of her...
It looks more like Queen Anne than Elizabeth - all those jowls and curls - not a good reflection, IMO!!

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 04, 2010, 12:32:09 AM
Hi,

Yikes!!!  I hate that statue head of her...
It looks more like Queen Anne than Elizabeth - all those jowls and curls - not a good reflection, IMO!!

Larry

Wonder what she said about it in private to the Duke,that is to say,if he didn't beat her at commenting about it..."poor cabbage".. ::) :-[ :D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on July 04, 2010, 09:26:25 AM
Hi Lucien,

Personally, if I were Queen Elizabeth and met the sculptor - I'd have slapped him and said, "You're lucky you're not in the Tower!!"
Oh, for the good olde days....

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 04, 2010, 10:26:12 AM
It is  ugly, but  she has had some  pretty odd, tacky and bizarre artwork  done of her over the years. I  just she just takes it in her stride and has a good laugh when in private. I remember  during the first Jubilee,  1977, there was a really strange  painting of her in  Joan of Arc armor heroically riding a white stallion. I think it still circulates now & then. And, there has been a couple others like it produced as well.  As if one was not enough.
 At least none of her statues have been defaced. Maggie Thatcher's  was decapitated,. I thought that hilarious.
 Another odd creation is the QM's gate  at Hyde Park.  Not really ugly, but  odd.   Almost obscure in the meaning, lots of hidden details.  This was sponsored by the PoW,  that bastion of conservative,  "traditional" taste in arts and architecture.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on July 05, 2010, 03:15:58 AM
There is one of the Queen on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on horseback, astride. I thought it was pretty good, but apparently the Queen said it made her look like a highwayman!

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on July 05, 2010, 03:53:04 AM
yes the carving is ugly and not a great likeness but it will be positiioned high up on a wall in Canada's parliament building and probably from a distance, not manyu people will notice the lack of resemblance.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on July 05, 2010, 09:28:52 AM
Hi,

Better they bury it in the basement, where nobody can see it...
It's an abomination!

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 05, 2010, 10:27:01 AM
I tend to agree, Larry. But Const. is probably correct.  High up on a wall,  the features are deliberately exaggerated to make it recognisable [?]
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on July 05, 2010, 10:48:53 AM
Hi Robert,

Yes, I suppose high up is best - even the gargoyles on Notre Dame in Paris look good from the ground!!!

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 05, 2010, 02:41:39 PM
From Winnipeg to Toronto:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/07/royal-tour-moves-from-winnipeg-to-toronto.html

HM will arrive in NYC tomorrow tuesday july 6th:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/07/queen-making-first-visit-to-ground-zero.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 06, 2010, 05:28:18 AM
From Winnipeg to Toronto:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/07/royal-tour-moves-from-winnipeg-to-toronto.html

HM will arrive in NYC tomorrow tuesday july 6th:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/07/queen-making-first-visit-to-ground-zero.html

courtesy hja


http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/07/toronto-leaves-royal-visitors-in-the-dark.html

courtesy hja ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on July 06, 2010, 10:36:08 AM
The ringtone on the Blackberry is God Save the Queen.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on July 06, 2010, 11:44:10 AM
Here is an interesting picture showing the difference between the way that Prince Phillip and the Queen view the same dance performance.

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/dOoSfeP22QD/Queen+Elizabeth+II+Visits+Canada+Day+4/Tla-FnezpGg/Prince+Philip
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on July 06, 2010, 12:27:12 PM
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/dOoSfeP22QD/Queen+Elizabeth+II+Visits+Canada+Day+4/J0KCPVlRn9k/Prince+Philip
picture 17 out of 20 is well worth checking out
All comments welcome
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on July 06, 2010, 12:35:21 PM
HM at the State Diner in Canada wearing
The Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara
Queen Victoria's Collet Necklace without the Lahore Diamond drop
Queen Victoria's Household Brooch with the chain and Pearl
and
King George VI Modern cut earrings

(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/alexander1917/102634629.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 06, 2010, 01:48:32 PM
Fun pic, Const. In his dreams, the old lech.  As for HM, I think she has seen so many of this sort of thing, she  has taken it the art of blanking it out with her eyes open !
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 06, 2010, 04:13:57 PM
HM at the State Diner in Canada wearing
The Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara
Queen Victoria's Collet Necklace without the Lahore Diamond drop
Queen Victoria's Household Brooch with the chain and Pearl
and
King George VI Modern cut earrings

(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/alexander1917/102634629.jpg)

Thanks for that Alexander,wonderfull pic of a remarkeble Lady.

To the "two other boys"  around.Apparently HM genuinely enjoys herself and takes evrything in so she can give a brilliant performance of what she saw
once at home again.HM is a brilliant impersonator and all odd situations are genuinely liked,and even welcomed,as they take her out of the ordinary into a more naughty state of mind sort of Realm.She's a hilarious impersonator I have heard.Would love to see / hear her do that,and the Duke commenting,they beat a comedy together,I bet! ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 06, 2010, 04:44:53 PM
Coolest Granny in the UK!!and Canada... ;D

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/photos/britain_2010/queen3d.html

...Looks like a scene from the Godmother Part IV.... ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 06, 2010, 05:03:27 PM
HM speeched at the UN,well done Ma'am!

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/07/queen-un-must-lead-in-confronting-dangers.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 07, 2010, 02:40:53 AM
HM speeched at the UN,well done Ma'am!

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/07/queen-un-must-lead-in-confronting-dangers.html

courtesy hja

Truly,how many octaginarians we know do a 9 day tour full of official engagements and still act as they do?
HM and her Duke are really examplary in the true sense of the word.Deep respect for both is fitting.

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/photos/britain_2010/index.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 07, 2010, 05:26:41 AM
Quite right Lucien! Amazing dedication & hard work! If only these useless ministers would follow suit (the same ones that wish to cut the monarchy) and yet fiddle there own expenses!!

This is from an interesting article in the Daily Telegraph regarding Canada:

A Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey of 1,000 Canadians found that 45 per cent of respondents didn't know that the Royal couple were coming and 44 per cent said they would support a referendum on cutting ties to the monarchy.
Tom Freda, director of Citizens for a Canadian Republic, told Canadian Press that the poll showed Canadians were apathetic about the Queen.
"Most Canadians just don't care about the monarchy," he said.
"It doesn't make sense in the 21st century for a country of Canada's stature to share its head of state with another country.
"It's a symbol of Canada's subservience. It's a symbol of Canada's lack of ability to stand alone in the world as an independent nation."
During her 22nd official tour of Canada, the queen will preside over a parade of naval warships in Nova Scotia. The Canadian vessels still bear the initials HMCS - Her Majesty's Canadian Ship. Her visit coincides in part with the centennial of Canada's Navy.
For Canada Day on Thursday, she will travel to parliament in Ottawa and deliver a speech as the country marks 143 years since it was established. The 84-year-old monarch will also visit the government and drop in on the newly refurbished Canadian Museum of Nature.
However, her trip will not include a visit to Montreal, after Prince Charles was heckled in Quebec.
The heir to the throne and The Duchess of Cornwall were met with shouts of "Majesty go home" from more than 200 protesters who urged Montreal and Quebec to break away from the British Commonwealth.


If the republicans in Canada do not wish to have the monarchy then fine, there loss, & it will save the Queen time making trips over there! She does too much as it is. "Citizens for a Canadian Republic" should show some gratitude I think!!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on July 07, 2010, 05:28:39 AM
HM at the State Diner in Canada wearing
The Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara
Queen Victoria's Collet Necklace without the Lahore Diamond drop
Queen Victoria's Household Brooch with the chain and Pearl
and
King George VI Modern cut earrings

(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/alexander1917/102634629.jpg)


She looks very elegant.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on July 07, 2010, 05:55:41 AM
Eddie
       You miss the point as usual.  Canadians love the Queen and have no problem having her represent her.  It is what is coming after her that they have a problem with.  Queen Elizabeth was enthroned when Canada saw itself as a colony more or less and Canadians in general  are happy to continue that tie with Her Majesty.  What they are not happy about is having Camilla be seen in as a consort of a head of state of the country.  You can see this in the numbers of people who turned out to see each respectively.  Prince Charles and Camillia = 100s the Queen = 1,000s
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on July 07, 2010, 06:20:29 AM
Eddie
       You miss the point as usual. 


Not only have you made  a sarcastic putdown to me today, but now Eddie as well?
Twice in one day?
You are becoming more vulgar and sarcastic more than when you first began to pm me.
You should be reported to FA because honestly, you are making more enemies than friends here.
I've had ENOUGH of you!!!!!!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on July 07, 2010, 06:45:10 AM
well it wasnt worse than implying that I was laying about what I saw when I had lunch with the Queen mother.  And Eddie made a rather nasty implied comment about my country's people so fair game is fair game.  You don't seem to stop your own criticism of other people and their comments but you seem to be hypersensitive when you get a taste of your own medicine. 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on July 07, 2010, 07:06:44 AM
EXCUSE ME!?
I DO NOT criticise other peoples comments.
It's just yours because you can't stand the fact that stood up to you.
And I never said you lied.
This is a discussion board, but YOU seem to get off on thinking every thread has to have a sexual reference to it.
And believe me, members here have spoken about it of you.
I am now not going to reply to any more of your posts, but fire away as you will.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 07, 2010, 07:11:09 AM
No one is interested in your apparent lunch with the QM. I personally don't believe it for a second, as you are far to rude to mix in such circles. And as every well mannered person knows, it's vulgar to name drop :). Nor are we interested in your apparent invites to Mustique island, this I know for a fact.

It's clear you are the hypersensitive one & not Lindelle.

Now please can we get back to the topic.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on July 07, 2010, 07:13:37 AM
Good to hear you have a gosssip ring going.  It seems in your character and from now on I won't comment on yours after this.  The Queen Mother dropped her pencil has absolutely no sexual comment on it unless you are a repressed Freudian.  On the other hand, going weak at the knees when your husband wears a certain cologne is rife with sexual innuendo.  
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on July 07, 2010, 07:22:06 AM
Well Eddie learn how to spell when  you criticize, it makes your barbs sharper.  And speak for yourself.  There are lots of people who are interested in personal anectdotes and as this is a royal forum, when those anactdotes are about members of royalty, even if they are not interesting to you, they are germane.  Try to find a keener way to analyse things before you criticize.  It looks petty Eddie.  And seeing that we are on ad hominem levels, I always thought the masculine diminutive of Edmund, Edmond or Edward was Eddy or Ed.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 07, 2010, 07:26:29 AM
Well i'm glad I have taught you something, don't mention it :). I don't think you are in a poistion to discuss masculinity when it's quite clear what's lacking in your life!!! ;);). It must be hard.
Sending the ladies PM's asking to play spin the bottle is pretty desperate if you ask me!
Now please can we get back to the topic.
:):):):):):):)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on July 07, 2010, 07:32:39 AM
Well having  YOU impugne my masculinity is hypocricy and at least it was a female that I asked.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on July 07, 2010, 09:07:16 AM
Hi,

On Topic:
I always wonder when a poll comes out and only 1,000 or 1,200 people are asked their opinion out of 34,000,000 (the population of Canada - give or take a few!!).....
Who do they ask?  Older & seniors or younger?  Is it regional or national?

In Canada, if they poll only Ontario & Quebec, they get a different reply than in Western or Eastern Canada.
The East & West are majority pro-monarchy;  Ontario probably half & half;  and Quebec about one quarter.  These are just my findings and not official!!!

I agree with Lucien that we, as a whole here, support The Queen & Prince Philip, as the recent turnout indicates.  They are still popular and admired.
But, Charles and Camilla are not well liked here and mostly ignored.  Their tour was not well attended or even documented in the media.

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on July 07, 2010, 09:36:11 AM
Responsibile polling companies make sure that they have a sound statistical basis to their polls.  Most of the polls that I have seen are more or less saying the same thing.  This has been backed up on most of the C B C open line shows I have listened to.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Teddy on July 07, 2010, 03:19:52 PM
Eddie please stop paying attention and your energy towards Constantinople. Be the wise one of you 2, as you always are.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on July 07, 2010, 03:37:57 PM
I agree with Vecchiolarry, after Diana died. Charles & Camilla did not have the magic nor the interest on the worldwide media. Only the Queen & the young princes (William & Harry) were able to generate the respect and interest in The Royal Family. The recent Fergie Hellaballo is another reason why people viiew the RF with much more critical eyes.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 07, 2010, 03:57:02 PM
Eddie please stop paying attention and your energy towards Constantinople. Be the wise one of you 2, as you always are.


Oh thank you Teddy, I feel very humble & your comment brought a tear to my eye. You are always so kind & good! In fact you should be a mod, as you are an example to us all!!!!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Teddy on July 07, 2010, 04:00:15 PM
But then you must always listen to me Eddie! I hope you can stand the test! I feel myself almost as Mother Theresa!!!
I would like to have the book section as a Mod!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on July 07, 2010, 06:36:53 PM
Posters please stop with the personal comments and back & forth. Private comments should be confined to PMs. And those PMs are not be abusive or profane or in anyway attack another poster. Let's get back on topic, please.

(My own side note--Teddy, you would make a great book mod. You should PM the FA about it.)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on July 07, 2010, 06:38:57 PM
(http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/100707/Queen-Elizabeth-II_240.jpg)

From EW.com:

"Today, while Queen Elizabeth was visiting Pinewood Studio’s outpost in Canada, she slipped on a pair of 3-D eyeglasses....The Queen didn’t don any old pair of 3-D glasses, by the way; her’s were encrusted with Swarovski crystals forming the letter “Q” on either side, looking like something T-Pain might wear to the Grammys. But, judging from video snippets of the event posted on telegraph.com.uk.com, it’s hard to imagine she was all that impressed by what she saw in 3-D in Toronto: It was some sort of costumed Bollywood-style dance number that didn’t have even one giant blue Na’vi Princess in it."
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: RoyalWatcher on July 07, 2010, 07:22:01 PM
I saw the feed from this event on the national news. It must have been hard for her to see anything while the photographers were taking their pictures. She and Prince Phillip were bombarded by those strong flashes. She is such a good sport about these events!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 07, 2010, 07:23:24 PM
I LOVE the hat ! It so well suits her.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Victor on July 08, 2010, 04:42:13 AM
Couldn't agree more Robert.Gorgeous old thing.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on July 08, 2010, 05:35:15 AM
I like her little grin.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 08, 2010, 10:30:39 AM
I like her little grin.

` Ma Dalton...`.... ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on July 08, 2010, 09:00:47 PM
Her Majesty is to become a great-grandmother in December.  Peter Phillips and his wife Autumn are expecting their first child.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on July 08, 2010, 09:45:35 PM
Nice. She will be proud. :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on July 09, 2010, 08:55:15 AM
That would make her the first monarch since the last reigning Queen, Victoria, to see a great-grandchild.  :) If William does marry soon and quickly produce an heir, perhaps there will be a replay of the situation (and accompanying photos) of the monarch and 3 successive heirs to the throne ala the famous sitting with Victoria, Edward VII, George V and Edward VIII.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 09, 2010, 10:13:20 AM
Her Majesty is to become a great-grandmother in December.  Peter Phillips and his wife Autumn are expecting their first child.

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/07/peter-phillips-and-autumn-expecting-child.html

courtesy hja
 :-*
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 12, 2010, 11:23:18 AM
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/k8bc0hcSunz/Queen+Elizabeth+II+Visits+Canada+Day+8/Wqe5DxhfyhN/Prince+Philip

According to HELLO, this brooch had lain undiscovered in the vaults until it was rediscovered recently & thought perfect for the tour! Apparently it could have been a gift to either Queen Alexandra or Mary. Makes one wonder what else is in the vaults undiscovered!!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: joye on July 17, 2010, 11:21:43 PM
This brooch was a 1901 gift from the Ladies of Montreal to Q. Mary, then Duchess of York or Princess of Wales.
Menkes confirms this in her book.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on July 18, 2010, 03:16:21 AM
That's interesting. HELLO should check there sources shouldn't they?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 25, 2010, 10:34:51 AM
The British Royal Family has put over 800 photos on Flickr:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/07/british-royals-also-present-on-flickr.html

courtesy hja

HM and other Members of the RF are on a cruise on the "Hebridean Princess":

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/07/holiday.html
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 31, 2010, 09:02:57 AM
I fully agree with this:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100048958/a-new-royal-yacht-would-be-the-ideal-diamond-jubilee-present-to-the-queen-and-a-economic-saving/
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on August 03, 2010, 10:50:27 AM
HM and other Members of the RF arrived in at the Castle of Mey,Scotland  :

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/08/windsors-arrive-at-the-castle-of-mey.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on August 04, 2010, 12:27:46 AM
Some reports are wondering why Camilla wasn't there as well.
I say, why should she.
The queen isn't her mother and she probably had more interest in her grandchildren.
How come the queen had to have a welcoming committee?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: heavensent on August 04, 2010, 04:17:52 PM
I dont think Camilla missed much... I bet they froze to death
and got soaked into the bargain...
Cruising is for the Med and the islands of Greece.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on August 04, 2010, 05:10:32 PM
Some reports are wondering why Camilla wasn't there as well.
I say, why should she.
The queen isn't her mother and she probably had more interest in her grandchildren.
How come the queen had to have a welcoming committee?

What do you mean "a welcoming committee"?  As to Camilla, I'm sure when she married Charles, she'd have been fully aware of her obligations to the royal family.  They don't exclude her own family but the royals get together at certain times of the year for traditional royal breaks - they always have - and that's not going to change whilst Her Majesty is around.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on August 04, 2010, 06:05:23 PM
By 'welcoming committee', I mean it was just a holiday, does one need the tabs to be there and speculate?
But I say good on Camilla for taking a stance in putting her family first.
I know I would.
It was never said she had to be there to greet the mother-in-law on her return from a holiday, that's not a duty or public obligation.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Patrick M on August 04, 2010, 09:23:59 PM
If I choose not to go to lunch with my mother-in-law (or, um, mother-in-civil-unionship-recognized-by-my-state-but-not-my-country ...) that's fine. But my mother-in-law is not HM The Queen. Camilla's mother-in-law is also her sovereign. If the sovereign invites you, you go, especially if you're married to the heir.

