I hope Prince William was properly shamed by this photo-op/event. Yesterday, William went to Windsor, England with the Queen and Prince Philip, his aged grandparents. The Queen is 87 years old! Prince Philip is 92. And both Elizabeth and Philip have more of a public schedule that their grandson. Do you think there were words? Do you think the Queen gave William a withering look while Philip said something rude and unpleasant about William’s schedule?
William, Philip and the Queen were attending the unveiling of the “Windsor Grey statue.” The statue is of two lovely horses – the horses represent the two horses (Storm and Daniel) that pull the Queen’s carriage, and the sculpture was done in remembrance of the Queen’s jubilee (two years ago). You can see some photos here – the horses really are quite beautiful works of art, and reportedly the Queen was fascinated by the process of creating them. William was in attendance because he was part of the fundraising appeal to raise the £200,000 for this piece of public art.
Anyway, I could take or leave Philip and William. But the Queen looks amazing here. THAT HAT. Also, it’s crazy how tall William is compared to his grandfather.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
So, he finally deigned to get off his royal behind and actually do something? Color me shocked.
Ummmmm…pictures of the horses? And I’m not talking about the Windsors either…
Yeah, I wanted to see if the sculptures actually looked like horses, or modern crap.
I googled them, they look like real horses and they are huge!
Scroll down for sculptures of horses. They are great!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2593472/Queen-Elizabeth-matches-spring-blossom-unveil-statute-beloved-horses.html
Usually I am no fan of naturalistic sculpture, but this is a great piece of art. It captured the power and grace of those animals.
They’re magnificent and it is great that the Queen wanted to know about the process of making them. A work like that is quite involved.
I, for one, is not impressed with this sculpture – bland and boring.
@Coco – Just had a very good laugh at your Windsor’s are horses joke!
At this point I’d settle for Will and Kate being WalMart greeters. Get a job! I’m starting to see how Morissey gets so angry with the Royal family.
Well, Morrissey is pissed off about so many things he occassionally gets one right. 😉
wow he is looking more and more like his Uncle(the quiet one) honestly i forgot Sophie Rhys man,yeah him.
100% I’ve always thought that and the more blad he gets the more he looks like him.
He does look like Edward.
How tall is William?
William is 6’3″
Philip is (or was) 5’10”
That’s 190 cm, right ? I don’t know how to think in feet and inches.
That’s a nice height for a man. Is Harry around that height too?
Yes, 6’3″ is 190.5 cm.
Harry is an inch shorter — he clocks in at 6’2″ or 188 cm.
When and if William is king he will be the second tallest recorded British monarch. Edward I came in at 6’4″
Someone please get that man a box of Rogaine!
Personally I think he just embrace what most balding 30-y/o white males do, just shave your head.
Totally agree! Time to shave that, Wills.
I’m waiting for a comb-over. On of my proffesors has that, the hair on one side of his head must be shoulder lenght-
its time he joins Albert
ps: i miss Liberty’s 50 shades of windsor ,we need more William baldtop in live action
Any time I see a divine (or not) hat it makes me long for Mad Hattery. Ella’s snark was second to none….
*wistful sigh*
I like the Queens coat.
I do too. It’s beautiful. I want one like it for Easter.
Wills needs shave his head already. Like Sir Patrick Stewart. Seriously, those Windsor genes are kicking the crap out of him. Embrace the bald.
Additional: Prince Phillip? I so would. Check out his hotness in the documentary “Windsor Castle”.
Philip was GORGEOUS back in his youth, its no wonder Her Maj liked him! If I ever get my hands on a time machine, a young Philip Mountbatten will be at the top of my to do list! He looked like a more attractive Ryan Gosling.
Philip was mighty fine. Yes, yes he was.
(His mother Alice was as well)
For a 92 year old male, Philip is still mighty fine. He looks amazing for someone his age.
I completely agree (on Philip and Alice)
Engagement
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/871402/thumbs/r-QUEEN-PHILLIP-ANNIVERSARY-large570.jpg?7
Engagement Day
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/7/9/1341844279193/Princess-Elizabeth-006.jpg
Engagement pose re-created decades later
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00786/prince-philip-460–_786573a.jpg
With Charles and Anne
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02102/1951_2102052i.jpg
Can you all lay off our royal family or can we start taking the piss out of all your presidents and politicians that we know nothing about like you do to the Windsors?