But maybe that's just me ...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on August 05, 2010, 12:08:03 AM
For private family hols I disagree, MY family comes in accordance with the family I married into.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 05, 2010, 02:12:18 AM
If Camilla decided to marry the heir to the throne and then decides to pick and choose which official and semi official occasions she will attend, then she should be cut off the civil list.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 05, 2010, 10:02:38 AM
It would be difficult to cut her off the civil list because she is not on it in the first place.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on August 05, 2010, 06:12:30 PM
It would be difficult to cut her off the civil list because she is not on it in the first place.

is'nt she not on the Civil List at all, because of her husbund. as I know the PoW get his money exclusivly from the Duchy of Cornwall, and so he is also not on the CL.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on August 05, 2010, 07:50:27 PM
That's right, neither of them get anything from the civil list.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 05, 2010, 11:37:13 PM
Well then I would make sure that the Duchy of Cornwall was subjected to death duties from the time that Charles inherited it.  Prince Charles may not be on the civil list but I am sure that the Camilla is receiving something of a stipend from the Queen's civil list entitlements.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 06, 2010, 04:51:40 AM
Oh, so death duties should be imposed retrospectively on the Duchy of Cornwall just because you don't like the Duchess of Cornwall; isn't this all getting a bit silly?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on August 06, 2010, 04:56:06 AM
I think this is the same treatment like the RC or other things which were held in trust by the sovereign.
I suppose the Duchy of Cornwall is connected with the title of PoW, and there are no death dutys.
I further suppose that Camilla didn't receive any income from HM. I think Charles pay her from his income. when I remeber right, also Diana didn't receive any income from the civil list, or the HM but from the trusts of the PoW.

maybe one of the british members could clear this.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 06, 2010, 06:12:52 AM
Well one of the reasons for continuing the avoidance of death duties is to maintain the prestige of the heir to the throne.  As Camilla by her actions and her deportment clearly detracts from the prestige of the heir to the throne, then the death duties shoujld be clawed back.  they are applicable to every other citizen of the UK so why not?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 06, 2010, 06:20:34 AM
The PoW would have to die, for death duties to even  be an issue.  As they generally  become king,  there is no death involved.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on August 06, 2010, 07:25:16 AM
back to HM, she rediscoverd QM 's women of hampshire pendant/brooch




(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/alexander1917/queenmarypendantbrooch.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 06, 2010, 07:47:44 AM
so if he becomes King, he won't die?
and at one poiint the Queen did not pay tax now the duchy of Cornwall and the Queen are taxed.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 06, 2010, 08:06:17 AM
 You miss the point, dear Const.   Once he becomes sovereign, he is no longer Duke of Cornwall and therefore does not receive the income. It will presumably go in trust until  his son is declared heir. Yes, the Queen and the Duchy do pay tax- voluntarily
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 06, 2010, 08:14:13 AM
Actually it reverts to the monarch until someone is designated and the amount  received is deducted from the civil list payments.  so the effect reduces the civill list but in fact if legislation changed, it could be subject to death duties.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 06, 2010, 08:15:58 AM
The Queen gets income from the Duchy of Lancester, the same source when Charles becomes king.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 06, 2010, 08:19:13 AM
and if there is no Duke of Cornwall, the monarch also receives that income although it is neutralized by the drop iln civil list payments.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ashdean on August 06, 2010, 02:16:38 PM
The Queen gets income from the Duchy of Lancester, the same source when Charles becomes king.
The Queen does not get income from the duchy of Lancaster.For many reigns the revenues from the duchy is surrendered to the treasury in exchange for the civil list...The duchies income is much larger than what the Queen receives,BTW I live nr Lancaster and much of the duchies rural holdings are within minutes of my home.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 06, 2010, 10:44:14 PM
According to some books, the Queen (who was also the Duchess of Lancaster) recieves money from the duchy, that is why she is so rich. Prince Charles recieves money from the duchy of Cornwall, that is why he did not recieve too much money from the civil list, only from his foreign tours when he carries the flag for Britain.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 06, 2010, 10:49:06 PM
I just checked the websites. The Queen recieves 110 million pounds from the Duchy of Lancaster (the Crown lands) for exchange of the civil list payout of 40 million pounds. That is still quite a good paycheck for a year.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on August 07, 2010, 12:47:55 AM
And out of that she has to pay for ...................................................
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 07, 2010, 02:50:13 AM
check royal expenditures on google and you will know.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 07, 2010, 08:45:54 AM
'That is still quite a good paycheck for a year. ' Eric, I'm not sure it is right to look at this as being equivalent to what the boss of a company, say might get, since a good deal of this will be spent either in connection with public duties, or on the maintenance of buildings, collections etc. which are effectively inalienable and would otherwise have to be maintained out of public funds.
 
 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 07, 2010, 09:02:59 AM
I agree but they are basically maintained by public funds now with the proviso that they are not accessible to the public.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ashdean on August 07, 2010, 09:56:20 AM
According to some books, the Queen (who was also the Duchess of Lancaster) recieves money from the duchy, that is why she is so rich. Prince Charles recieves money from the duchy of Cornwall, that is why he did not recieve too much money from the civil list, only from his foreign tours when he carries the flag for Britain.
Actually the Queen is DUKE of Lancaster...the sovereign is always Duke whatever their gender...and the toast is "Her Majesty the Queen,Duke of Lancaster"...BTW I live in the environs of the city .
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 07, 2010, 11:03:39 AM
Thanks for the correction on the gender issue. I guess that is why Queen Victoria wasn't for women's rights because she rules as a man. The present Queen is the head of the Anglican Church who is just begining to accept women priests and bishops.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on August 07, 2010, 04:48:13 PM
Thanks for the correction on the gender issue. I guess that is why Queen Victoria wasn't for women's rights because she rules as a man. The present Queen is the head of the Anglican Church who is just begining to accept women priests and bishops.

There is also a lot of opposition within the church to this, Eric, from those who closely follow Biblical teaching.  The Queen is very likely to privately support this too as she is known to be a traditionalist.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 07, 2010, 09:00:11 PM
Yes. She was a traditionalist alright (Queen Victoria), she believed than men are better than women.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on August 08, 2010, 01:30:38 AM
People who don't think women should be priests or bishops within the church don't necessarily think men are better than women, Eric.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 08, 2010, 01:49:30 AM
Well the implication is that god thinks women are inferior and that would be the same as saying women are not as good as men.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on August 08, 2010, 01:51:33 AM
That is your interpretation.  Maybe God just thinks men and women are different and because of that should have different roles.  He probably doesn't want men pretending to be mothers, either.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 08, 2010, 01:57:08 AM
It is not just my interpretation.  It has been widely discussed academically and in the media.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 08, 2010, 03:01:32 AM
Although I am in favour of women priests and bishops, I know plenty of people (men and women) who oppose this who in no way think women are inferior to men; Grace has every right to point this out.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 08, 2010, 03:56:03 AM
And if women are equal to men why aren't they acceptable as priests, bishops and cardinals?  The early christian church had no lack of female clergy. Grace has every right to make her point, as I do to make mine.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 08, 2010, 05:30:19 AM
No, you were denying Grace the right to make her point, by implying that people who oppose the ordination of women are really doing so because they think women are inferior, and the theological and other arguments that they put forward can therefore be dismissed out of hand.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 08, 2010, 05:56:09 AM
Did i erase her comment? You have a very flawed sense of free speech and a biased attitude.  Obviously you don't believe in free speech and debate.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 08, 2010, 06:26:18 AM
Oh, I do, but I try to show people the courtesy of accepting that they are arguing in good faith, until it becomes clear that they are not.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 08, 2010, 06:29:20 AM
According to your very normative parameters.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 08, 2010, 07:05:30 AM
I wasn't meaning to suggest that you were't arguing in good faith, but that your reply to Grace suggested that you weren't willing to concede that to people who oppose the ordination of women.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 08, 2010, 07:28:33 AM
Good then.  Debate is healthy.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 08, 2010, 10:06:01 PM
According to church history, women were allowed to be leaders (even disciples) in the begining. Later they were shut out by church historians. The verse of whom Paul said women should be silent is now declared that it wasn't written by Paul. So women should have the right to play a role (priests or bishops) were not against the wishes of the original chrch under Paul. Queen Victoria was taught that women were stupid, while men should be trusted to lead is an outdated idea. The present Queen is also a tradionalist, but interesting is a working mother as well.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 09, 2010, 12:25:45 AM
There is also no scriptural basis for the exclusiion of female clergy.  And we all know where the concept of clergy being chaste got us.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 09, 2010, 01:11:52 AM
The actual arguement came from the Jewish tradition of Rabbis.There were no female Rabbis at the time of Jesus. However Jesus picked Mary Magdelaine as the first person to see him, that gives her special status, which is why the Catholic Church mislabeled her as a whore. The female disciple Junia was renamed Junian (that is a historical fact) to mask female involvement in the early church. but one must not blame the Queen for being a tradionalist. The very idea of a monarchy itself is a tradition.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 09, 2010, 05:23:13 AM
'The female disciple Junia was renamed Junian (that is a historical fact) to mask female involvement in the early church.'  In fact in the original Greek, the name only appears in the accusative, so Paul could either have been referring to a man named Junia or a man named Junias; there is no way of telling for certain. The female name Junia is better attested for the period, and up until the 19th Century it was generally assumed that Paul was referring to a woman (thus 'Salute Andronicus and Junia' in the King James Bible). So evidently nobody considered that this was a matter of any significance with regard to the priesthood.  From Victorian times onward some translators give the male name, sometimes pointing out the possible alternative sometimes not, evidently on the basis of a casual assumption rather than as a deliberate attempt to downplay female involvement in the early church.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 09, 2010, 07:59:42 AM
The passage from Paul's letter that stress that "women should not be preach and silent" is found NOT be written by Paul. The fact that it is constantly used against women attaining high position in the church is curious. It is now generally agreed that Junia is a woman. There is a book called "The lost disciple" that talks about about this issue. The fact that women is now ordained as priests and preachers is now reclaiming their "rightful" place since the time of Paul, when women were actively preaching and holding secret services in Rome. I think the Anglican Church in England is now having a woman bishop, I wonder what the Queen thinks of that ?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 09, 2010, 08:13:57 AM
The question of woman bishops in the CofE has not yet been settled, but it is only a matter of time. Is there any reason to think that the Queen dislikes the idea of women priests or bishops? Even if she did, she would take good care not to reveal it.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 09, 2010, 08:41:50 AM
Only on her reputation on being a traditionalist and seemed to dislike change (reputation acquired during the Diana years).
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 09, 2010, 09:01:20 AM
Most of the royal family has left of centre sentiments but the Queen is also very discrete about her political views and works hard not to show her cards.  My feeling is that she is for female bishops but chooses not to influence the arguments for or against.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 09, 2010, 09:33:33 AM
That could be true too. ;)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on August 09, 2010, 05:24:33 PM
Most of the royal family has left of centre sentiments but the Queen is also very discrete about her political views and works hard not to show her cards.  My feeling is that she is for female bishops but chooses not to influence the arguments for or against.

I would have said the majority of the royals have right of centre sentiments and I would be very, EXTREMELY surprised if the Queen personally favours female church heads.  It is pointless to get into a dispute on this as we will never her personal views anyway.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 09, 2010, 11:19:49 PM
I think The Queen would support whatever the British people wants. That is safe to say...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on August 09, 2010, 11:28:11 PM
So, the British people all want the same thing, do they?  And whatever that is, the Queen supports it?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 09, 2010, 11:36:23 PM
Indeed. They elected Margaret Thatcher as PM, so she accepts her even though it was well known she did not like her personally.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 10, 2010, 03:53:40 AM
I suspect the truth of the matter is that members of the Royal family would tend favour consensus, and dislike any brand of politics that is seen as being unduly divisive; if it is true that the Queen felt uncomfortable about Mrs Thatcher's brand of politics, that would have been the reason, not because she is personally 'left of centre ' in her views. In so far as the 'right' in Britain is defined in terms of Thatcherism, I would agree with contantinople to the extent that they would probably feel little sympathy with that; but that is not the dominant force in Conservative politics at the moment, and I doubt they would prefer a Labour government to the present one. We know much about Prince Charles' personal views than those of the Queen, and they show a peculiar mixture of conservative and quite radical elements. He is certainly no right-winger in the Thatcherite sense, and he receives more mockery from the right than he does from the liberal intelligentsia, who would sympathize with the work that he has done through the Prince's Trust and on environmental issues.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on August 10, 2010, 04:21:54 AM
I did generalize a bit too much back there!  Members of the royal family no doubt have personal views that don't always concur with those of other members.  Perfectly agree with your summation of Charles too, Adagietto, he is a most curious mix of conserative and left-leaning ideals.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 10, 2010, 05:13:15 AM
Prince Charles is what is known as a red tory or a liberal minded conservative.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 10, 2010, 07:32:16 AM
Indeed, and this is quite common among the better-educated members of the upper crust; Thatcherism found very little support among such people.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 10, 2010, 08:08:08 AM
Well...The Queen is the mother of her people so she generally agrees with whatever they do.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 10, 2010, 08:45:10 AM
Do mothers generally agree to whatever their children do? Not my experience.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 10, 2010, 11:21:07 AM
Yes. But most devoted mothers will do whatever it takes. One of the lessons learnt from the moving reaction after the death of Diana is that as the mother of the country, you will have to respond when there is general mourning in the country. After that The Queen became very sensative to the mood of her people.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ashdean on August 10, 2010, 11:47:32 AM
Yes. But most devoted mothers will do whatever it takes. One of the lessons learnt from the moving reaction after the death of Diana is that as the mother of the country, you will have to respond when there is general mourning in the country. After that The Queen became very sensative to the mood of her people.
The Queen was incredibly badly treated by some elements of the press etc in the hysteria at the time of Diana's death....personally she had tried to remain a friend to that wilful, often unstable malicious woman and she was certainly trying her best to be a loving grandmother to the distraught Princes...Yet she was treated if it had been her fault that the silly woman had got herself mixed up with a gang of rogues and come to a tragic end!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 10, 2010, 12:34:24 PM
The fact is that the Queen did not realise how beloved the princess was in the British public's hearts (in her mind she could only see the needy whining girl and not the princess that comforted many by her acts of charity all over the world) and it did not cross her mind that her people needed her at that moment. Queen Sophia of Spain was more apt to share herself with the people in a time of crisis. However when she appeared back in London, her presence did actually had a calming affect on the people. She duly agreed that change is needed and after that the RF is more in tune with the public.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 10, 2010, 12:46:18 PM
I think there were problems on both sides.  I think that when Prince Charles was having extra marital relation with Camilla, she had the Queen's sympathy but when she started to have affairs herself she lost that sympathy.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 10, 2010, 01:44:34 PM
Indeed. She view Diana more personally and saw the needy girl (she grew up near the Queen's estate in Sandringham) who is causing trouble. I could hardly blame her if her affection towards Diana was rather strained. Yet that is not the crux of the matter. Diana was to the public almost a secular saint in her works for landminds, Aids victims andbattered women..rtc. The death was so shocking and unexpected that the country needed the soothing presence of a mother. The Queen who usually shy away from this role due to the continued presence of her own mother (Queen Mum). Yet this is the defining moment that on one hand proves how out of tune the RF is to the public, but more importantly how much the British public needed the presence of the Queen in terms of such a national emotional crisis.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 10, 2010, 02:53:07 PM
Eric, you are over-generalizing when you talk about the 'public' in those terms; while many people got caught up in that emotion, as many others found it disquieting and even unsavoury. Looking back on it now, it all looks very strange.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on August 10, 2010, 04:22:57 PM
The fact is that the Queen did not realise how beloved the princess was in the British public's hearts (in her mind she could only see the needy whining girl and not the princess that comforted many by her acts of charity all over the world) and it did not cross her mind that her people needed her at that moment. Queen Sophia of Spain was more apt to share herself with the people in a time of crisis. However when she appeared back in London, her presence did actually had a calming affect on the people. She duly agreed that change is needed and after that the RF is more in tune with the public.

Honestly, Eric, I get frustrated with you!  Now you're claiming to be able to see into the Queen's mind - what she could see and what crossed it or didn't cross it etc.  We can only speculate on what her views on Diana were, as others have here.  You write as if you actually know and you CANNOT!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ashdean on August 11, 2010, 01:07:04 AM
I think there were problems on both sides.  I think that when Prince Charles was having extra marital relation with Camilla, she had the Queen's sympathy but when she started to have affairs herself she lost that sympathy.

I don't think it was the affairs that made the Queen irritated with Diana...it was the television interviews the game playing...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 11, 2010, 01:32:59 AM
I think that the Queen is a model of propriety but also a mother who filters ordeals her children go through subjectively so I think that it wasn't just the publlic airing of Diana's dirty laundry that upset her.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on August 11, 2010, 02:27:00 AM
That is your interpretation.  Maybe God just thinks men and women are different and because of that should have different roles.  He probably doesn't want men pretending to be mothers, either.

LOL!!!Right on Grace.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 11, 2010, 06:59:07 AM
I think most books touched upon the subject that the Queen does not usually like to aproach her children directly on unpleasent subjects but chose to let Prince Philip handle them.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 11, 2010, 07:18:10 AM
Welll everyone knows what a dipolomat Philip is.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 11, 2010, 07:28:20 AM
Well...to his credit he did try to reach out to Diana and seemed to be more sympathetic to her than the Queen in the begining.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 11, 2010, 07:53:42 AM
And then there was that incident in China....
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ashdean on August 11, 2010, 08:14:18 AM
Well...to his credit he did try to reach out to Diana and seemed to be more sympathetic to her than the Queen in the begining.
Actually Philip comes out of the Diana debacle very well....no more so than when to support his grandsons ( and no doubt to show solidarity with his son) he walked behind her coffin with the loathsome Lord Spencer
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 11, 2010, 08:29:08 AM
Indeed. Philip tried to reach out to her perhaps remembering what his mother went through. The Queen however did not understand as she came from a move loving family.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on August 11, 2010, 08:39:57 AM
Well, I guess the Queen's Personal Mind Reader would know these things!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 11, 2010, 08:52:01 AM
Well...She grew up in a loving family and in good health so she expects others to be the same. I think she felt the same way towards her sister Margaret too...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Margot on August 13, 2010, 02:55:30 AM
Yet on at least one occasion the Queen has been obliged to say what the people purportedly wanted to hear, as demonstrated by her the 'As a Grandmother...' speech in September 1997! The Queen just doesn't do it habitually, but rather, when she absolutely has to! She isn't the one seeking a job or position, she is merely one trying to hang on to a job/position she only occupies by accident of birth! When needs must, even the Queen knows when it is time to compromise and use sound bytes! That infamous speech demonstrated just how far the Queen was willing go when necessary, to try and safe guard her position and say what was required even if she herself did not write the entire speech which she gave!

Yes. But most devoted mothers will do whatever it takes. One of the lessons learnt from the moving reaction after the death of Diana is that as the mother of the country, you will have to respond when there is general mourning in the country. After that The Queen became very sensative to the mood of her people.

Call me cynical but I noticed this debate about whether the Queen responds and bends to the demands of the people that has been going on this week and remembered that I posted a comment about the Queen's ability to 'bite the bullet so to speak' ages ago! Back in May no one seemed very keen to explore the Queen's ability to adapt and yield when needs must or are perceived to, hence I was delighted to see others have started to explore this aspect now!

Saying that, I believe that in the case of 1997 and the Crash Contagion phenomena the Queen wasn't just responding to what a 'portion' of the 'people' demanded but more probably and importantly was motivated to do the 'As a Grandmother..' speech to counter the the increasingly pernicious and successfully self serving frenzy that was being whipped up by the British media to deflect attention from themselves and onto the Palace and the 'Grumpy Queen' closeted away 'ignoring' her people, whilst the Nation 'apparently' descended into week long orgy of of hair raking and breast beating grief.

The film The Queen seems to be regarded in some quarters as being rather persuasive of what may have happened, although I tend to recall plenty of 'People' recognizing that the 'Where's the Flag' headlines and 'Show us you care' campaigns in the press at the time as a deplorable ploy to incite a frenzy fed and fueled by the press to deflect attention from their obvious culpability in the events of the evening/early morning of 30-31st August. Many many people, myself included, recognized what the media was doing at the time. But saying that, the Queen probably felt that there was a danger there and she made that speech! Not so much a case of what the majority of people wanted or expected, but a way to neuter a problem before it was allowed to flourish and blossom out of control!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on August 13, 2010, 03:12:51 AM
Well...She grew up in a loving family and in good health so she expects others to be the same. I think she felt the same way towards her sister Margaret too...

But Margaret grew up in the same family..... What you are saying is that the Queen exepects everybody to feel like herself. A most human failing, of course. The problem is of course just that few fellow humans may feel as she does, as an anointed sovereign.......
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 13, 2010, 03:30:50 AM
I think the difference between Elizabeth and Margaret was that Elizabeth saw responsibility as the cost of privilege while Margaret saw privilege that was seperated from responsibility.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 13, 2010, 04:27:18 AM
Agreed, they were entirely different in that respect; though, to be fair, Margaret mightnot  have been quite so irresponsible if she had had to take on serious responsibilities like the Queen.

Margot's account of the circumstances of the Queen's 'As a grandmother' speech seems spot on to me; she skilfully defused a very unpleasant situation, for which the irresponsible (and entirely hypocritical) behaviour of the media was largely to blame.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 13, 2010, 05:45:39 AM
I am sure that Princess Margaret was offered lots of opportunities to serve her country.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 13, 2010, 10:07:09 AM
She preferred to serve on the beaches of the Caribbean.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 13, 2010, 10:25:30 AM
Yes both she and Britain agreed it was the best possible option.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 13, 2010, 11:15:57 AM
I think Margaret felt she did her duty to the nation due to the Townsend situation. She felt they owed her her happiness. The Queen have a great marriage that works.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Janet Ashton on August 13, 2010, 12:13:30 PM
I suspect the truth of the matter is that members of the Royal family would tend favour consensus, and dislike any brand of politics that is seen as being unduly divisive; if it is true that the Queen felt uncomfortable about Mrs Thatcher's brand of politics, that would have been the reason, not because she is personally 'left of centre ' in her views. In so far as the 'right' in Britain is defined in terms of Thatcherism, I would agree with contantinople to the extent that they would probably feel little sympathy with that; but that is not the dominant force in Conservative politics at the moment, and I doubt they would prefer a Labour government to the present one.

But the present government is anything but a "consensus" government. Love or hate her, Thatcher at least obtained landslide majorities and made her intentions absolutely clear. The current Conservative government campaigned on a manifesto which revealed none of their plans, nevertheless failed to obtain a majority, came to office backed up by a party whose voters by and large thought they were voting for completely different policies, and are pursuing a massively radical right-wing social and economic experiment at break-neck speed, all backed by whining claims that they are being "forced" to do it by circumstance. Some may consider that consensus, but I consider it dishonest, divisive and foolhardy in the extreme. If I were the Queen I would be extremely concerned at what is happening: Thatcher at least understood the basic rule that if you are running a country you should not alienate

a) the executive branch of government

and

b) the police.

otherwise what do we fall back on? Vigilantes? Is that what is meant by "the Big Society"?

Anyway, back to topic.....
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 13, 2010, 03:11:59 PM
Thatcher was an autocrat and a divisive one.  She started the Falklands War so she didn't lose an electiion and created the Britain that existed up to the Labour party.  She so alienated Britain that Tony Blair won the largest majority in labour history and created a Britain that pretty much evaporated the middle class.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Janet Ashton on August 13, 2010, 03:25:56 PM
Thatcher was an autocrat and a divisive one.  She started the Falklands War so she didn't lose an electiion and created the Britain that existed up to the Labour party.  

I don't in the least disagree with you! The point I am making is that over-confident, under-talented scions of unearned wealth like Osborne and Cameron, are attempting to finish what she started at double-quick pace without even a mandate. Cameron's ability to speak slick at a dinner party (though personally I am not impressed by his debating style at all) certainly does not mean they should be viewed as safe and consensus option that shouldn't worry the Queen. Harold "One Nation Tory" Macmillan he certainly is not.
There is a wonderful quote I've seen about from the journalist Gary Younge, which runs like this: "As a young man Cameron looked out on the social carnage of pit closures and mass unemployment, looked at Margaret Thatcher's government and thought, these are my people. When all the debating is done, that is really all I need to know."
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 13, 2010, 03:45:13 PM
Well I am not impressed with Osbourne at all.  The last British politician I liked was Paddy Ashdown and before that David Owen.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 14, 2010, 05:19:43 AM
This is really no place for one-sided political rants. They are quite bad enough in sites that are actually concerned with party politics. One person's 'wonderful quote' may strike another person as being a fine expression of facile prejudice.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 14, 2010, 08:08:23 AM
Yes. The Queen is above it all.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Janet Ashton on August 14, 2010, 08:27:05 AM
This is really no place for one-sided political rants. They are quite bad enough in sites that are actually concerned with party politics. One person's 'wonderful quote' may strike another person as being a fine expression of facile prejudice.

I assume that the "one sided political rant" you refer to is mine. For the record, I find this comment extremely offensive, given that I said nothing personally nasty to you.

Whether one agrees with them of not, is a fact that the current Conservative Party is planning cuts to the structure of the British state on a scale that is wholly unprecedented and will take public spending back to the 1930s. Do you dispute this?

Do you dispute that they did not mention this in their manifesto and are saying that they are "forced" to do so by the scale of the deficit? (and yet this sits rather oddly with Francis Maude's statement that they had "hit the ground running" after planning for years in opposition).

Do you dispute that they did not obtain a majority and were obliged to seek a coalition arrangement with the LIberal Democrats?

Do you dispute that everyone I know personally who voted for the Liberal Democrats is horrified by what has happened and the complexion of the government their vote supported?

Are you aware of how deeply insulted anyone who works for or is reliant upon a public service is by the constant implication that they are workshy scroungers who are responsible for the economic crisis?
Do you have any notion how worried people are for the future of their jobs and the whole economy - not as a result of the world situation, but as a direct consequence of the charmingly called "Bloodbath budget"?

Are you aware that Cameron warned his MPs they had better prepare to be very unpopular?

Whether you think them and their policies the best thing since sliced bread or not, it is wholly incorrect to state that the current conservatives are somehow less divisive than Thatcher was.  There is division here for a start.

ERic is right - the Queen's role is to be above it all and accept and work with the government; not to judge whether X is better Y because he or she is deemed "less divisive". And she would be quite sensible to be very concerned in the circumstances of a government with no majority undertaking a very radical program at a very difficult time. My political view are neither here nor there, and nor are yours, so if you don't want to hear mine, please try to be a little less biased in turn.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 14, 2010, 09:29:54 AM
Oh come, come, as soon as you start using phrases like 'over-confident, under-talented scions of unearned wealth like Osborne and Cameron' you are in full rant territory; and if you go to, say, the Spectator Coffee House, you will find people from the Thatcherite right ranting against them in exactly the same terms ! So some people assert they are following extreme right policies, carrying on from where Mrs Thatcher left off, while the Thatcherites assert on the whole that they are limp-wristed pinkoes who are betraying her heritage! This merely confirms that British politics is moving in a curious direction at the moment, and cannot (in my view) be analysed in terms of the simple oppositions inherited from the 80s. But this is not the proper place for such discussions.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ashdean on August 14, 2010, 09:43:43 AM
Thatcher was an autocrat and a divisive one.  She started the Falklands War so she didn't lose an electiion and created the Britain that existed up to the Labour party.  She so alienated Britain that Tony Blair won the largest majority in labour history and created a Britain that pretty much evaporated the middle class.
Although Mrs Thatcher became rather autocratic to say the least....NO ONE can blame her for starting the Argentinian war....THE OTHER SIDE were the invaders....Are you Argenintian Constantinople?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 14, 2010, 12:24:27 PM
Canadian I think. But it is certainly the case that she didn't embark on that enterprise out of electoral calculation, it was an exceedingly risky venture which could easily have ended in failure.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 14, 2010, 01:28:10 PM
Well she gave the Argentinians discrete signals that nothing would happen if they took over the Falklands and then used it as political ammunition. It was similar to the way Bush senior gave Saddam Hussein subtle hints that invading Kuwait would not have any consequaences.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 14, 2010, 01:35:01 PM
Ashdean
        You might be interested in this
President Galtieri, as head of the the military government, aimed to counter public concern over economic and human rights issues by means of a speedy victory over the Falklands which would appeal to popular nationalistic sentiment. Argentine intelligence officers had been working with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to help fund the Contras in Nicaragua, and the Argentine government believed it might be rewarded for this activity by non-interference on the part of the United States if it invaded the Falklands.

Argentina exerted pressure at the United Nations by raising subtle hints of a possible invasion, but the British either missed or ignored this threat and did not react. The Argentines assumed that the British would not use force if the islands were invaded.[3][4]

According to British sources, the Argentines interpreted the failure of the British to react as a lack of interest in the Falklands due to the planned withdrawal (as part of a general reduction in size of the Royal Navy in 1981) of the last of the Antarctic Supply vessels, HMS Endurance, and by the British Nationality Act of 1981, which replaced the full British citizenship of Falkland Islanders with a more limited version.

Furthermore, Britain was given detailed information from the CIA about the Argentinian junta's intention.  My sources told me that Thatcher also knew that the upcoming election would be difficult and was advised that a war with Argentina would not be long or difficult but would focus the electorate away from divisive political factions  (Labour, Conservatives etc,)

And if you dont believe me there are plenty of other sources on this subject.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 14, 2010, 02:07:48 PM
The Argentinians misread the British signs and the British misread the Argentinian ones. If the Argentinians had been patient, some British government some time would doubtless have sold the Falkland Islanders down the river, or if one one wants to put it another way, have concluded that the financial and political expense of supporting them was too great. After the invasion, Mrs Thatcher had a choice between miltary action and a negotiated surrender; anyone who has any understanding of her character would know that she would never have contemplated the second option for a moment, electoral calculations did not come into the matter. Only a fool or ignoramus would have advised her that a war with Argentina would not be difficult, or would be lacking in danger. That was certainly not the military opinion at the time. More ships could easily have been sunk, and the landing could have gone badly wrong; everyone whom I have spoken to who was actually involved in the war regards it as a close-run thing.  Even as it turned out, without more exocets getting through, the failure of the fuzes on some Argentinian bombs may have made the difference between success and failure. Nor was it clear at the beginning that the Americans would have provided the vital support that they did. I never cared for Mrs Thatcher, but she had guts, and it took real courage to launch that expedition. It could just as easily have broken her career as helped it.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 14, 2010, 02:16:02 PM
Well i was told by good sources in Britain and the US that the CIA had provided a very clear sitrep about what the Argentinians were planning to do.  I was also informed by some senior Tories that the tone of the cabinet at that time was if the Argies wanted to do some sabre wrattling they would get their nose bloodied and that it wouldnt be at all detrimental politically and that it would be a cake walk.  If you think that is not what was going on in cabinet at the time then that is your choice.  And Thatcher did not have so much guts but the type of ambition that blinds one fropm reality.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 14, 2010, 03:01:17 PM
There is a difference between sabre-rattling and an invasion; they may have seen some advantage in facing down some sabre-rattling, but they were certainly not expecting an invasion that would leave the Argentinians holding the islands, nor could they possibly have wished for any such thing. If they had had definite information that the Argentinians were planning to invade when they did, they could and would have taken action to deter the invasion. No serious historian thinks anything other than that the invasion took the British government by surprise, and that it was thought at the time, with every justification, that it would be extremely hard to retake the islands. Some members of the cabinet would have much preferred a negotiated surrender. It took courage to take the course that she did, just as it took courage to overturn the post-war consensus in British politics, or to face down the powerful trade union movement; though at a purely verbal level, it is doubtless possible to interpret that courage away, and such a mode of argument may appeal to people who have a taste for sophistry or paradox.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 14, 2010, 03:34:03 PM
The cia gave Brit intel everything they needed to know that the Argies were not bluffing and they had inside information from the junta itself.  And what guts does it take to jerimander an election through diplomatic manipulation that leads to a conflict?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Margot on August 14, 2010, 03:39:00 PM
Gosh maybe we should set up another thread about Maggie and the Falklands as this is all terribly off topic and only seems to relate to the Queen as a major event that took place during her reign!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 14, 2010, 03:57:24 PM
Agreed; and if constantinople is seriously suggesting that Mrs Thatcher provoked the invasion, or deliberately let it proceed in the face of prior knowledge, because she wanted a war for electoral purposes, we are in any case straying beyond the bounds of rational discussion, let alone relevant discussion.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 14, 2010, 04:06:03 PM
acccording to you but  if i look at a lot of your posts, they seem to deviate from ratiionality
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 14, 2010, 04:09:29 PM
and that is a well known fact not an allegation.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 14, 2010, 05:14:20 PM
Not too well known, I hope, otherwise they might never let me out!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 14, 2010, 10:19:39 PM
good luck
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 14, 2010, 10:41:58 PM
I think the Queen has come into her own in recent years. After the Queen Mum's passing, she became the most senior member of the Royal Family. She now had the affection, respect and love of her people.  :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 14, 2010, 11:15:17 PM
I think she had all three of those before the Queen Mother passed on.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 14, 2010, 11:19:58 PM
She was not the mother or grandmother of her people while "Mummy" was alive, as she tends to defer to her. Once she was gone, she came into her own. Of course by then Diana was also gone.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ashdean on August 16, 2010, 10:18:54 PM
Ashdean
        You might be interested in this
President Galtieri, as head of the the military government, aimed to counter public concern over economic and human rights issues by means of a speedy victory over the Falklands which would appeal to popular nationalistic sentiment. Argentine intelligence officers had been working with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to help fund the Contras in Nicaragua, and the Argentine government believed it might be rewarded for this activity by non-interference on the part of the United States if it invaded the Falklands.

Argentina exerted pressure at the United Nations by raising subtle hints of a possible invasion, but the British either missed or ignored this threat and did not react. The Argentines assumed that the British would not use force if the islands were invaded.[3][4]

According to British sources, the Argentines interpreted the failure of the British to react as a lack of interest in the Falklands due to the planned withdrawal (as part of a general reduction in size of the Royal Navy in 1981) of the last of the Antarctic Supply vessels, HMS Endurance, and by the British Nationality Act of 1981, which replaced the full British citizenship of Falkland Islanders with a more limited version.

Furthermore, Britain was given detailed information from the CIA about the Argentinian junta's intention.  My sources told me that Thatcher also knew that the upcoming election would be difficult and was advised that a war with Argentina would not be long or difficult but would focus the electorate away from divisive political factions  (Labour, Conservatives etc,)

And if you dont believe me there are plenty of other sources on this subject.