Apart from getting the duchess of Cambridge’s title and name wrong everytime
All the gossip sites get Royal stuff wrong. I’m sure plenty of people have corrected them (I did once) and nothing happened. You gotta learn to just roll with it. The Royal Loonies do know, if that’s any consolation.
I think it is also related to her being known as “Kate Middleton” in the press for 10 years. Just for searching sake, it is easier to keep putting “Kate Middleton” into their articles, because that’s how many people search for info on her.
Diana, POW was (and is) referred to inaccurately as “Princess Diana” or “Princess Di” and still as “Lady Diana” or “Lady Di”. Duchess of York was (and is) often referred to as “Sarah Ferguson”. It happens to Sophie, Countess of Wessex, who is referred to as Sophie Wessex or still sometimes as “Sophie Rhys-Jones”. For European royals, I still see references to “Letizia Ortiz” “Maxima Zorreguieta” “Charlene Wittstock” etc.
Again I think it is related to 1) making searching and finding easier and 2) those are the names many people call them or know them as. Therefore those are the names still used in the press *so people can locate articles about them*.
My2Pence,
I think a lot has to do with laziness, as you’ve mentioned, lack of knowledge, or to ‘dig’ at the Royal woman in question.
I don’t think it is a dig from journalists necessarily. Everything now is driven by clicks, the more clicks the more revenue. DM will get more hits on “Kate Middleton” so that’s the name that they work into pretty much every article about her.
Our politicians are, at least in theory, fairly elected. The royal family is rich and powerful by accident of birth, regardless of merit. There is plenty to criticize about American politicians (and UK pols, and French pols, etc. ad nauseum), but they are not analogous to the royal family.
I get her point though. And there’s quite a few American politicians that are quite wealthy too…
Oh, absolutely. That’s why I said “fairly elected in theory,” because money runs the government. It’s what gets people elected and it’s what gets legislation passed, for the most part.
But, our politicians are paid a publicly broadcast, fixed amount in return for representing their districts, a job that has pretty set requirements. Whether they represent them well or not is for debate, but they do directly affect policy, which the royal family does not.
Actually, the British Royal Family does have a governmental role. And that governmental role varies country by country too. Jordan’s Royal Family is a full monarchy that governs (as are a lot of Arab countries) whereas Sweden’s Royal Family is purely ceremonial.
I am tempted to start that whole conversation about the costs of the presidency (office of state part rather than the current administration part) – but perhaps not!
I think if we just call them conversations about elites, we can take in royals, politicians, posh actors, dynastical American industrialists, almost anyone really. Then we’re all happy!
Sixer,
I don’t think it’s a bad idea. On these Royal posts there seems to be an enormous amount of misinformation with a core few of us that are knowledgable (even if we disagree)*. I often feel like a broken record and miss having good conversations that were fresh and not rehashes, ya know?
*My guess this is true on a lot of other non-Royal posts as well.
Yes. I think disagreement is good. Seriously! It’s not good to spend one’s life in an everlasting exercise of confirmation bias. No opinion (even one’s own) should be trusted unless it’s regularly challenged. I know I often appear contrary for the sake of it, but I’m honestly not!!
Well, I’ll just make the point that to those outside the United States, it can appear quite off-putting that the head of government seems to double as a celebrity. I don’t particularly find it so, but I can see why people think “better to have someone that isn’t a party political person for that stuff”.
Speaking personally, I had always thought that the separation of powers was quite strong part of a national understanding stateside, so it always surprises me that so many royal commenters from across the pond seem to have no understanding of how the separation of powers works in a country with a constitutional monarchy (or, indeed, in a republic where the executive is a president and the legislature is a prime minister, rather than being the same person).
PS: because of this, I often feel as though I’ve ended up defending the RF, which is counterintuitive to me, as a republican.
I can’t speak to other monarchies’ roles, I’m not familiar with them, but it’s been my understanding that the British monarchy does not have the kind of direct role in legislation that, say, a president or senator would have in the U.S.