There might be plenty of sources....but the bare bones of the matter is...the ARGENTINIANS were the INVADERS...NOT Margaret Thatcher.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 17, 2010, 03:26:42 AM
Well that is not the whole story.  There are plenty of ways to manipulate a situation, as George Bush did just prior to the Gulf War.  And in law and that means international law, the concept of culpable negligence exists.  That is that if someone should do something but fails to and it causes loss, they they are responsible.  Margaret Thatcher knew what signals she was sending and what result they would have and the result of those was the Falklands war. 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ashdean on August 17, 2010, 10:49:34 AM
The Argentinians did not need any manipulation.....ANYWAY....whatever macignations (if any)from Mrs Thatcher they did not have to play into her hands
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 17, 2010, 01:02:28 PM
Unnecessary concession, it is absurd to suppose that Mrs Thatcher would ever have enticed a foreign enemy to seize any British territory, that is a conspiracy theory about on a level of that which claims that the 9/11 atttacks were arranged by the CIA. Perhaps we need a special place in the forum for this kind of thing, comparable to the section that is devoted to the ragged army of Imperial claimants.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 18, 2010, 07:50:14 AM
what an absurd extrapolation. Thatcher merely knew what would happen if she withdrew a British military presence and there  was no conspiracy as the CIA had only passed on intel but it was accurate and Thatcher was clearly aware of what would happen when she withdrew that British military presence, invasion by the Argentinian junta and a nice diversion for the British electorate to focus away from the political divisiopns she had created in Britain.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 18, 2010, 08:40:35 AM
There is a good discussion of this issue here:
http://www.barder.com/669
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 18, 2010, 03:30:31 PM
Well I read through all of that and there is nothing that refutes my contention except in one of the comments.  I know that Margaret Thatcher had warning of the intentions of Argentinian junta and unless Margaret Thatcher felt suicidal of course she wouldnt mention that the CIA had tipped her off.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 18, 2010, 03:41:40 PM
IMO, one would have to had been blind NOT to see the Junta's intentions. They were trying to prop up their own regime.  From my own perspective, it did not really work with the Argentine people. No one really gave a hoot about the Malvinas/Falklands.
 I had no taste for Thatcher at all, but what really frosted me was her actions without consulting the Queen first. Ignoring her constitutional role. The Falklands was one case, Grenada another, for examples.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 18, 2010, 04:22:06 PM
I was merely posting that link for people who might want to see a sensible discussion of the issues, not because it would set out to refute a contention that nobody in this country would take seriously in the first place. It is a matter of some historical interest to know how the warnings about the intentions of the Argentinians came to be ignored.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 18, 2010, 04:30:38 PM
No disagreement from me, Adagietto. As I recall, I was in  London when the war started and ended,. None of my friends took much notice of it. I was curious, but not terribly interested either. I do remember, however, the look on Her Majesty's face when she and Thathcher were  at some sort of review. It did show  "royal disapproval"
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 18, 2010, 04:58:38 PM
Well several Britons did take it seriously and still do.  However those who are nationalistic or Thatcherites, I can understand the blindness that comes from normative sequestration. 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Adagietto on August 19, 2010, 03:56:57 AM
Well, I am certainly no Thatcherite, and I am not nationalistic in any bellicose sense. God knows, the lady has had her enemies in this country, and this idea that she deliberately provoked the invasion of the Falklands to enable her to start a war has never been advanced by any serious commentator here; at the most one occasionally stumbles across it from people sounding off on internet forums. There are so many things wrong with it that one barely knows where to start. In the first place, Mrs Thatcher herself was highly patriotic in an old-fashioned way; unimaginable that she would have enabled a foreign power (especially a South American dictatorship) to take over a British territory, detain its Governor, and assume arbitrary power over its citizens; in view of the subsequent defet of the Argentinians, it is easy to forget how mortifying this was generally felt to be in the UK, it was a national humiliation. In the second place, Mrs Thatcher was not an absolute ruler, and she had a lot of independent-minded people in her government. She could not have worked such a scheme on her own, it would have needed the co-operation of senior members of her government and probably elements in the Foreign Office too. Who exactly? Certainly not the Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, an honourable man whose political career was wrecked by the Falklands Affair. In fact, it is hard to think of anyone who would have gone along with such a hare-brained and utterly immoral idea, and nothing whatever has come out since to suggest that there was such a plot. Thirdly, this idea depends on the notion that the Falklands war was an easy colonial war that Britain was bound to win without significant losses. That was not the case, it was an exceedingly different operation, the British losses could easily have been much higher, it could indeed have ended in failure. It is only with hindsight, and with a good of forgetfulness of the actual course of the war, that this could be regarded as anything like an easy war. As it was, some 250 members of the Brisih forces lost their lives, and I very much doubt that the military would have told her that she could count on anything less. To suppose that Mrs Thatcher would have contemplated an appreciable loss of British lives as a way to manipulate an election implies an extraordinary misjudgement of her character. And one could go on and on. This is a classic example of a massive cock-up that could only subsequently be turned to political advantage with the benefit of a large amount of luck. And that is the general view here among people of all political affiliations.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 19, 2010, 07:04:14 AM
Well first of all there was not complex scheme.  All that happened was a failure to respond to Argentinian sabre rattling by replacing the British military presence that had been withdrawn.  And the one psychological charasteristic that defines Thatcher is blind ambition.  She wasn't called the Iron Woman for nothing.  As for Carrington, he was always a good Tory and would not have been in Thatcher's cabinet if he has shown great independent thinking.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 19, 2010, 07:16:49 AM
Sorry that should have been iron lady although the name of a torture device may be more appropriate.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on August 19, 2010, 07:27:23 AM
Going into the 1983 election, unemployment was the highest in British history and inflation was extremely high and as Thatcher had been in power long enough to be blamed for these and with no mitigating factors to offset these and factors like closing down mines and facing down the unions had created a situation where it was possible for even such an undistinguished opponent as Michael Foot to win an election against her.  As for her militarism (or ability to select a military solution to solve problems) at one point Thatcher was willing to authorize the use of nuclear weapons against the Argentinians.  Her support of people like General Pinochet who was a military dictator responsible for tens of thousands attrocities to achieve political goals also supports this view.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on August 22, 2010, 06:25:24 PM
The comments about the Falklands Conflict are all jolly interesting, but not for this thread I think. Perhaps a Moderator could call a halt, so we may get back to Her Majesty.

R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on August 23, 2010, 09:16:18 AM
I agree...although how much the Queen agreed to this war is the question.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: heavensent on August 28, 2010, 12:22:18 PM
 Got to be one of the nicest pics of  HM  Ive seen  for a while

go here
http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=119&p=1016#p1016

.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on August 28, 2010, 06:27:38 PM
Got to be one of the nicest pics of  HM  Ive seen  for a while

go here
http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=119&p=1016#p1016

.

I agree! Absolutely stunning.

R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: heavensent on September 07, 2010, 01:48:46 PM
  Two  more  wonderful pics of  HM.....  Im  sure you will agree !

go here
http://celebheaven.freepowerboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=119&p=1031#p1031

( though no doubt Katenka won't )
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: joan_d on September 07, 2010, 02:49:14 PM
That is quite something - all those American presidents !
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on September 07, 2010, 03:27:08 PM
There is a lot of knowledge in that head of hers.

I noticed the same purse in two pictures, probably a couple of decades apart.  She is obviously a thrifty lass.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on September 08, 2010, 01:35:09 AM
The Queen,painted by her husband.

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/09/queen-painted-by-her-husband.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on September 08, 2010, 06:10:29 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh1-9ww_HmM


I've watched this before but don't know how many of you haven't.
I thought it was very interesting.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: RoyalWatcher on September 08, 2010, 08:03:36 PM
Thank you, Lindelle! That was FABULOUS. I had never seen it before. What a treat!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on September 08, 2010, 10:11:34 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/7963793/The-Queen-over-the-years.html


This is a good one too!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: heavensent on September 09, 2010, 10:02:59 AM
In so many pics I see HM  wearing gloves..... just wondering , does anyone ever get
to shake her hand ... without the gloves ?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on September 09, 2010, 10:48:39 AM
Well with the Queen you dont offer to shake hands and she doesnt always wear gloves so the answer is sometime but rarely.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on September 09, 2010, 12:59:44 PM
she some years ago it would be better for both sides, when you wear gloves, when you have to shake so many hands... at a reception it could be more than 300 people...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: heavensent on September 09, 2010, 01:13:23 PM
 I think centuries ago the "Royal touch " was thought to have magic, healing powers,  got to say,
if gloves are involved its hardly  the same is it !
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on September 09, 2010, 01:34:07 PM
for me, as I could shake her hand some years ago.. it's so unimported if there are gloves or not. I mean, came so near to her.. it's... wow....!!!! unforgetable
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on September 09, 2010, 05:30:48 PM
I understand what your saying, shaking the Queens bare hand would be a treat, but on the other side of the coin, if I put myself in her place, well.......................who knows what one has just done with their hands? I mean, they could've just picked their noses! And whilst it seemed so nice when Diana did it, I'd still feel a bit funny about it.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on September 16, 2010, 12:42:11 AM
HH Pope Benedicy XVI will arrive in Edinburgh this morning at the start of a rare Papal State Visit to the UK.
The Pontiff will be received by HM Queen Elizabeth at Hollyrood Palace.

You can follow the arrival on BBC 1 from 10.00 GMT.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special_reports/papal_visit/

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on September 17, 2010, 12:50:28 AM
In spite of the fact that Vatican City is a state (more of a fiction state), I am not sure why the Queen is receiving the head of a religion as a secular head of state.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on September 17, 2010, 01:05:13 AM

And,the Vatican is not a fiction State,at all.It is not only the Holy See to the largest denomination on earth but also home
 to a elected Monarch,which the Pope is.The Vatican isn't fiction, the cyberworld often is.

http://bbc.co.uk/

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/09/elizabeth-welcomes-benedict-to-uk.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on September 17, 2010, 01:12:59 AM
In spite of the fact that Vatican City is a state (more of a fiction state), I am not sure why the Queen is receiving the head of a religion as a secular head of state.

HM is Head of the Church of England,as we all know,but not Head of the Church of Scotland.
So she was obliged to act accordingly.And btw,I don't think anyone should point out to HM
how to act when and to whom,she knows better then any living soul on the how's what and
when and do's and don't's.At all.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on September 17, 2010, 09:39:38 AM
Dispite the terror alert and the 5 held this morning,security won't be stepped up but is in place as planned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11346001

Some more from yesterday:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1284640525.html

courtesy the posters of the BRMB

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on September 17, 2010, 11:14:12 PM
The Pontiff had a rather busy day yesterday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11344973

Further the Pontiff visited Lambeth Palace,the first ever by a Pope since Henri VIII established
the Church of England.

In the evening there was a prayer with and for all denominations at the Westminster Abbey,
Both the Pope and the Bishop of Canterbury prayed at the tomb of Edward the Confessor.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11347073

 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: darius on September 18, 2010, 08:18:23 AM
The Queen didn´t have much choice in who she received... the invitation was extended by the Brown government and HM s obliged to do the welcome thingy...  The Vatican is not a state which is recognised by the United Nations - its existence is an arrangement with the Italian Govt which dates back to the Lateran Treaty in the 20´s.  I am not sure how comfortable HM will be with the whole visit, priest sex abuse scandals aside... HM is no bigot, however, her Coronation vow demanded that she uphold the Protestant faith, and welcomng the Roman Pontiff doesn´t quite synch with that... despite the current love in with the ridculous wooly incumbent Archbshop of Canterbury.  The whole farce of the visit is so typical of the prevailing love of gesture and desire to please, but unfortunately we don´t seem to have any real substance or belief left in this country ... certainly not among the Church / ruling establishment. 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on September 18, 2010, 09:52:57 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11354357
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ashdean on September 18, 2010, 02:23:21 PM
I think there is much contraversy with this pope on every thing from Hitler Youth to covering up priests who raped boys. There is understanding of dismay from some people. The pope's further attempt to try to covert Anglicans to his church (those who oppose women priests in general) is hardly friendly. However as a head of State (Vatican is a country and one of the religious center of the world), his visit cannot be denied. I think the Queen did a good job as a host. She was however never attracted to that denomination like some of her family (like Katherine, Duchess of Kent and her younger son, Lord Downpatrick & of course Princess Michael of Kent).
The Duchess of Kents younger son is NOT Lord Downpatrick (that is Lord Nicholas Windsor).Lord Downpatrick is the son of her elder son The Earl of St Andrews.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 18, 2010, 05:35:56 PM
Well...Princess Michael of Kent, Katherine Duchess of Kent & Lord Nicholas Windsor are active practicing Catholics. I expect them to be present when the Pope is in Britian.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on September 21, 2010, 07:17:46 AM
Well...Princess Michael of Kent, Katherine Duchess of Kent & Lord Nicholas Windsor are active practicing Catholics. I expect them to be present when the Pope is in Britian.

You expect....really....

They were introduced to His Holiness during the reception in Edinburgh.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 21, 2010, 10:39:51 AM
It must have pleased them. I think Katherine Duchess of Kent is very spirtual and ardent in her new religion.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on September 26, 2010, 12:03:18 AM
HM had her heating subsidy vetood.Having to keep up a derelict hut like Buckhouse comes with trouble,
the gov should get spanish peppers in their butts and get a go at renovating the place.The work it would
take would get a load of people at work in this hyped up bull of a "crisis".

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/09/queens-heating-subsidy-vetoed.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on September 29, 2010, 10:35:35 AM
I am removing the off-topic and inflammatory posts. I believe we already have a section to discuss the failing of the Pope and Catholic Church--separate from one that's more flattering and dealing mostly with mundane matters such as trips. Please take your viewpoints to one of those 2 threads depending on your preference. This thread is for Queen Elizabeth II. I have left the beginning posts which deal with the strict issue of the visit. Any personal attacks on other posters or their religious beliefs (Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Anglican, Protestant, name it) will not be tolerated.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 29, 2010, 10:38:48 AM
But I do wonder what the Queen think about the Catholic religion and the pope in general.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on September 29, 2010, 11:37:49 AM
we are unlikely ever to know anything specific as the Queen is famous for her discretion.

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on September 29, 2010, 11:47:42 AM
Yes. especially since she met so many Popes since she became queen.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on October 01, 2010, 01:10:15 PM
Yes. especially since she met so many Popes since she became queen.
So many yes,thousands of 'm.... ::)...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eric_Lowe on October 01, 2010, 01:12:23 PM
I think 4 or 5...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on October 01, 2010, 04:15:15 PM
I think 4 or 5...

Six actually, dear Eric.  That took me about two seconds to find out.  Don't you have Google on your computer?!!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on October 01, 2010, 06:07:57 PM
Pius XII
John
Paul
John Paul
John Paul II
Benedict  

I don't know how many she's met either by them visiting the UK or a visit to the Vatican. She met John Paul at least 3 times--at least in 1980 and 2000. She wore a mantilla at those two--once with a tiara and once with a black hat--so I'm guessing she was visiting him. She wore a dress when he came to the UK.

Of course, Pius V had a very bad relationship with the previous (reigning) Queen Elizabeth.  :)

EII and Pope John XXIII in 1961

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Hw-yQLTJoHo/TIEygRkeGXI/AAAAAAAAAHI/vMxmZrODmWI/s1600/queen_elizabeth_pope_john_xxiii_0011.jpg)

 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on October 11, 2010, 12:53:32 PM
HM named to-day new Cunard liner "QUEEN ELIZABETH"

(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/alexander1917/105188275.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Rani on October 11, 2010, 02:05:17 PM

Of course, Pius V had a very bad relationship with the previous (reigning) Queen Elizabeth.  :)

EII and Pope John XXIII in 1961



Why was that so? Tell me more :)
Pope John XXIII was so cute. When he was at school, a teacher asked the class what´s heavier: a ton of feathers or a ton of iron. All the classmates said: of course the iron. But just John said: both are equal heavy. The teacher praised him, because it was right. After the school, the schoolmates bashed poor John up.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 11, 2010, 02:56:58 PM
What was so cute about that, Rani ?
 GDElla, I doubt very much the Queen and JP I ever met, at least when he was Pope. His reign lasted only about a month, not enough time to even organise a visit
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Rani on October 11, 2010, 03:06:54 PM
Not the story was cute. It was just a little story.

He is my favourite pope.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 11, 2010, 03:22:23 PM
I share your opinion, he was very influential to me.
 Of course, those kids did not know they were bullying  a future POPE!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on October 12, 2010, 04:24:58 AM
HM named to-day new Cunard liner "QUEEN ELIZABETH"

(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/alexander1917/105188275.jpg)

http://www.anp-photo.com/search.pp?mailingid=21009&flush=1

Courtesy ANP
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on October 17, 2010, 01:46:19 AM
HM looks absolutely great doesn't she? :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: heavensent on October 17, 2010, 09:18:23 AM
Wonderful  new liner for Cunard
... very sad it was nt  constructed in a British shipyard !
but well done to the Italians for producing such a brilliant ship
( tickets went on sale for the current  Med  cruise on  april  1st  2010
....  they were sold in  24 mins !  )
(anyone booked for the world cruise   setting sail  Jan 2011
.....  First  stop  New York   ?  )
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 17, 2010, 09:30:50 AM
We are considering it for a Scandanavian cruise in May, 2011.  Have  already made an Atlantic  crossing on the QM2.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Carolath Habsburg on October 19, 2010, 05:48:53 AM
The Queen has recieved yesterday the visit of the Chilean president Sebastian Piñera. He invited her to visit the country and gave her as a present a rock from the SAn jose`s mine as a souvenir

Click here (http://www.examiner.com/celebrity-headlines-in-national/president-sebastian-pinera-gave-queen-elizabeth-rocks-from-chile-miners-photos)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Magdalena on October 19, 2010, 07:26:19 AM
sorry if it was already posted, I hope it was not:

http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/microsites/MA/Content.asp - watch this, it's TOO PRECIOUS!!!! Can you believe how sweetie sweet the Queen was at the age of 5?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Rani on October 19, 2010, 09:37:16 AM
Magdalena, this videos is too sweet, many thanks.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on October 19, 2010, 05:10:16 PM
Visit by HE President Sebastian Pinera and Mrs.Pinera to HM.

From the Presidential website:

http://www.fotopresidencia.cl/Default.aspx?Actividad=9182&Foto=50982

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on October 28, 2010, 10:24:22 AM
State Visit from HH the Emir of Qatar:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/10/emir-of-qatar-is-eyeing-christies.html

couresy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on November 02, 2010, 04:04:49 AM
State Visit from HH the Emir of Qatar:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/10/emir-of-qatar-is-eyeing-christies.html

couresy hja

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/10/queen-and-emir-say-their-goodbyes.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on November 08, 2010, 01:31:00 AM
HM has the website of the British Monarchy put up on Facebook this morning.Not
that you can chat with aunt Lillibeth,but you can use the "Likes" button.Good! ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on November 08, 2010, 02:51:19 AM
Visit by HE President Sebastian Pinera and Mrs.Pinera to HM.

From the Presidential website:

http://www.fotopresidencia.cl/Default.aspx?Actividad=9182&Foto=50982



There is the dear Queen wearing her usual white wig.....every curl in the exact same place it was ten years ago.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on November 11, 2010, 07:45:29 AM
Visit by HE President Sebastian Pinera and Mrs.Pinera to HM.

From the Presidential website:

http://www.fotopresidencia.cl/Default.aspx?Actividad=9182&Foto=50982



There is the dear Queen wearing her usual white wig.....every curl in the exact same place it was ten years ago.

Oh dear,Douglas,it's that time of year again isn't it....
Your wig fascination acts up....you said the exact same thing a year ago.... :D

Thought maybe you'd tryed and pull it by now,but no...no headlines there.... ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on November 13, 2010, 11:57:08 AM
Visit by HE President Sebastian Pinera and Mrs.Pinera to HM.

From the Presidential website:

http://www.fotopresidencia.cl/Default.aspx?Actividad=9182&Foto=50982






There is the dear Queen wearing her usual white wig.....every curl in the exact same place it was ten years ago.

Oh dear,Douglas,it's that time of year again isn't it....
Your wig fascination acts up....you said the exact same thing a year ago.... :D

Thought maybe you'd tryed and pull it by now,but no...no headlines there.... ;D


Thank you Lucien....I know you appreciate my expertise on HM's snow white wig.  That wig is like time stands still.  It's always absolutely the same.  Why?  Because it's a wig.  I know some people hate this fact but they're getting used to it.


Of course Lucien.  I only desire to remind everyone how frugal HM QE II is with money.  She bought that wig over fifteen years ago and wears it on most public occasions.  I have many photos of it from all angles.  It looks exactly as it did the day she bought it.  One can actually make a map of the curls on each side.  It's like  a map of England.....the coastline is always the same. Rule Britannia!!!

But  I do note that HM Queen B wears her own hair.  At least I think she does.  I have not made a scientific study of it....yet.....lol

HM Queen B.....she is so magnificent now that she follows my fashion advice and gave those frumpy suits to the needy.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on November 14, 2010, 03:54:16 AM
HM The Queen and members of the RF will attend the wreathlaying ceremony at the Cenotaph,London this morning.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on November 14, 2010, 07:54:59 AM
Albert Hall, yesterday

(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/alexander1917/23491706.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on November 14, 2010, 09:34:39 AM
London,last night and today:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1289745965.html

courtesy Karen,BRMB.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on November 16, 2010, 12:36:07 AM
London,last night and today:

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1289745965.html

courtesy Karen,BRMB.

http://www.anp-photo.com/search.pp?page=2&ShowPicture=14249983&pos=10

courtesy Ben Stansall
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: heavensent on November 18, 2010, 02:35:52 PM
Malcolm Muggeridge and the Queen....

go here
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/muggeridge_malcolm.html


.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on November 23, 2010, 01:52:19 AM
The Duke of Edinburgh has announced he is to step down from several functions when he turns 90 next year.Bless the man,most
would be 6 feet under or drooling through the day by that age,not him,not Prince Philip,he "considers" to give up some work.
What a man!!Bloody fantastic!! ;D :)

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2010/11/prince-philip-giving-up-part-of-work.html

courtesy hja

Btw,I was sure The Duke had his very own thread,couldn't find it anymore..coffee...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Thomas_Hesse on November 23, 2010, 02:25:47 AM
The Duke of Edinburgh has announced he is to step down from several functions when he turns 90 next year.Bless the man,most
would be 6 feet under or drooling through the day by that age,not him,not Prince Philip,he "considers" to give up some work.
What a man!!Bloody fantastic!! ;D :)

If you have a lifelong job plus household, perhaps children to take care of you will perhaps "drool" too. If you are surrounded by staff, live in palaces were everything is done for you except breathing and perhaps toothbrushing - believe me than you can perform your duties even if you are 100
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on November 23, 2010, 01:24:38 PM
The Duke of Edinburgh has announced he is to step down from several functions when he turns 90 next year.Bless the man,most
would be 6 feet under or drooling through the day by that age,not him,not Prince Philip,he "considers" to give up some work.
What a man!!Bloody fantastic!! ;D :)

If you have a lifelong job plus household, perhaps children to take care of you will perhaps "drool" too. If you are surrounded by staff, live in palaces were everything is done for you except breathing and perhaps toothbrushing - believe me than you can perform your duties even if you are 100

Do you speak from experience Thomas?

R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on November 23, 2010, 09:45:26 PM
HM and the Duke will arrive for a State Visit in the UAE at the invitation of HH Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan today,november 24th & 25th,
in the evening of the 25th HM and HRH will fly to Oman,followed by a State Visit to Oman by invitation of HM Sultan Qaboos bin Said from
november 26th till november 28th.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Princess of Cupertino on November 24, 2010, 12:02:03 AM

If you have a lifelong job plus household, perhaps children to take care of you will perhaps "drool" too. If you are surrounded by staff, live in palaces were everything is done for you except breathing and perhaps toothbrushing - believe me than you can perform your duties even if you are 100

Complete untrue. Jet setting as much as they do is hard at ANY age, not to mention how many hours they have to stand, shake hands at these functions.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Constantinople on November 24, 2010, 02:30:10 AM
The occasion of the Omani visit is the Sultan's 40th anniversary of his accession to the throne.  Oman is a truly unique culture and country and if you haven't discovered it yet, you should.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on November 24, 2010, 03:40:48 AM
The occasion of the Omani visit is the Sultan's 40th anniversary of his accession to the throne.  Oman is a truly unique culture and country and if you haven't discovered it yet, you should.

As well as HM 70th birthday last week thursday november 18th.

It is fabulous indeed,on the list of To Do things. ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on November 24, 2010, 03:51:28 AM
My father worked in Oman for 3 years and was most impressed by the country and its people.

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on November 25, 2010, 09:05:39 AM
HM Queen Elisabeth and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh in the UAE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbn0C8XJ6sw&feature=player_embedded

And some more here...oh dear oh dear...

http://members3.boardhost.com/Oranjes/msg/1290625689.html

courtesy Marianne,GREMB

And:

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/ymOYK15AtOX/Queen+Elisabeth+II+Prince+Philip+Visit+Abu



Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on November 26, 2010, 01:18:51 AM
http://www.anp-photo.com/search.pp?mailingid=21535&flush=1

courtesy ANP :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on November 26, 2010, 12:46:22 PM
http://www.anp-photo.com/search.pp?mailingid=21535&flush=1

courtesy ANP :)

HM and HRH have arrived in Muscat,Oman.

http://members3.boardhost.com/Warholm/msg/1290796811.html

courtesy Karen.BRMB :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Thomas_Hesse on November 27, 2010, 01:33:23 PM

If you have a lifelong job plus household, perhaps children to take care of you will perhaps "drool" too. If you are surrounded by staff, live in palaces were everything is done for you except breathing and perhaps toothbrushing - believe me than you can perform your duties even if you are 100

Complete untrue. Jet setting as much as they do is hard at ANY age, not to mention how many hours they have to stand, shake hands at these functions.

Shaking hands is not to comparable with a "real" job that forces your strength and physical energy.
Of course I am not speaking from experience for I am not a Royal. But this is simply logical and - by the way - even the opinion of many British citizens (even a 100 year old staed that).... :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on November 27, 2010, 01:53:30 PM
Well there is a hell of a lot more to the job than just shaking hands. ;) As Princess Alice of Athlone wrote,it is a gruelling job and they are trained from birth to fulfill it!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on November 28, 2010, 07:26:55 AM
Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8jfRK_FVOI

 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on November 28, 2010, 04:38:42 PM

If you have a lifelong job plus household, perhaps children to take care of you will perhaps "drool" too. If you are surrounded by staff, live in palaces were everything is done for you except breathing and perhaps toothbrushing - believe me than you can perform your duties even if you are 100

Complete untrue. Jet setting as much as they do is hard at ANY age, not to mention how many hours they have to stand, shake hands at these functions.

Shaking hands is not to comparable with a "real" job that forces your strength and physical energy.
Of course I am not speaking from experience for I am not a Royal. But this is simply logical and - by the way - even the opinion of many British citizens (even a 100 year old staed that).... :)

I think it is a real job. one should never forgot that royals not only under the watchful eye of public but also to give every day 100%. you can't say:"oh I'm a bit ill today I'll stay in bed" in normal job it would happen. but remember how many people are involed to organized such a "shaking hands event" and how many people would be displeased when the royal would say "not today".
and when HM shake hands of about 1000 people for a diner. I think you know what you did.
also when you visit a factory or city.. every time you should be interessed...hear endless speeches and so on..

I think the "royal hand shaking" is maked in the Hellen Mirren's last szene in THE QUEEN saying: "Duty first, self second".....
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on November 29, 2010, 08:49:22 AM
Hi,

The Queen seems to be wearing a new brooch on her pink arrival dress in Oman.
It is a pink diamond (?) surrounded by white diamonds, similar to the one Prince Albert gave to Queen Victoria when they were married.
Does anyone know about this brooch?  Is it new or has it just appeared out of the vaults?

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ashdean on November 30, 2010, 04:22:44 AM
Hi,

The Queen seems to be wearing a new brooch on her pink arrival dress in Oman.
It is a pink diamond (?) surrounded by white diamonds, similar to the one Prince Albert gave to Queen Victoria when they were married.
Does anyone know about this brooch?  Is it new or has it just appeared out of the vaults?

Larry
Nobody seems to know much about the brooch except its antique and the central stone (a pink sapphire?) surrounded by 10 large brilliants interspersed with smaller stones. The contents of the royal vault never ceases to amaze..
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on November 30, 2010, 08:03:55 AM
for me it looks more than a topaz...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: violetta on December 14, 2010, 10:03:59 PM
(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/461px-Philip_Alexius_de_Laszlo-Princess_Elizabeth_of_York_Currently_Queen_Elizabeth_II_of_England1933.jpg)

painting by de Laszlo, dates rom 1933
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: ashdean on December 15, 2010, 07:52:04 AM
(http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/vitavioletta/461px-Philip_Alexius_de_Laszlo-Princess_Elizabeth_of_York_Currently_Queen_Elizabeth_II_of_England1933.jpg)

painting by de Laszlo, dates rom 1933
This portrait hangs in the morning room at Clarence House next to the Queen mothers famous Monet.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on December 26, 2010, 05:53:15 AM
HM Christmas speech from Hampton Court Palace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWwVoCVCEZo&feature=player_embedded

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on December 28, 2010, 04:01:35 AM
Tsarina Elisabeth II: ;D

http://www.anp-photo.com/search.pp?page=1&ShowPicture=14510203&pos=3

courtesy ANP
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on December 29, 2010, 05:01:47 PM
Here is HM new Christmas 2010 hat:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Douglas606/00queenshat.jpg)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on December 30, 2010, 02:52:04 AM
It is a beautiful hat but anti fur campaigners have been up in arms, pity they dont have anything better to do it seems...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Windsor on December 30, 2010, 07:01:15 AM
REALLY, Eddie_uk?  "Nothing better to do" indeed.  With modern technology faux fur can be created that is almost identical to the real thing, cheaper and does not result in the senseless slaughter and torture of animals.  I think that the Queen should set the example in this area.  Wearing fur is just an outdated notion that, unfortunately, is perpetuated by ignorance and/or an undeveloped social consciousness of right and wrong.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on December 30, 2010, 07:24:01 AM
really?? I can't imagine the crown and other reglia without the ermine brimming. why not also change the diamonds into faux stones on course of the sometimes horrible conditions they were found.
the Queen of Denmark wore some larger furs than HM did.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on December 30, 2010, 08:51:46 AM
REALLY, Eddie_uk?  "Nothing better to do" indeed.  With modern technology faux fur can be created that is almost identical to the real thing, cheaper and does not result in the senseless slaughter and torture of animals.  I think that the Queen should set the example in this area.  Wearing fur is just an outdated notion that, unfortunately, is perpetuated by ignorance and/or an undeveloped social consciousness of right and wrong.

Oh, get OVER yourself. SORRY for expressing an opinion.

Firstly it is either vintage fur or faux fur, according to the Daily Mail, and secondly there are millions of rabbits & foxs who's numbers need to be controlled (I don't see you sparing a though for the poor Farmers, very selfish of you IMO) what's wrong with making use of the fur???

It really is a pity that people like you don't channel your strong opinions into something worth while, the world would be a much better place if you did. End off.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on December 30, 2010, 09:41:36 AM
REALLY, Eddie_uk?  "Nothing better to do" indeed.  With modern technology faux fur can be created that is almost identical to the real thing, cheaper and does not result in the senseless slaughter and torture of animals.  I think that the Queen should set the example in this area.  Wearing fur is just an outdated notion that, unfortunately, is perpetuated by ignorance and/or an undeveloped social consciousness of right and wrong.

Oh, get OVER yourself. SORRY for expressing an opinion.

Firstly it is either vintage fur or faux fur, according to the Daily Mail, and secondly there are millions of rabbits & foxs who's numbers need to be controlled (I don't see you sparing a though for the poor Farmers, very selfish of you IMO) what's wrong with making use of the fur???

It really is a pity that people like you don't channel your strong opinions into something worth while, the world would be a much better place if you did. End off.

End off indeed.

HM The Queen is a Great-Great grandmother as of today as Autumn Phillips gave birth to a daughter
 at the Gloucester Royal Hospital,the ilittle girl weighs 3850 grams. ;D

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kimberly on December 30, 2010, 10:28:26 AM
Gloucester Royal Hospital....<shudders>
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on December 30, 2010, 10:55:39 AM
lol, Kim, they should have gone to you! You would have been marvellous I'm sure!!!  :-*
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: TimM on December 30, 2010, 11:10:34 AM
Congrats to HRH on the birth of her first great grandchild.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on December 30, 2010, 11:59:07 AM
Congrats to HRH on the birth of her first great grandchild.

HRH?PR isn't a GGM but a GM,HM is a GGM Tim ::) ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on December 30, 2010, 02:18:19 PM
I've added some info on the proud Papa's thread.  :)

Regarding EII, Sky News reports that she is the first British great-grand monarch since the reign of Queen Victoria (the late Earl Mountbatten being her last-born great-grandchild during her lifetime, I believe?) more than 100 years ago. Congrats!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on December 30, 2010, 04:17:11 PM
It would be wonderful to see a photo of QE, Princess Royal, Mrs Phillips and the new born, reminiscent of the QV, Princess Beatrice, Victoria & Alice photograph!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on December 30, 2010, 05:11:11 PM
I hope she lives long enough to do a repeat of another Queen Victoria one--the one with 3 direct heirs to the throne. Victoria/EVII/GV/EVIII were in a photo as that had never occured before--a direct heir in 3 generations. It could happen to EII if and when William has a child.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on December 30, 2010, 10:20:28 PM
Hi Ella,

I'd like to see that too - Elizabeth//Charles//William// Baby Boy.....
Only 4 more months to the wedding and then perhaps a baby for the Diamond Jubilee!!  Now that's something to celebrate!!

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on December 31, 2010, 04:36:20 AM
I wonder what Mr and Mrs Phillips are going to call the child. I suggest Elizabeth.

Ann (Elizabeth)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on January 19, 2011, 11:02:22 PM
Good!!

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2011/01/queen-to-keep-her-secrets.html

courtesy hja


Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on February 17, 2011, 03:17:08 PM
By invitation of HM Queen Elizabeth II President Barack Obama and Mrs. Michelle Obama will pay a State Visit to
the United Kingdom from may 24th till may 26th.The couple will stay at Buckingham Palace.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on February 17, 2011, 10:53:36 PM
By invitation of HM Queen Elizabeth II President Barack Obama and Mrs. Michelle Obama will pay a State Visit to
the United Kingdom from may 24th till may 26th.The couple will stay at Buckingham Palace.

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2011/02/queen-invites-obama-for-state-visit.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on February 25, 2011, 08:50:13 AM
HM is utterly shocked by the devastating earthquake in New Zealand:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2011/MessageofcondolencefollowingtheearthquakeinNewZeal.aspx

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 04, 2011, 11:55:01 PM
HM QE II and The Duke will pay a State Visit to Ireland later this year by invitation of Irelands President,Mary MacAleese.
It will be the first visit to (an independent)  Ireland by a British Monarch since 1911 when Georg V visited,Ireland was still part of the Realm then.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: darius on March 05, 2011, 01:04:52 AM
The visit is of course to the Republic of Ireland, the other part of the island, Northern Ireland continues to be very much a part of HM´s realm!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 05, 2011, 09:03:53 AM
The visit is of course to the Republic of Ireland, the other part of the island, Northern Ireland continues to be very much a part of HM´s realm!

Indeed,it is.How odd.I made it clear by stating the invitation was by President Mary MacAleese,
I wasn't aware she had anything to do with the northern part of the island.... ::)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: darius on March 05, 2011, 10:15:09 AM
You didn´t infer that she had anything to do with the Northern part of the island.  I simply found it strange that the Buckingham Palace official announcement and the BBC failed to specify that the visit was to the Republic of Ireland.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 05, 2011, 10:41:35 AM
You didn´t infer that she had anything to do with the Northern part of the island.  I simply found it strange that the Buckingham Palace official announcement and the BBC failed to specify that the visit was to the Republic of Ireland.