I assure you that I’m not trying to put forth any opinion on a monarch’s role, or offer commentary on separation of head of state and head of government. I just don’t think that the British monarchy and American politicians (I’m guessing Zsa Zsa was referring to federal and not state elected officials) are analogous. They’re simply not.
Sixer,
Agreed about the need for views to be challenged! But I think it’s hard to know intention and tone in print. Misunderstandings abound all around.
We in the US aren’t always taught about how other governments work. I know I wasn’t while my son was. (Funny aside, he came home, plopped himself on the sofa and declared: Did you know the Queen actually DOES something?!???? I responded, while laughing, why yes I do!) 🙂 So I think that’s partially to blame.
As is *how* we teach American history. We are fairly neutral when reporting on Royal involvement with the American Colonies until about mid 1700’s and it takes a sharpe and very nasty turn. Nothing is ever super blatant but the criticism of your (and at one time ours too) Royals stems from that early shaping of our opinions about hereditary government over the supposedly superior elected government. Those deep, ingrained, and very unconscious biases colour a good many’s perspective. (It’s also the reason I feel we use Brits as villains. We really vilify the Royals and the Brits as a whole in The American Story of Our Creation)
Bucky,
Not having a power of an British MP or US Senator/Representative does not mean they don’t have *any* power. The Queen actually still has some power and chooses not to use it. The power she sometimes uses is ‘soft power’ and her PMs have often commented that she’s more right than wrong with her suggestions.
Charles, for better or worse, has also tried to exercise his Royal power. And it’s debatable how effective he is with it.
@Bucky – that’s exactly my point. We all know the Queen isn’t the head of the legislative branch. But she IS the head of the executive branch. Most countries have separate heads of legislature and executive. The US is actually the unusual one in that the President is head of both. That’s why the Queen isn’t analogous either to the US president OR a celebrity. She’s somewhere between the two. And, if you aren’t American, you can see quite clearly that celebrity status invested in the US president isn’t very different to that invested in the Windsors.
@LS – at school, in civics, I had to cover both types of republic (we did the US and France), constitutional monarchy (did UK, obviously), absolute monarchies and dictatorships, and (because I am ancient and this was before the fall of the USSR), soviet collectivism. I loved those lessons so I remember them. But most of my classmates fell asleep. Not sure how many Brits even understand what executive powers are invested in the monarchy!
@Sixer @ LadySlippers
I never said they don’t have any power, I just said it’s an inappropriate analogy. That was literally my entire point.
As for the United States’ origin story, of course it vilified the Brits. Origin stories are essentially fables, with villains and heroes and massive simplification. That’s what makes them effective tools for nation-building (or whatever-building, because origin stories are used in pretty much every big institution).
@Bucky,
Most people don’t get that the Brits were vilified to create a ‘story’. So that slips by as a fact rather than fable.
The BRF does have a somewhat defined role but I think it’s the lack of a written constitution that creates some fuzziness.
@LadySlippers
True. Can I blame our poorly funded public education system for that? I think I will. That said, it doesn’t take a ton of critical thinking to make the leap if people would just take the time to do it. I’ve had the discussion with friends that we confuse the legendary doings of Johnny Appleseed, Abraham Lincoln, and Georgia Washington all the time. That’s a pretty good tip-off!
The American education is definitely to blame. Some people great a fantastic education and other have never heard of the states in the Midwest (not lying — had it happen on often enough for me to not laugh about it anymore). There’s no consistency whatsoever and No Child Left Behind did nothing to help.
We also don’t teach critical thinking. And we buy into our ‘hype’ and don’t allow for contrary opinions. It’s a deadly combination in my opinion.
You are more than welcome to criticize the Crime Minister Harper of Canada. In fact I’ll start off by saying he looks like an aged Ken Doll!
yeah, with Karla Holmolka eyes!!
It’s my royal family and I don’t mind. I shall feel equally free to mock our (Brit) politicians and your (American) elite of whatever type whenever posts about them appear. Let’s have an Obama post soon – I’m sure I could find some negativity if I tried really, really hard!
At least our President goes to work every day–thats what we pay him for! (not commenting on what he does when he gets there but he does show up)
I’m not British but stop right there.