We all know that President Mary MacAleese is the President of Ireland,no need to clearify that any further then I did.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: darius on March 05, 2011, 11:52:41 AM
ok then, if you say so
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: CHRISinUSA on March 07, 2011, 08:00:44 AM
The exact wording of the Buckingham Palace press release:

The Queen has been pleased to accept an invitation from the President of Ireland to pay a State Visit to Ireland this year. The Queen will be accompanied by The Duke of Edinburgh.

Given the natural sensitivity of people over the distinction, my first thought was that the palace and BBC should probably have drawn a more clear distinction and referred to Ireland as "The Republic of Ireland".  But then I popped over to the official Irish Government website of the President, and I see that THEY also refer to the lady and her office as the President of Ireland (not President of the Republic of Ireland).  Elsewhere on that website (and other Irish government websites), it refers to the country alternately as "Ireland" or "The Irish State", and only uses "Republic of Ireland" in the most formal of language.

So clearly in diplomatic usage, "Ireland" - without qualification - is accepted by all parties to refer to the Republic of Ireland, whilst "Northern Ireland" refers to the British territory.  BP and BBC appear to be merely following suit.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: darius on March 07, 2011, 09:40:45 AM
Interesting Chris - it should make for an interesting and historic visit.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 09, 2011, 03:59:21 AM
Investitures,Buckingham Palace march 1st:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishmonarchy/sets/72157626228609648/

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 14, 2011, 02:49:40 AM
HM Queen Elizabeth II speech on the role of women:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2011/03/queen-celebrates-role-of-women.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on March 14, 2011, 07:17:34 AM
HM Queen Elizabeth II speech on the role of women:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2011/03/queen-celebrates-role-of-women.html

courtesy hja

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8JTJFQvtso&feature=youtube_gdata
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 08, 2011, 09:32:20 AM
HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh will pay a State Visit to Ireland from may 17th till may 20th.

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2011/04/queen-to-irish-republic-at-last.html

courtesy HJA
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 19, 2011, 11:55:07 AM
HM The Queen will celebrate Her 85th Birthday on thursday april 21st.

http://www.anp-photo.com/search.pp?mailingid=22902&flush=1

Courtesy ANP

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/photos/visit_elizabeth_ii/index.html

courtesy dear hja,ao.... ;D

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 21, 2011, 01:26:14 AM
HM The Queen will celebrate Her 85th Birthday on thursday april 21st.

http://www.anp-photo.com/search.pp?mailingid=22902&flush=1

Courtesy ANP

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/photos/visit_elizabeth_ii/index.html

courtesy dear hja,ao.... ;D



Happy Birthday Ma'am,and long may You Reign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAc0Vcv5Gs4

Bless Her!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on April 21, 2011, 05:46:46 AM
Interesting coincidences here.

First, the vagaries of Easter dating mean that the Queen is celebrating her birthday by doing the Royal Maundy Service today.

Second, Prince Charles today overtakes Edward VII as the longest serving heir apparent, at 59 years, two months and some days. The next anniversary for him will be in about two years' time, when he overtakes William IV as the oldest monarch at the time of his accession.

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on April 21, 2011, 08:35:19 AM
Hi,

Happy Birthday Your Majesty

and long may you reign......


Very interesting information about Prince Charles - thank you....

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: CHRISinUSA on April 21, 2011, 03:41:57 PM
The next anniversary for him will be in about two years' time, when he overtakes William IV as the oldest monarch at the time of his accession.
Ann

To be completely accurate, THAT record will only be reached if and when Charles actually ascends the throne.  Not to be morbid, but the current average lifespan for a British man is 77.  If Charles turned out to be average, and if HM The Queen achieves her mother's lifespan, it is plausible she could outlive him.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on April 21, 2011, 06:01:16 PM
HM attended the Maundy Service at Westminster Abbey this morning with The Duke:

http://www.anp-photo.com/search.pp?mailingid=22921&flush=1

courtesy ANP
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Mari on May 15, 2011, 09:36:53 AM
How well She looks! I love the outfit and here She glows........
 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 17, 2011, 03:11:54 AM
HM and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh will start the State Visit to the Irish Republic today.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 17, 2011, 07:15:55 AM
HM and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh will start the State Visit to the Irish Republic today.

HM and The Duke arrived:

http://www.daylife.com/search?q=The+Duke+and+Queen%27s+is+the+first+by+a+monarch+since+1911

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 17, 2011, 12:45:32 PM
HM and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh will start the State Visit to the Irish Republic today.

HM and The Duke arrived:

http://www.daylife.com/search?q=The+Duke+and+Queen%27s+is+the+first+by+a+monarch+since+1911

http://www.anp-photo.com/search.pp?mailingid=23085&flush=1

http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=17-05-2011%20Ireland

courtesy PPE


Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: CHRISinUSA on May 18, 2011, 07:57:31 AM
It is truly amazing how many major events Her Majesty has seen across her long reign.  The first British monarch to visit China.  The first to welcome a Pope to Britain in 450 years, the first to visit a mosque, and now the first to visit Ireland in a century.  Each one she carries out in her unique and memorable manner and style.  Cheers.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on May 18, 2011, 10:13:44 AM
Hi,

It is wonderfully diplomatic for her to arrive in green...
Maybe we will see the Cambridge emeralds at the state dinner later!!

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on May 18, 2011, 04:50:32 PM
Hi,

It is wonderfully diplomatic for her to arrive in green...
Maybe we will see the Cambridge emeralds at the state dinner later!!

Larry
no, but the Girls of Great Britain and IRELAND Tiara

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/8522318/The-Queen-in-Ireland-Dublin-Castle-speech-in-full.html
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 18, 2011, 10:16:23 PM

Dublin yesterday:

http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=18-05-2011%20Ireland

courtesy PPE
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on May 19, 2011, 03:23:56 AM
According to today's BBC news, the Queen's dress for the state dinner was hand-embroidered with 2,000 shamrocks. Think of the work that went into that, and is our famously frugal monarch likely to wear it again!

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 19, 2011, 06:16:59 AM
Hi,

It is wonderfully diplomatic for her to arrive in green...
Maybe we will see the Cambridge emeralds at the state dinner later!!

Larry

Nothing green here,not an emarald.But white,always white on State Banquets....another tablecloth gone.. ::)
That's why I dubbed her "Tablecloth Lilly" on these occasions.White at,excusse moi,her age,is "rare" to say the least,
but I forgive her...:

http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=18-05-2011%20Banquet

I do hope however that Ireland will gain something from this visit,more support for further funding from the EU
as the country really is in shambles for living way way above their station for way too long.Hence the PM accompanying
HM,there is a lot more going on then elderly Ladies wearing tiara's on this visit.It is mainly on the crisis Ireland
is in over its head and not always seems to understand....It was therefore that Mary McAleese,the countries
admirable Head of State,was on a European tour recently,well,last month,to gain more financial support from the other
member states.But when I watch the hostile reactions to HM's visit,I just think,why bother!Many are so downright dumb
they don't even understand what's going on in their own backyard.OK then,then go and have their pints and think all is
well as long as they can get "plastered" and have another patato crisis as far as I'm concerned :-X...

 

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on May 19, 2011, 09:44:33 AM
Hi,

No, not an emerald anywhere to be seen!
I was quite disappointed that she looked so "washed out" in only diamonds.  I liked the dress and the shamrocks;  but thought that the Vladimir Tiara with the emerald drops and the Cambridge emerald necklace would be more appropriate (and colourful) on this occaison.

Oh well, what do I know about fashion??!!!!......

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on May 19, 2011, 11:09:14 AM
Not being much interested in fashion, I think it's more important that she has gone there - bombs and all!

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on May 19, 2011, 11:19:21 AM
Hi,

No, not an emerald anywhere to be seen!
I was quite disappointed that she looked so "washed out" in only diamonds.  I liked the dress and the shamrocks;  but thought that the Vladimir Tiara with the emerald drops and the Cambridge emerald necklace would be more appropriate (and colourful) on this occaison.

Oh well, what do I know about fashion??!!!!......

Larry

You clearly know heaps Larry as I couldn't agree more! I think the beautiful Godman Necklace would have looked perfect! Or the Sapphire suite would have looked lovely against the white. Still HM still looks wonderful.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on May 19, 2011, 11:33:20 AM
You know it is a shame I am not the Queens dresser. I would be perfect, I would ensure she wears more a diverse selection of jewellery for example the dagmar necklace and the cullinan diamonds too. It's such a shame they are sitting in a vault, they should be on display if they are not going to be worn. I would also ensure that HM wears more of an electic mix of jewels during the day, especially some of the wonderfu bracelets she has which would look lovely against a black glove (Examples include: the indian bagles, Queen Marys bracelet, Princess Marie Louises bracelet & the art deco quartet & the rose of york bracelet)

I would love too see Princess Anne and The Duchess of Cornwall & Cambridge wearing more of these beautiful, historic jewels too. I'm sure you all agree.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: darius on May 19, 2011, 01:05:21 PM
Hi,

It is wonderfully diplomatic for her to arrive in green...
Maybe we will see the Cambridge emeralds at the state dinner later!!

Larry

Nothing green here,not an emarald.But white,always white on State Banquets....another tablecloth gone.. ::)
That's why I dubbed her "Tablecloth Lilly" on these occasions.White at,excusse moi,her age,is "rare" to say the least,
but I forgive her...:

http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=18-05-2011%20Banquet

I do hope however that Ireland will gain something from this visit,more support for further funding from the EU
as the country really is in shambles for living way way above their station for way too long.Hence the PM accompanying
HM,there is a lot more going on then elderly Ladies wearing tiara's on this visit.It is mainly on the crisis Ireland
is in over its head and not always seems to understand....It was therefore that Mary McAleese,the countries
admirable Head of State,was on a European tour recently,well,last month,to gain more financial support from the other
member states.But when I watch the hostile reactions to HM's visit,I just think,why bother!Many are so downright dumb
they don't even understand what's going on in their own backyard.OK then,then go and have their pints and think all is
well as long as they can get "plastered" and have another patato crisis as far as I'm concerned :-X...

 



What an abusive and surprising post from somebody I had long considered to be above such comments.  Downright nasty.  I am not from the Irish Republic, but perhaps it is you who doesn´t understand what is going on there, or the historic occasion in the interests of peace and decency Her Majesty´s visit is.
Shame on you!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on May 19, 2011, 01:52:11 PM
Hi,

No, not an emerald anywhere to be seen!
I was quite disappointed that she looked so "washed out" in only diamonds.  I liked the dress and the shamrocks;  but thought that the Vladimir Tiara with the emerald drops and the Cambridge emerald necklace would be more appropriate (and colourful) on this occaison.

Oh well, what do I know about fashion??!!!!......

Larry

may you should think of a more symbol than emeralds when the Girls of Great Britain and IRELAND Tiara was worn.....( I think thats the correct name and not GoGBa Northern Ireland Tiara.)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on May 19, 2011, 02:00:28 PM
Well all in all I think the visit has been a tremendous success! :) :) Though I did see a few pictures in the news of republican groups burning Union Jacks and setting bins alight etc (In fact why do those people responsible always look so ugly? There time would be better spent making the best of themselves).
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: darius on May 19, 2011, 02:09:34 PM
Exactly Eddie - unfortunately there will always be a noisy minority who just won´t move on - indeed they would be much better off if they dedicated their time to holding down jobs, going to work and feeding their families rather than causing disruption while sponging off the state.  However, history and politics are ever emotive issues in Ieland.  Her Majesty´s visit to the Republic has been a major advance in reconciliation.  You may be interested in this editorial from Northern Ireland´s Belfast Telegraph which sums up the importance of this particular State Visit.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/truly-incredible-journey-to-ireland-which-queen-believes-is-worth-the-risk-16001557.html

And of course, The Queen is much more than an elderly lady in a tiara to quote Lucien, she is the living embodiment of the nation and its history and present.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on May 19, 2011, 02:14:43 PM
I couldn't agree more darius! Thank you for the interesting link :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 19, 2011, 02:41:52 PM
Ireland today:

http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=19-05-2011%20Ireland

courtesy PPE
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: darius on May 20, 2011, 01:58:21 PM
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/queen-brings-the-house-down-mary-byrne-riverdance-and-westlife-raise-the-roof-16002425.html


Another link to prove that nobody does it better!  Her Majesty has done more in 4 days to solve the Irish problem than centuries of politicians.  What a star!!  Long may she reign.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 20, 2011, 03:59:54 PM
HM concluded her State Visit today:

http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=20-05-2011%20Ireland

courtesy PPE
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on May 20, 2011, 04:10:58 PM
Hi,

No, not an emerald anywhere to be seen!
I was quite disappointed that she looked so "washed out" in only diamonds.  I liked the dress and the shamrocks;  but thought that the Vladimir Tiara with the emerald drops and the Cambridge emerald necklace would be more appropriate (and colourful) on this occasion.

Oh well, what do I know about fashion??!!!!......

Larry

The Queen always dresses with consideration to where she is going. Red during her state visit to Canada, emerald green in Ireland for example.  Clearly everything the Queen was wearing at the state banquet was of symbolic importance. As previously mentioned, she wore the Girls of Great Britian and Ireland tiara; a tiara given to Queen Mary by Lady's celebrating Ireland as well as the rest of the UK.  The harp brooch I haven't seen before, I imagine it may have come up from the vaults and perhaps made for Queen Victoria, Alexandra or Mary for a previous state visit, prior to independence. Her diamond necklace looked almost Georgian and I wonder what the symbolism is there. 

As for the Queen's evening gown, it has already been mentioned that is was adorned with shamrocks, the colour although criticised by some may also provide some further symbolism. White has been used as a colour for mourning. Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Consort famously wore a complete wardrobe of white whilst on a state visit to France in the 1930's following the death of one of her parents. It could therefore communicate a genuine sadness regarding the troubles and the death of her Uncle Dicky, whilst being appropriate for the banquet.  She has of course worn emerald green during the visit and during a walkabout can be spotted wearing a cambridge emerald brooch, so they did make an appearance during the visit.

I'm sure the Queen realised the historic nature of her speech at Dublin Castle. The content will mean that it serves as a landmark speech in the cause for peace and reconciliation and will no doubt be reviewed from time to time. When it is, she will be shown as wearing all diamonds in the approach to celebrating her Diamond Jubilee as the longest serving British monarch since the Queen Empress Victoria. For the Queen this visit must rank as one of, or the most successful and symbolic of her reign.

The widespread acclaim of the Queen's usual flawless attention to detail and duty will I'm sure boost her ratings, and ensure republican calls are further muted. Who else could bring such weight and authority to such a 'line drawing' than the British Crown in person? Value for money there I think!

R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on May 21, 2011, 03:31:43 AM
Emperor

I agree with all you say. The visit has been a roaring success, thanks in no small measure to the Queen's personal diplomacy and attention to detail.

On we go to the Diamond Jubilee!

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on May 21, 2011, 05:49:45 PM
I agree completely also.  If this visit doesn't prove to certain people that there is a place for the monarchy in the 21st century then nothing will.  Of course, political understanding, tact and skill also relies on the individual royal but no politician could have achieved what Her Majesty has with this visit in my view.

Will we see the Gold State Coach in use next year for the Diamond Jubilee (those two words excite me so much!), do you think?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on May 21, 2011, 07:39:41 PM
I agree completely also.  If this visit doesn't prove to certain people that there is a place for the monarchy in the 21st century then nothing will.  Of course, political understanding, tact and skill also relies on the individual royal but no politician could have achieved what Her Majesty has with this visit in my view.

Will we see the Gold State Coach in use next year for the Diamond Jubilee (those two words excite me so much!), do you think?

Indeed The Queen's ability to transcend politics and see the longer view is perhaps where the prospect of a President looks shabby and tainted by comparison. However it is precisely because this issue has been perhaps one of the most politically charged of her reign has she carried it through flawlessly, her consummate performance carried it with a measured dignity; one might almost venture that the Queen has entered a new phase of her reign.

In regard to the Golden State Coach, I have no doubt that it will again be used next year for the Diamond Jubilee as it was in 2002 and 1977 and Jubilee's before, to transport the Monarch to a service of thanksgiving at St Paul's Cathedral. Another mark of tradition and consistency, providing an anchor in such turbulent times.


R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on May 23, 2011, 03:53:20 AM
I think the Gold State Coach will come out again for the Diamond Jubilee, though it is a somewhat impractical means of transport, as it only goes at walking pace, and requires eight horses and 13 men to crew it (4 postillions, a man on foot at the head of each horse and another at the rear to actr as brakeman). For the Golden Jubilee Thanksgiving Service, the Queen travelled out in the coach, but returned in the new Bentley given to her by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Alexander1917 on May 23, 2011, 06:34:08 PM
to-day (the birthday of QV) HM will receive the state-visit of the US president - he will stay at BP
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on May 24, 2011, 03:16:26 AM
How many people of 85 and almost 90 are as busy as the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh?

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 24, 2011, 02:58:00 PM
Both HM and the President had great speeches!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13518279

 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: CHRISinUSA on May 24, 2011, 03:27:26 PM
Perhaps, although having watched the president speak, I was left wishing that his protocol officers would had reviewed his speech ahead of time.  Perhaps somebody might have informed his speech writer that the words  "Her Majesty The Queen" is supposed to be the END of the toast. 

Upon hearing those words, the obviously well-trained palace orchestra promptly struck up God Save the Queen - yet the President just kept talking for another few sentences - and ended up talking OVER the anthem.  Bad form Mr. President.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on May 25, 2011, 10:28:48 AM
Perhaps, although having watched the president speak, I was left wishing that his protocol officers would had reviewed his speech ahead of time.  Perhaps somebody might have informed his speech writer that the words  "Her Majesty The Queen" is supposed to be the END of the toast.  

Upon hearing those words, the obviously well-trained palace orchestra promptly struck up God Save the Queen - yet the President just kept talking for another few sentences - and ended up talking OVER the anthem.  Bad form Mr. President.