The Queen also works *every* day (often even while on holiday). She is very up to date with British politics and issues as well as the Commonwealth politics and issues. There have been numerous PMs (from various countries not just British) that are blown away by how much she knows and keeps abreast of.
And Philip is no slouch either. Those two work their tales off.
Yes, LadySlippers, they do – and they have 35 years on our president, too, and have been at this for many, many years.
To be fair to CB and Kaiser, they are respectful of the hardest working members of the royal family.
But there is plenty of room to snark on the outliers.
Agreed, Ladyslippers. Other members of the RF also work incredibly hard – take Princess Anne, for example, who has been working since the age of 18 and is involved with over 200 charitable organisations.
Murphy, before coming here to sling your insults, perhaps do a little research first.
*Most* of the British Royals work very hard. Most also don’t receive much fanfare for it either. Anne is a great example of that as are Edward and Sophie (so are the Gloucester’s and Kent’s).
The Cambridge’s are exceptions to the rule.
Bringing over from the other thread, because it is related to work schedules (or lack thereof).
Lengthy overview. The royals work to serve their country and to earn their ridiculously-privileged lives. If they do not work, they should receive no privileges. The rest of the royal family works far more than William and Kate Middleton.
Royal Family Engagement Totals 2011
http://www.examiner.com/article/prince-charles-busiest-british-royal-2011-duchess-of-cambridge-ready-for-more
Royal Family Engagement Totals 2012
http://www.examiner.com/article/prince-charles-still-busiest-british-royal-2012
Royal Family Engagement Totals 2013
http://www.canada.com/entertainment/Royal+family+carried+fewer+engagements+2013/9342008/story.html
Average retirement age in the UK 64.6 for men, 62.3 for women (both are on the rise). Please note the ages of the royal workhorses vs. the lazy duo.
Her Majesty, 87 (88 this month)
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 92
Prince of Wales, 65
Duchess of Cornwall, 66
Princess Royal (Anne), 63
Princess Alexandra, 77
Duke of Glouchester, 69
Duchess of Glouchester, 67
Duke of Kent, 78
Earl of Wessex, 50
Countess of Wessex, 49
Prince Michael of Kent, 71
Princess Michael of Kent. 69
Lazy Duo:
William. 31
Kate Middleton, 32
William was not working full-time at RAF, otherwise he wouldn’t have been in danger of losing his wings. He was clearly skiving off those duties, but wasn’t doing royal duties either. He took paternity leave in the summer of 2013, went back basically for a going away party, and has been on a ridiculous “gap year” pretending to learn things he should have learned the first time he did this kind of course in his early twenties. This “course” prevents him from doing full-time royal duties, but it allows plenty of time for him to go hunting and head to the Maldives?
Kate Middleton started out extremely slow, after feeding the public the lie/line in the engagement interview that she was going to work hard. Yes, she got pregnant. And most woman – particularly those in government jobs (as she is) – work 40 hours per week through their pregnancy. No, she did not have HG it was never diagnosed, she most likely had norovirus. She was perfectly fine to go on vacation and flit around shopping during the pregnancy but couldn’t work? Now she keeps getting photographed out shopping, at the hairdressers, etc. but the excuse is “she is a full-time mom she cannot do royal engagements”. A full-time mom with cook, cleaners, housekeeper, multiple nannies, personal assistant, and 27 office staff. She has plenty of time to pamper herself but no time to serve the taxpayers a token few hours a week?
The few times they do show up for engagements they appear reluctant and often end up acting inappropriately. (Middleton laughing through remembrance ceremonies, William caught on video referring to someone at a fund-raiser “a bore”, etc.). The other members of the royal family work far more, are professional, and appear happy to do their jobs.
Much of the criticism from the holidays comes from the fact that they don’t work in between those holidays. HM takes weeks off every year, quietly on royal properties. She doesn’t spent $100,000 in taxpayer payer money on flights for security staff so she can hang out on the beach in the Maldives for a week. That’s a big difference. Not only do William and Kate Middleton not work anywhere near as much as they should, they are throwing their “ill-gotten gains” in the face of the struggling taxpayers.
But would their US counterparts be politicians?
W&K seem more like celebrities or socialites than any kind of community leader.