Obama is totally clueless.  He stood up and spoke "Her Majesty The Queen"...all stood.  The band played the UK Anthem as is proper.  The ignorant President then began his Toast speech with the anthem playing as "his background music".  The audience was stunned.  Her Majesty had a look of horror on her face as did Camilla and Prince Phillip.   While the UK anthem, God Save The Queen, was still playing he turned to the Queen with his raised wine glass.  She looked and ignored him.  He then sheepishly put his glass down and stood with an annoyed pout on his face.  When the music ended he again turned to the Queen with his  raised glass.  The Queen graciously smiled and the President merely put down his glass without a sip.

Obama has no respect for national anthems.  He often does not even salute his own US anthem.  I agree with Chris....bad form to put it mildly.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: CHRISinUSA on May 25, 2011, 01:50:54 PM
As an American, I admit I have often been somewhat embarrassed by my leaders' flubs and missteps in matters of protocol and diplomacy.  And Douglas, sadly this is not limited to President Obama.  Virtually all American politicians / leaders are lacking in their practice of basic rules of protocol.  Their sphere is so focused on political jockeying and the next election, they are often unable to speak (or act) without it coming across like a campaign event.  And that becomes painfully clear when they participate in diplomatic or statesmanship activities, and even more painfully clear when compared to the impeccably flawless statesmanship exercised by the British royal court.

I watched the video carefully, and while there was no mistaking the royals were surprised by what was transpiring, to their great credit they all masked their reactions extremely well.  Her Majesty in particular reacted perfectly - she ignored interaction with the president during the anthem itself, but the moment it was over she smiled and resumed being the consummate hostess that she has always been.  The president, as you rightly pointed out Douglas, did appear annoyed and flustered and it made him look even worse.

Perhaps the US Protocol Office should insist all new presidents and their families go through protocol boot camp before they are allowed to attend a state banquet with the British royals.  ~:)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on May 25, 2011, 02:18:24 PM
You can hear the Queen replying "That's very kind" when the President finished his speech. Some people said the orchestra made the mistake but that seems unlikely.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on May 25, 2011, 03:11:39 PM
Thanks Eddie and Chris for your input.

here is the video......the Toast begins at around the 4 min mark,

http://youtu.be/YG7VSt0_VcU

You can also hear the Queen say something to the Pres.  when he first turns with his glass to the Queen..."Put it down".

I would like to know at what point the Anthem is supposed to be played?   Is it after the Pres. asks all to stand  [do they then have a pause for the Anthem?] and then the formal Toast?  Or is it after the Toast?  You always stand for any Anthem, so it appears that the President should have waited for the Anthem to start & finish.  To me it appears the Pres. was in error,  not the bandmaster.

 I don't like to make statements not knowing the exact protocol for the Toast and the playing of the UK Anthem. Could someone please post the exact protocol or what the protocol should be.

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: CHRISinUSA on May 25, 2011, 03:50:34 PM
According to Debrett's, official protocol / etiquette dictates that in carrying out a toast to the Queen, the toaster will rise and request the audience's attention. Once accomplished and the guests are standing, the host raises his or her glass and recites the title of the person being toasted, without any other words or music.   So for example:

"Ladies and Gentlemen, Her Majesty The Queen." or
"Ladies and Gentlemen, Her Majesty The Queen, Head of the Commonwealth."
"Ladies and Gentlemen, Her Majesty The Queen, Duke of Lancaster" (in Lancaster)
etc.

The same official etiquette exists in the US.  The US armed forces toast to the president is simply "The President of the United States."  So this is not something the President should be unfamiliar with.

The error was that the President should not have planned to say anything else after reciting the toast.  Even the orchestra knew that, and that's why they struck up the anthem the moment they heard those words.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on May 25, 2011, 05:27:38 PM
According to Debrett's, official protocol / etiquette dictates that in carrying out a toast to the Queen, the toaster will rise and request the audience's attention. Once accomplished and the guests are standing, the host raises his or her glass and recites the title of the person being toasted, without any other words or music.   So for example:

"Ladies and Gentlemen, Her Majesty The Queen." or
"Ladies and Gentlemen, Her Majesty The Queen, Head of the Commonwealth."
"Ladies and Gentlemen, Her Majesty The Queen, Duke of Lancaster" (in Lancaster)
etc.

The same official etiquette exists in the US.  The US armed forces toast to the president is simply "The President of the United States."  So this is not something the President should be unfamiliar with.

The error was that the President should not have planned to say anything else after reciting the toast.  Even the orchestra knew that, and that's why they struck up the anthem the moment they heard those words.


OK, then the bandmaster properly assumed the President was not going to "add"  something to his toast and therefore he began the anthem.

 From what I have heard, toasts to the Queen are  by protocol to be very short, as in "A toast to The Queen."    The toast is not supposed to be another speech.

The President also made a second mistake in asking that glasses be raised. One would raise glasses after the Anthem?

I assume the Queen had heard his command to raise glasses and she turned to him and told him to put down his glass!  I guess the Pres. staff had not rehearsed him or he did not understand his card notes on  the order of events.  Even the palace should should have asked if the Pres. had been told the protocol for a toast.  I would imagine the Queen was not perturbed.

We're all practicing this at my home this evening here in the US.

I toast you Chris for your attention to detail in this matter.....!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on May 25, 2011, 05:58:51 PM
"Their sphere is so focused on political jockeying and the next election, they are often unable to speak (or act) without it coming across like a campaign event.  And that becomes painfully clear when they participate in diplomatic or statesmanship activities, and even more painfully clear when compared to the impeccably flawless statesmanship exercised by the British royal court".

And there is the stark difference between Monarchy and a Republic! However any gaffes there may have taken place,  been may be forgiven due to our special relationship.

R. i.

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 26, 2011, 01:15:28 AM
Perhaps, although having watched the president speak, I was left wishing that his protocol officers would had reviewed his speech ahead of time.  Perhaps somebody might have informed his speech writer that the words  "Her Majesty The Queen" is supposed to be the END of the toast.  

Upon hearing those words, the obviously well-trained palace orchestra promptly struck up God Save the Queen - yet the President just kept talking for another few sentences - and ended up talking OVER the anthem.  Bad form Mr. President.

The director of the band thought the President had finished his speech,which was not the case,hence the mishap with the Anthem.
That's all that happened.The poor director received some "headwind" for the gaf yesterday no doubt....

But then people seem to easily wander off to their own wrong perceptions.... ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on May 26, 2011, 03:30:40 AM
Perhaps, although having watched the president speak, I was left wishing that his protocol officers would had reviewed his speech ahead of time.  Perhaps somebody might have informed his speech writer that the words  "Her Majesty The Queen" is supposed to be the END of the toast.  

Upon hearing those words, the obviously well-trained palace orchestra promptly struck up God Save the Queen - yet the President just kept talking for another few sentences - and ended up talking OVER the anthem.  Bad form Mr. President.

The director of the band thought the President had finished his speech,which was not the case,hence the mishap with the Anthem.
That's all that happened.The poor director received some "headwind" for the gaf yesterday no doubt....

But then people seem to easily wander off to their own wrong perceptions.... ;D

The bandmaster is not at fault.  I explained this above.  The President actually made two mistakes.    The Pres. had finished his speech.  Then he asked all to rise.....and that is where the problems began.  From that point on, the Pres, was a bit lost as to the proper procedure......
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: CHRISinUSA on May 26, 2011, 10:49:01 AM
And there is the stark difference between Monarchy and a Republic! However any gaffes there may have taken place,  been may be forgiven due to our special relationship.
R. i.

Quite so, while the media (and me as well, for that matter) made a big deal of the issue, it truly was merely an unintended gaffe which pales in comparison to the many good images that this visit has offered. 

For my part, I apologize for my strong reaction, which was not because the President flubbed the toast (it happens), but because he continued to speak over the anthem instead of just falling silent.  I hold my anthem quite sacred, and bristle when people show disrespect during it by talking, eating, clapping etc.  So when I saw my president appearing to treat God Save the Queen like background music during a State Banquet and standing next to the Queen, I cringed in embarrassment.  Enough said on the matter.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on May 26, 2011, 02:55:31 PM
And there is the stark difference between Monarchy and a Republic! However any gaffes there may have taken place,  been may be forgiven due to our special relationship.
R. i.

Quite so, while the media (and me as well, for that matter) made a big deal of the issue, it truly was merely an unintended gaffe which pales in comparison to the many good images that this visit has offered.  

For my part, I apologize for my strong reaction, which was not because the President flubbed the toast (it happens), but because he continued to speak over the anthem instead of just falling silent.  I hold my anthem quite sacred, and bristle when people show disrespect during it by talking, eating, clapping etc.  So when I saw my president appearing to treat God Save the Queen like background music during a State Banquet and standing next to the Queen, I cringed in embarrassment.  Enough said on the matter.

Sadly Mr. Obama has no idea what a national anthem is, even his own.  His whole attitude was clearly revealed after the Queen properly refused the initial toast while God Save The Queen played.  He instantly put on his most extreme pout face, stuck his nose in the air and glared at the audience.  Think about it.  He was the invited guest of honor and he acts like a spoiled brat.   It was chilling.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on May 26, 2011, 03:11:30 PM
Surely he would have been advised on protocol beforehand as indeed the Queen is before she visits foreign shores...or is the American President considered above that?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: CHRISinUSA on May 26, 2011, 04:13:59 PM
Doug, in the interests of giving him the benefit of the doubt, is it not possible that what you interpreted as a pout face might actually have been embarrassment once he realized his error?  None of us know exactly what was going on in his mind.

Grace, I don't necessarily think it's a matter of anybody believing the president is "above" anything.  I just think that protocol is simply not considered to the same degree in the US as it is in other countries.  It certainly isn't adhered to very often here, I'm sad to say.   If you compare our State of Union Address to the State Opening of Parliament, we look like a bunch of school children pretending to be important :(

I did have to chuckle at your comment about the Queen being advised on matters of protocol.  There isn't a living soul on earth more experienced or better versed in protocol than she is.  I mean, sure, if she were visiting a remote nation with a distinctly different culture, she might need reminders on a few things (colors / words or actions that might offend).  But what made me chuckle was a picture in my mind of an eager young new aide attempting to give Her Majesty advice on proper behavior like giving a toast to a western president.  I could only imagine the cold stare that aide might receive in return. :~)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on May 26, 2011, 04:27:11 PM
I am well aware HM is more versed in protocol than anyone else on the planet after almost 60 years on the throne, Chris, I am not that naive.  >:(  

She wasn't in her early days though but she didn't make mistakes because she learnt what to do...same as Obama should have done before he met her.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Douglas on May 26, 2011, 04:57:51 PM
Chris, I suggest that that people take a close look at the video link I posted above and come to your own conclusions.

From what I have heard,  the President is advised on protocol all the time.  The problem is that he doesn't listen or remember it.  I suspect he feels he's above such matters and  now we have film proof  of it with his performance at the Queen's table.  He should become an actor.  His attitude as portrayed was Oscar material.

 His grandparents treated him like Little Lord Fauntleroy.  Sent him to expensive private schools and colleges, always paid his way, etc.  Nothing wrong with that.  The only problem  is that his actual identity has come into the light of day and it will be his eventual undoing.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: CHRISinUSA on May 27, 2011, 07:21:33 AM
I am well aware HM is more versed in protocol than anyone else on the planet after almost 60 years on the throne, Chris, I am not that naive.  >:(  
She wasn't in her early days though but she didn't make mistakes because she learnt what to do...same as Obama should have done before he met her.

My apologies Grace, my post certainly was not intended to offend..... I was only observing the funny image that had popped into my head....
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: HerrKaiser on May 27, 2011, 08:50:11 AM
Surely he would have been advised on protocol beforehand as indeed the Queen is before she visits foreign shores...or is the American President considered above that?

This one thinks he is, it appears, not only from this event, but as reflected in many other examples of straying from standard protocols.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 02, 2011, 09:35:23 AM

59 Years ago today,the Coronation of HM Queen Elizabeth II.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI0YOPoj4t0&feature=related

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on June 04, 2011, 06:09:05 PM
The whole crew out in full force (and looking their best) at The Derby.  Nice to the see the family in one place.  

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/article-1394278-0C66C11600000578-206_308x571.jpg)

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/article-1394278-0C672D3600000578-327_636x408.jpg)

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/115222900.jpg)

-Duke of NJ
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Duke of New Jersey on June 04, 2011, 06:12:20 PM
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/article-1394278-0C66C82900000578-568_636x461.jpg)

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/article-1394278-0C66DD2800000578-3_636x735.jpg)

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/DukeofNewJersey/Stuff/115223446.jpg)

-Duke of NJ
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lindelle on June 05, 2011, 06:25:16 AM
Great pics, thanks.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 11, 2011, 04:25:26 AM

Trooping the Colour 2011 will take place today,London.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 11, 2011, 05:19:21 AM

Trooping the Colour 2011 will take place today,London.

HRH The Duke of Cambridge rides on horseback,and with bearskin,for the first time in the Queens Parade today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13736261

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 11, 2011, 08:13:02 AM

Trooping the Colour 2011 will take place today,London.

HRH The Duke of Cambridge rides on horseback,and with bearskin,for the first time in the Queens Parade today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13736261

http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=11-06-2011%20London

courtesy PPE :)

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 11, 2011, 08:34:39 AM


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13736980

 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 13, 2011, 09:17:45 AM

HM The Queen and other members of the RF including HRH The Duchess of Cambridge attended the Garter Service at St.George Chapel Windsor today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-13747065

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on June 13, 2011, 09:34:52 AM
So far the Duke of Edinburgh's plans to scale back his public duties don't seem to be getting very far!

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 13, 2011, 03:57:06 PM
So far the Duke of Edinburgh's plans to scale back his public duties don't seem to be getting very far!

Ann

No,he doesn't get away with it... ... ;D...even less so in the week to come with Ascot starting tomorrow..

http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=13-06-2011%20Windsor

courtesy PPE :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 14, 2011, 12:08:00 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002548/The-Queen-I-Her-Majestys-cousin-lifts-lid-private-lives-Royals.html

 :D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: RoyalWatcher on June 14, 2011, 06:03:41 PM
Thank you, Lucien. It was a good read!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on June 14, 2011, 06:48:14 PM
Hi,

Wonderful!! Lucien, I enjoyed reading a factual account of life with the Queen Mother and the Royals...
Thanks.

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 15, 2011, 05:12:47 AM

HM The Queen invested Admiral Timothy Lawrence with the Insignia of a Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order.
Windsor Castle.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 16, 2011, 04:23:52 AM
Hi,

Wonderful!! Lucien, I enjoyed reading a factual account of life with the Queen Mother and the Royals...
Thanks.

Larry

Going after that book,nice and refreshing and,very important,finally a piece of work by
someone who really KNOWS the RF instead of the constant hear say and other nonsense
and / or the umptiest twist to a theme...or even history!So refreshing! :D... ::)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 16, 2011, 10:56:29 AM
Ascot:

http://www.anp-photo.com/search.pp?page=1&ShowPicture=15844926&pos=2

courtesy anp :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 26, 2011, 02:23:21 AM
Hi,

Wonderful!! Lucien, I enjoyed reading a factual account of life with the Queen Mother and the Royals...
Thanks.

Larry

Thank you Larry and Royalwatcher!.. ;D
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 22, 2011, 04:49:03 AM
Buckingham Palace just announced that the President of Turkey and Mrs.Gül will pay a State Visit to the UK in november.
Mr.and Mrs. Gül will stay at Buckingham Palace.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: RoyalWatcher on July 22, 2011, 04:07:18 PM
Goodness, aren't those dates (Nov. 22-24) close to the traditional State Opening of Parliament?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Thomas_Hesse on August 10, 2011, 04:14:40 PM
Please sit down before watching - this is probably the greatest thing I've ever seen! Purest English :)
Enjoy!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmg7goFnTkI
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on August 10, 2011, 04:49:20 PM
Hilarious !  Even HRH the Prince Phillip says (in German) at the end that it (the attempt of the "English" welcoming speech) was "very good," but he couldn't understand it at all !
                                           Regards,  AP.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Windsor on August 17, 2011, 10:17:35 AM
Anyone up for some light hearted speculation (or perhaps someone will have some real facts)?

We "know" that there are vaults full of royal jewels in Buckingham palace, but what about the Queen's wardrobe?  Are there rooms full of old clothes or are they sorted out periodically?  I believe I once heard that there was a stair from the Queen's rooms up to Bobo McDonald's suite and most of her clothes were kept there.  True or false?  Also, I wonder if the Queen takes clothes from each of her homes to the next our if she maintains wardrobes at each location.  Trivial stuff perhaps but it is fun to speculate :-)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on August 17, 2011, 10:19:40 AM
There was a newspaper article a year or two ago which said that the Queen has had a lot of her clothes remodelled over the years - evening drsses converted into short dresses and the like.

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: CountessKate on August 17, 2011, 12:04:19 PM
An article in the Mail on Sunday in 1995 demonstrated that the Queen handed clothes on to Princess Margaret - a Hardy Amies green silk coat worn in 1977 reappeared on Margaret in 1995, and a blue chiffon dress seen on the Queen in 1981 was worn by Margaret in the same year (there was a suggestion that when Margaret went off the civil list in 1992 she became keener on recycling her sister's clothes) - and there were others.  Dunno what the Queen does now, although I've read that day outfits are actually sold though I can't recall exactly how or where - only that it is very, very discreetly done. 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 17, 2011, 12:36:35 PM
A few exhibitions in recent years have exhibited evening gowns going back to the beginning of the Queens reign and one exhibited day clothes worn on common wealth tours. They must be stored and well looked after some where!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: RoyalWatcher on August 19, 2011, 10:30:49 AM
My speculation is that the bulk HM's wardrobe is kept primarily at Windsor as that is her primary base and I've heard the storage vaults there are enormous (e.g., Royal Collection furniture, clothing, etc.). However, that's not to say that there aren't closets (actually rooms) full of clothes at Buck House because there are. With her household staff making all the necessary preparations for her time in Buck House and Windsor, they coordinate the ensembles needed. And, if they discover that an oversight was made, getting a dress/outfit to either Buck House or Windsor is a only a short drive down the M4 of about 30 min.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Clemence on August 19, 2011, 01:38:28 PM
I'm sorry if it has already been discussed in the forum, but I'd like to know if there was a reason why princess Elizabeth was named after her mother ... I mean, even in the remote probability she could one day become a queen, that would be after her mother, so it would be somehow strange, wouldn't it?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: DNAgenie on August 19, 2011, 08:31:09 PM
Clemence wrote
Quote
I'd like to know if there was a reason why princess Elizabeth was named after her mother ... I mean, even in the remote probability she could one day become a queen, that would be after her mother, so it would be somehow strange, wouldn't it?

The British royal family has always believed in recycling family names so the Queen was christened Elizabeth Alexandra Mary.  Elizabeth after her mother, Alexandra after her great grandmother (wife of Edward VII), Mary after her grandmother (wife of George V).
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on August 21, 2011, 07:20:59 AM
It is interesting that three of the Queen's children got names that were not in regular use. As far as I know, the Duke of York is the only Andrew there has ever been in our royal family (clearly after the Duke of Edinburgh's father). Anne was in use as a middle name but not as a first name, and Charles had pretty much fallen out of use (the only recent one at the time of his birth was Charles Edward, Duke of Coburg).

The Prince of Wales's sons were very conventionally named - Prince Harry's baptismal name is actually Henry, and he appears in the Court Circular as Prince Henry of Wales.

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Vecchiolarry on August 21, 2011, 08:48:04 AM
Hi Ann,

I have always thought that way too - I was happy to see Charles and Anne and Andrew given those names.
I also am glad to see Louise and James used again.

Names I would like to see revived are:  Geoffrey, Eleanor, Charlotte and Adele!!

Larry
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: CHRISinUSA on August 22, 2011, 03:12:53 PM
I'm sorry if it has already been discussed in the forum, but I'd like to know if there was a reason why princess Elizabeth was named after her mother ... I mean, even in the remote probability she could one day become a queen, that would be after her mother, so it would be somehow strange, wouldn't it?

At the time of Elizabeth's birth, her uncle David was only 32 years old and it would have probably unthinkable at the time that he would not marry and produce an heir.  Then again, the royals (and their courtiers) do like to plan for every possibility - so who knows?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on August 23, 2011, 03:30:40 AM
Who knows indeed.

In 1926 it was still highly likely that the Prince of Wales would marry and produce heirs. It was also entirely possible that the Duke and Duchess of York's next child would be a boy, who would take Elizabeth's place in the succession.


Larry

Geoffrey, Eleanor and Charlotte are all suitably regal, but I'm not too keen on Adele. How about Matilda?

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: RoyalWatcher on August 23, 2011, 04:30:38 PM
How about Matilda indeed!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on August 24, 2011, 03:18:14 AM
There is, of course, the slight problem of the Hillaire Belloc poem which begins

'Matilda told such dreadful lies
They made one gasp and roll one's eyes'

Ah well, back to topic.

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on September 21, 2011, 03:05:52 AM
HM The Queen will open the bi-annual Meeting of Heads of State of the Commonwealth at Perth,Western Australia,october 28th 2011.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: RoyalWatcher on September 21, 2011, 10:05:47 AM
Lucien,

Will the PoW and the Duchess of Cornwall be accompanying his mother to this meeting as well? I searched for information about this meeting and I found nothing.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on September 25, 2011, 04:01:07 AM
Lucien,

Will the PoW and the Duchess of Cornwall be accompanying his mother to this meeting as well? I searched for information about this meeting and I found nothing.

Oh but it's  everywhere!Simply google Commonwealth Meeting Perth 2011.

 :)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on September 25, 2011, 06:42:09 AM
Brisbane and Melbourne have now been added to the Queen's Australian itinerary!  As I'm in Melbourne, I'm definitely not going to work that day as it will very possibly be Her Majesty's and His Royal Highness's last visit to Australia and my last chance to see them.  :(  No mention of Duke and Duchess of Cornwall coming.

(http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/queen-to-visit-brisbane-melbourne/story-fn6ck4a4-1226145295844)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on September 25, 2011, 07:46:09 PM
Brisbane and Melbourne have now been added to the Queen's Australian itinerary!  As I'm in Melbourne, I'm definitely not going to work that day as it will very possibly be Her Majesty's and His Royal Highness's last visit to Australia and my last chance to see them.  :(  No mention of Duke and Duchess of Cornwall coming.

(http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/queen-to-visit-brisbane-melbourne/story-fn6ck4a4-1226145295844)

Let's hope that this won't be the last visit of the Queen of Australia to her beloved Land. Her love of all her Dominion's is tangable and real, as is our connection from old England with the Commonwealth; perhaps even more so in these unstable times.

R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on September 26, 2011, 03:36:32 AM
The Queen and the Prince of Wales don't generally go on tour together - it's one or the other.

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Suzanne on May 11, 2012, 10:29:22 AM
The State Opening of Parliament and the Reform of the Royal Succession

http://www.royalhistorian.com/the-state-opening-of-parliament-and-the-reform-of-the-royal-succession/
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Suzanne on May 12, 2012, 01:37:25 PM
Prime Minister David Cameron is also proposing changes to the royal marriages act

http://www.royalhistorian.com/the-proposed-changes-to-the-royal-marriages-act/
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on May 12, 2012, 05:04:10 PM
Nothing like concerning himself with the issues people really want him to address.  Disaster of a man.  Just my opinion of course.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: LauraO on May 13, 2012, 03:53:30 AM
The Queen hugged by 10 year old orphan
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/9262575/Childs-innocent-hug-brings-smile-to-the-face-of-the-Queen.html
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: darius on May 13, 2012, 07:01:08 AM
She truly is Elizabeth the Great.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on May 13, 2012, 11:40:42 PM
Nothing like concerning himself with the issues people really want him to address.  Disaster of a man.  Just my opinion of course.

No true Grace,the man is a whimp,a disgrace for the Brits...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Kalafrana on May 14, 2012, 05:15:14 AM
On a more cheerful note, an interview in today's Daily Telegraph with the Queen's cousin and lifelong friend, Margaret Rhodes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/the_queens_diamond_jubilee/9260228/Queen-Elizabeth-The-Diamond-Jubilee-She-dreads-the-ship-thing.html

Ann
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: LauraO on May 25, 2012, 02:47:26 AM
David Blunkett was at a dinner with the Queen when she asked him if he'd like her to cut up his meat for him. he thanked her but declined, to which she asked again saying that she really didn't mind, after a second grateful decline she said to him that it was fine as she was used to doing it for the corgi's.
:)
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on May 31, 2012, 05:53:34 PM
BBC News: Home videos of Queen's family life revealed:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18290805

R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 16, 2012, 02:45:26 AM

Trooping the Colour today followed by fly-past at noon.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 16, 2012, 06:58:25 AM

Trooping the Colour today followed by fly-past at noon.

Trooping the Colour today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18470308

The Duke is doing bloody marvellous!! :)

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Jen_94 on June 16, 2012, 07:28:29 AM
Watched a bit of Trooping of the colour today as had to go out! From what I saw, it looked fantastic, and the DoE and The Queen both looked wonderful.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: darius on June 16, 2012, 07:51:17 AM
Agreed.  The Duke is marvellous for a 91 year old.  He increasingly shares a resemblance with his mother.  The picture of him seated in the carriage brought to mind a photo of Princess Andrew in a dressing gown taken at Buckingham Palace or the Edward VII hospital - can´t remember which...
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Eddie_uk on June 16, 2012, 09:59:01 AM
..& lovely to see the entire family on the balcony again! Much nicer in my opinion!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 16, 2012, 01:23:31 PM
..& lovely to see the entire family on the balcony again! Much nicer in my opinion!

LOL!...I knew it,you would say that!...But then that was a totally different occasion..
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 18, 2012, 03:41:01 AM

Garter Day today,Royal Ascot tomorrow.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 19, 2012, 10:47:36 AM
Royal Ascot:

http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=19-06-2012%20ascot

courtesy PPE
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Jen_94 on June 19, 2012, 03:20:38 PM
Thank you for sharing the photos. The Queen looks lovely in her outfit!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 20, 2012, 01:15:02 AM
Granny's chips and more on show at Buckingham Palace:

http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/news/the-queens-personal-jewels-made-from-the-worlds-largest-diamond-go-on-display

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 20, 2012, 11:18:33 AM
Thank you for sharing the photos. The Queen looks lovely in her outfit!

http://www.ppe-agency.com/show.php?zoektype=2&search=20-06-2012%20Ascot

courtesy PPE
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Jen_94 on June 22, 2012, 04:52:35 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2163123/Royal-Ascot-2012-Queen-delighted-gets-winner-week-Estimate.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2163123/Royal-Ascot-2012-Queen-delighted-gets-winner-week-Estimate.html)

From Today's Ascot event. The Queen's horse, Estimate, won The Queen's Vase by five lengths! Some lovely photos of The Queen and the Duke together! 
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on June 28, 2012, 06:39:49 PM
BBC News: The Queen has unveiled a memorial in central London to the thousands of British and Allied airmen who died serving RAF Bomber Command in World War II.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18634283

R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on June 28, 2012, 11:57:58 PM
BBC News: The Queen has unveiled a memorial in central London to the thousands of British and Allied airmen who died serving RAF Bomber Command in World War II.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18634283

R.I.

The unveiling of the Bomber Command Monument:

http://gpdhome.typepad.com/royalblognl_news_summary/2012/06/bomber-command-gets-own-memorial.html

courtesy hja
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 02, 2012, 10:42:45 AM
Palace of Holyrood this week.

HM will appoint HRH Prince William,Earl of Straethearn, in the Order of the Thistle at the Cathedral of St.Giles,Edinburgh on thursday.
TRH The Duke of Edinburgh,The Princess Royal and the Countess of Straethearn will be in attendance.


http://www.royal.gov.uk/


Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Jen_94 on July 02, 2012, 05:47:05 PM
HM started her week long trip to Scotland by visiting the Natioanl Portrait gallery in Edinburgh today with the DoE

Here is a short video: http://tv.ibtimes.com/queen-elizabeth-visits-scottish-national-portrait-gallery/6493.html (http://tv.ibtimes.com/queen-elizabeth-visits-scottish-national-portrait-gallery/6493.html)

She looks wonderful! Both her and the Duke are doing a great job!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on July 02, 2012, 06:08:23 PM
BBC News: Queen starts Scottish leg of Jubilee celebrations

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18683695

R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 03, 2012, 12:57:11 AM
BBC News: Queen starts Scottish leg of Jubilee celebrations

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18683695

R.I.

Garden party today....8000 guests.How many octaginarians do we know with that lot for tea,or a schedule like this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18682703

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Carisbrooke on July 05, 2012, 01:57:54 AM
THE VILLA GUARDAMANGIA MALTA
The Villa Guardamangia, can it be saved or will it eventually crumble into dust.

A letter to the Times of Malta and some comments.  April 2011.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110405/letters/villa-guardamangia.358294 (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110405/letters/villa-guardamangia.358294)

Princess Elizabeth joins Duke.    BRITISH PATHE-1949 .........53 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-fdgN6uiKA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-fdgN6uiKA)









Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 07, 2012, 05:27:57 AM
Scottish week at Palace of Holyrood.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/


Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 11, 2012, 02:25:28 AM

HM and the Duke saw the Olympic torch at Windsor:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18770614


Bloody marvellous!!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Martyn on July 19, 2012, 07:36:29 AM
Granny's chips and more on show at Buckingham Palace:

http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/news/the-queens-personal-jewels-made-from-the-worlds-largest-diamond-go-on-display




Anyone been to BP to see this exhibition? 

I went a couple of weeks ago to see it and there is a book that accompanies the exhibition, which is well worth having for anyone with a serious interest in royal jewellery.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 26, 2012, 04:17:42 PM
Great to find you here again Martyn!!

Haven't been there yet no,should hop over tho,absolutely!


HM,the Duke of Edinburgh,the Princess Royal and Timothy Lawrence will tour the Olympic Park on saturday!

Really,HM is unstoppable isn't she!?Good Lord what stamina she and the Duke have,a schedule that would
drive youngsters absolutely to their wits end.Not them,they continue on stamina and Dubonnet & Gin as if
there is no tomorrow.Absolutely admirable!!

In 24 hours HM will open the London 2012 Olympic Games!

http://www.royal.gov.uk/


HM hosted a reception for the International Olympic Committee at Buckingham Palace on the 23rd of july.
The party included TM King Constantine and Queen Anne Marie of Greece,TRH The Grand Duke Henri,
The Prince of Orange,Crown Prince Frederik and TSH Prince Albert and Princess Charlène of Monaco,ao.


Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 27, 2012, 08:56:31 AM

You can find more on the London 2012 Olympic Games tucked away in the Members section at the top
with links to the LIVESTREAM for this evenings opening by HM.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Suzanne on July 27, 2012, 11:34:36 AM
The Jubilee tour of the UK ended yesterday in the New Forest and Isle of Wight

http://www.royalhistorian.com/the-queen-concludes-her-jubilee-tour-of-the-uk-in-the-new-forest-and-isle-of-wight/
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on July 28, 2012, 12:30:39 AM

The latest on our new Bond girl....Absolutely hilarious!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19018666

Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: LauraO on July 28, 2012, 03:05:29 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW5abat5NEU

What a stroke of genius! Absolutley fantastic! Proves youre never too old, at 86  and doing this! Ha, so great!
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Suzanne on August 11, 2012, 01:41:36 PM
Interesting new book on the relationship between the monarchy and the church

http://www.royalhistorian.com/the-diamond-jubilee-book-reviews-7-god-save-the-queen-the-spiritual-heart-of-the-monarchy-by-ian-bradley/
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Suzanne on August 25, 2012, 03:22:37 PM
Finally wrote up my review of Andrew Marr's The Diamond Queen

http://www.royalhistorian.com/the-diamond-jubilee-book-reviews-8-the-diamond-queen-by-andrew-marr/
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on September 10, 2012, 08:38:52 AM

HM The Queen is in mourning as her beloved companion of many years corgy Monty passed away,Buckingham Palace has stated..
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Grace on September 28, 2012, 10:22:35 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-28/queen-national-portrait-gallery-canberra/4286214?section=act

What do we think of the new portrait?
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on September 28, 2012, 10:48:36 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-28/queen-national-portrait-gallery-canberra/4286214?section=act

What do we think of the new portrait?


  A very interesting composition!  Rather a contemplative "History confronts History"--------- "Here I began."  
  Though I could change my mind, at the moment I rather like it.  Absolutely alone with her thoughts/memories, knowing that in the final analysis, it is just she...........   Subtly dramatic and well done.
                                                    Regards,  AP.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: IvanVII on September 28, 2012, 11:50:58 PM
Alexsander you took the words out of my mouth.  I like it a lot.


Has a very reflective, "This is where it started. Have I done well?" kind of feel to it.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on September 29, 2012, 11:35:03 AM
Alexsander you took the words out of my mouth.  I like it a lot.


Has a very reflective, "This is where it started. Have I done well?" kind of feel to it.

  On the "Glittering Royal Events Message Board," the section "British Royals Message Board" has a superb detail of the portrait as its banner.
                                                                                              Regards,   AP.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Emperor of the Dominions on September 29, 2012, 04:07:34 PM
Alexsander you took the words out of my mouth.  I like it a lot.


Has a very reflective, "This is where it started. Have I done well?" kind of feel to it.

  On the "Glittering Royal Events Message Board," the section "British Royals Message Board" has a superb detail of the portrait as its banner.
                                                                                              Regards,   AP.

I absolutely love it! It's a marvellous mixture of the traditional and reflection as a fashionably contemporary concept. I certainly want to see it in London next year and I wonder where I can buy a print?

R.I.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: CHRISinUSA on October 01, 2012, 07:52:38 AM
I think this is the best portrait of Her Majesty since the early years of her reign.  I would love to see it side-by-side with the official coronation painting.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 01, 2012, 08:12:53 AM
I agree Chris.  I wish it had been displayed at the NPG during the Jubilee celebrations [60 years a Queen] As I am not likely to ever be in Canberra, I would not mind a card of it [hint]
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: THERRY on November 12, 2012, 04:49:36 AM
Remembrance Sunday
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231292/Remembrance-Sunday-Queen-lays-wreath-Whitehall-Cenotaph-memory-war-dead.html
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Suzanne on November 12, 2012, 01:21:43 PM
The Queen followed in the footsteps of her grandfather, King George V, who unveiled the cenotaph in 1920

http://www.royalhistorian.com/king-george-v-and-the-tomb-of-the-unknown-warrior-in-westminster-abbey/
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Suzanne on November 19, 2012, 11:17:25 AM
How the Queen and Prince Philip will celebrate their 65th wedding anniversary

http://www.royalhistorian.com/how-queen-elizabeth-ii-and-prince-philip-duke-of-edinburgh-will-celebrate-their-65th-wedding-anniversary/
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Lucien on November 20, 2012, 11:19:12 AM

HM The Queen and the Duke celebrate their 65th wedding anniversary today!

Congratulations Ma'am.
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: grandduchessella on November 20, 2012, 05:58:18 PM
The Daily Mail has a serious of photos--one for each year of, and from, their marriage--of the Queen and Prince Philip together. Some of them are very sweet. :)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2235715/Queen-Prince-Philips-65th-wedding-anniversary-FEMAIL-marks-happy-union-65-glorious-photos.html
Title: Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
Post by: Jen_94 on November 23, 2012, 11:24:42 AM
They're lovely photos, I think. I know this is late, but a Happy belated 65th anniversary to HM the Queen and Prince Phillip!