There was an article that stated that William & Kate were more celebs than Royals. It wasn’t a nice comment either.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10591117/BBC-historian-Kate-and-William-are-celebrities-without-gravitas.html
@LadySlippers, Thank You for the link! Not a nice article, but not untrue, IMO.
If the Queen’s US counterpart is the President, then as 3rd in line, Prince William’s US counterpart would be… maybe Speaker of the House or maybe one of the more powerful Cabinet members, which is just an outrageous mismatch.
I agree with that Telegraph article. W&K do not carry themselves with any gravitas or any sense of duty. They behave like celebrities and IMO not even A-List celebrities. On this website, that just makes them ripe for snark.
Mena,
I’m not sure how easily one can line up different types of government. BUT your example does show that as third in line, William is extremely high up in seniority and these excuses that he’s only the ‘heir to the heir’ really look silly.
The Telegraph article is, I think, spot on. The Cambridge’s have the ability to use their position and have that ‘gravitas’ that most Royals do. And yet, they choose to be fluffy and ornamental when they don’t have to be.
It is a shame.
Yeah, LadySlippers, I was reaching there, trying to find an adequate equivalent for William. Not easily done.
For me, the Queen has fulfilled her role. She has carried herself like a person who should meet world leaders.
Charles, for all his faults, is for sure the best-prepared Heir.
But when the time comes, unfortunately, I think William may be known as the least prepared.
Zsa Zsa, I would say most of the core royaloonies here are pretty well versed on the Windsors. Most probably know as much about them as you do. Now there are commenters who don’t know much about the subject but that’s true of any blog post, anywhere.
The Windsors have a weird position in the world – half statesmen and women and half celebrity – and the half that gets mocked is pretty much the celebrity half.
Feel free to mock any American politician you want, but you might get more joy out of mocking our celebrities. Fertile ground there – and there are plenty of posts on CB that allows you to do just that.
I very much like this post, Suze.
Dear @ZsaZsa (if that is your real name and title)…Further to what @Suze said, this is a celebrity gossip site and these are our personal comments and opinions. We are therefore under no obligation to refer to The Duchess of Cambridge by her official title every little time (or ever, really). That would be pedantic and ridiculous. Especially since we have grown to know her and love her as Kate the Hungry.
Well put Suze. All too often it’s forgotten this is a Gossip site. A well rounded and current event stating site, but still…. Celeb Gossip.
An Obama thread here without a Between 2 ferns video or a Bey link is rare, but again. For good reason.
I tend to call everyone by their given name and forego titles almost altogether. However, if I do use a title, I usually use the correct one since I AM a card carrying Royal Loonie. 😉
I am with @Suze – feel free to mock our US politicians. We love it. The absolute beat time to mock them is when they are caught being hypocrites such as campaigning on family values and then getting caught with a mistress or recommending that welfare recipients be drug tested and then they themselves are caught with cocaine. Those are only two examples but I could go on for days and you can even mock the democrats I will still laugh if it is funny.
I just wants to also comment in how American’s view Brits. I have never met or heard if anyone speaking hateful things about Brits as a whole. I think the fact our governments have such close ties shows how well our countries get along. I mean there is still bitterness and craziness regarding our own Civil War that some people just won’t let go.
The confusion might be in job description. The US president governs, and declares war. That is definitely not part of the queen’s work. That part of her job description changed after Cromwell, and so on. I think that it is also hard for Americans to understand something like “blue-blood”. The US constitution is based on the notion that “all men are created equal,” Equal rights have been a very large part of our historical agenda. It’s nice.
I’ve always seen the US presidency more along the line of the British Prime Minister, although I could be wrong. The Queen represents Britain and the Commonwealth to the world. She does this well, I think we could all agree.
Can I just point out that the British Royal Family’s worldwide celebrity is one of the justifications for their continued presence? Their high profile is considered to be a tourist draw, which is one of the most common reasons put forth for the purpose of the RoyalFamily now that they no longer directly govern.
The tourism angle has been debunked. There may be some people who visit the UK because of the royal family, but not the majority.
“Even VisitBritain, our national tourist agency, can’t find any evidence for it.”
http://republic.org.uk/what-we-want/monarchy-myth-buster/its-good-tourism
I’m inclined to think there’s a possibility for tourist revenue to INCREASE if they were gone – much as France’s heritage translates to tourist value even though their monarchy is long gone. Palaces and castles could be properly opened to the public, generating revenue. And there’s no reason traditions like Changing of the Guard couldn’t continue: just in front of a presidential residence rather than a royal palace.
Yes, if we managed to get the royal family out of Buckingham Palace and Windsor, you could clean up the sites, open up more rooms and really move tourists through – resulting in more revenue for upkeep, more refurbishment, more interest, more tourism….
Really, really sounds good to me.
Yep. I think we could say a presidency would be cheaper – even including protection, a residence, official trips and elections. But we never seem to think of the possibilities for extra revenue. People turn up to changing of the guard – but most of the time, Her Maj isn’t there. It’s not as though they’re actually guarding anyone. So what’s the difference? The visitors still get their photo, which is all they showed up for anyway.
@2pence and sixer:
I should clarify, I’m saying that it’s a reason that is frequently stated as a justification for the royal family in general, not that it’s necessarily a fact. Basically, don’t complain about the worldwide attention given to the British Royals when it’s essentially a huge component of their jobs.
Or to put it another way, don’t complain about people discussing the BRF when the generally accepted purpose of the BRF is for people to know that they’re there so that they will then go and visit and spend their money.
And I do have to say, I don’t know that I would say ”debunked” so much as I know that several of you strongly disagree with the stated thesis that the British Royal Family is good for tourism – very few actual facts and data points tend to be given. While I personally am fairly neutral on the subject, I will say that I think people forget how many tourist destinations there are in Europe vying for the same $$$ to be spent. One could say that the Royal Family serves as the living link to that history that helps to make Great Britain such a ‘classic’ trip destination – and that helps it continually pull in tourist dollars even though London remains one of the most expensive cities in the world. When there are cheaper destinations and castles a-plenty all over Europe, one could argue that one of the greatest selling points of a destination is its mystique. Either way, the challenge is that this is a subject that’s difficult to quantify, because no one’s going to start doing awareness phone polls the way companies do for movies, and unless someone does away with the royal family and then 5-10-15 years later looks at tourist data in the UK, we wonl’t know fpr certain what the BRF’s contribution to tourism really is (and even then obviously would be the question of counterbalancing against new revenue of now open properties, taxes brought in from formerly royal lands, etc)
Well, I tried 5 times to post a bunch of links to tourism data and none of those posts came through! Suffice it to say:
We cannot know what will happen in the future, yet we can extrapolate from the current data. It isn’t personal opinion, it is from the facts gathered, analyzed, and published. Gathered and analyzed by people who know that this is difficult to quantify, and yet are still able to do a reasonable job of assessing what drives tourism in the UK and what doesn’t. That is their full-time job.
For those who are curious, you can find stats on the following sites:
VisitBritain
Top Attractions in 2012
VisitEngland
Annual Survey of Visits to Visitor Attractions
Top 20 Paid Attractions and Top 20 Free Attractions – no royal items break the top 20
Older but interesting
Royals Low on ‘Must’ list for visitors
Telegraph, 17 February 2008
UK National Statistics Guide to Tourism
Zsazsa,
You MUST be joking. Are you really saying that US politicians are not criticized on this site, both fairly and unfairly, and blamed for absolutely EVERYTHING that is bad in the world? Get real.
He tagged along for good PR. No one better to associate yourself with then HM.
I love the Queen when I’m an old and bitter old woman, I hope to have half the sense of style the Queen has
And I’m the complete opposite. I was just scrolling down to write that I don’t really get the hype about the Queen’s style, since she wears EXACTLY the same outfit all the time, just in different colors.
Same. I mean, it’s the same as claiming that Kate is a style icon. My 83-year-old, Appalachia-bred grandmother has a more inspired wardrobe than QEII.
Then again, a huge part of monarchy is projecting an image, and wearing essentially the same thing for every public appearance is conveying to the public that the BRF is steady and that tradition is valuable. So I get why she wears what she does, I just don’t find it exciting.
Some of it is because Angela Kelly transformed QEII’s style. Not that long ago she was quite an eyesore as the 70’s-80’s were not kind to HM (the 50’s styles really worked well for her body type). So her new style is both classic and easy. She needs to stand out as HM herself is very very short.
@LadySlippers
I wasn’t around, but judging from old photos, I’m not sure the 70s and 80s were kind to anyone, sartorially speaking!
But it makes absolute sense to me that a monarch would want a recognizable, basically iconic look. Some of my favorite are history classes were those that focused on public presentations and depictions (paintings, sculptures, photographic styling) of big-wig leaders, from popes to presidents. Nothing is coincidental.
@Bucky,
Most fashion looks horrid in the rear view mirror! lol
Her look evolved for more practical reasons but I’m sure other factors, such as you’ve stated, don’t hurt either. Most times things are done for a multitude of reasons — rarely is it down to one or two things.
(It seems to have eaten my other post.) I like her iconic look. You can recognize her just from the outline/silhouette. She wears bright colors and a big hat so people in a large crowd can see her easily. And she and Angela Kelly have fun with their designs.
Her jubilee flotilla outfit
http://diamondjubilee.hellomagazine.com/queens-jubilee/sixty-glorious-years/galeria/20120306947/queen-elizabeth-II-fashion/3/
Loosely based on
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/queen-elizabeth-i-of-england-and-ireland-anonymous.html
Shamrock dress in Ireland
http://diamondjubilee.hellomagazine.com/queens-jubilee/sixty-glorious-years/galeria/20120306947/queen-elizabeth-II-fashion/3/
Wedgwood hat
http://www.dw.de/queen-arrives-in-northern-ireland-for-historic-meeting/a-16051867
Dressing the Queen
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227799/A-peek-inside-ones-wardrobe-The-Queens-dresser-reveals-Her-Majs-style-secrets.html
her outfits all look very similar – i’ll give you that. But she looks great for her age and the way she dresses plays a big part in that. Oh who am I kidding, i’ll likely be in sweats and commenting on message boards well into my 80’s. sigh, one can only dream…
I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall to some of the stuff that you KNOW Prince Philip says to and about his lazy ass grandson…..
VG,
My guess is William isn’t reprimanded much. Even by Philip or the Grey Men. Heirs are coddled big time and William is stubborn. Strictly a guess though.
Yeah, it doesn’t seem like they reprimand William much at all. But I don’t understand the thinking behind that. Why would The Grey Men think having a spoiled willful man-child on the throne be a good thing for their country? Do they think it makes William easier to control? Easier to overthrow?
I don’t think history remembers bratty royals very fondly, so it is bizarre to me that the Palace not only doesn’t seem to curb that behavior in William, but it seems like they encourage it.
It’s a cultural thing of the entire British aristocracy — heirs always get coddled and fawned over. They are all treated like demi-gods that can do no wrong. William just exemplifies it.
Spares are ignored too (there’s a few stories of Harry being ignored by QM once William walked in the room or him walking out of parties knowing not a damn person would notice he was even gone).
Again, it’s tied up in their culture as you can find other examples in Heirs and Spares, both in the Royal Family or the many aristocratic families, and simply swap out names. Otherwise almost everything else is identical.
Crazy. So much for modernity, I guess.
Also,one must allow for family dynamics. William simply has a different type of relationship with his grandparents than his brother does. It happens in all families.
Sometimes I have to remind myself exactly how old the Queen and Prince Philip are – at least in photos they still exude a lot of energy.
Kaiser – three royal posts in a day! LOL we are becoming The Daily Monarchy news around here – not complaining, the more loonies the better as far as I am concerned.
It’s wild to think that Philip’s mother was born in the 1880s, as a great-granddaughter to Queen Victoria.
The queen has such a lovely smile, and it manages to look sincere no matter where she is-she is delightful and such a wonderful inspiration! Her grandchildren, William and Kate in particular, leave so much to be desired.
Wow, just goes to show how people see the same thing completely different. I don’t think she looks sincere at all, it (her smile) looks completely fake to me and doesn’t reach her eyes. I don’t think she’s a very kind or warm person at all, and seems like she has the potential to be quite cruel to me.
I just love your honesty.
I think the queen looks so pretty in the white ensemble. I tend to forget her age also.