Queen Elizabeth hoped celebrating her birthday would bring the nation together

Trooping the Colour: The Queen's Birthday Parade

Here are some photos of the non-Cambridge members of the royal family, the royals who were out for the annual Trooping the Colour parade and fly-over. I didn’t see the Princess Royal or the Countess of the Wessex at this year’s Trooping the Colour, but they might have attended and there’s simply no news about them, because everyone non-Cambridge got (literally) pushed to the side. Even the Queen seemed to lack her typical sparkle, possibly because the past month in Great Britain has been pretty terrible, from the Manchester terrorist attack to the London terrorist attack to the enormous Grenfell Tower fire last week which left more than 30 dead and about 60 people missing (and possibly presumed dead). Before the activities of Trooping the Colour, the Queen sent out a message:

Which is basically like “We’ve had a terrible month but I didn’t cancel Trooping the Colour because I hope we can all come together as a nation despite all of these tragedies, and this event will possibly help the nation to do that.” Because a nation is brought together by seeing the Queen squint at a fly-over and ride in a carriage? Hey, I’m not knocking it. I would prefer my country to be brought together by a little old lady looking grumpy at some planes. My country is being torn apart by an orange madman who (literally) screams at his TV. Because treason.

Anyway, I’m including what limited photos there were of the Queen, Prince Philip (wearing his morning clothes rather than his old uniform), Prince Harry (looking lonely, but Meghan will be there next year, I’m sure), Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie (they wore coordinated florals), and Autumn Phillips and Peter Phillips (Anne’s son and daughter-in-law). Oh, and Prince Charles and Camilla. Camilla wore a soft, buttery suit and a giant hat. Bless.

Trooping the Colour: The Queen's Birthday Parade

Trooping the Colour: The Queen's Birthday Parade

Trooping the Colour: The Queen's Birthday Parade

Trooping the Colour: The Queen's Birthday Parade

Trooping the Colour: The Queen's Birthday Parade

Photos courtesy of WENN.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

147 Responses to “Queen Elizabeth hoped celebrating her birthday would bring the nation together”

  1. dodgy says:

    Ehhh, I couldn’t even muster to watch Trooping the Colour this year. For parliament to kick £300 m towards repairing a place, but can’t be arsed to have a duty of care towards their poorer citizens really has left a bitter taste in my mouth.

    On top of that, I can’t find ish to wear for a summer wedding because summer clothes are just printed tat.

    Don’t mind me guys, I’m just really embittered by these bloody treasonous Tories in my government.

    • Lionika says:

      I hear you Dodgy. Feeling sad, angry, and bitter myself. Love, from my corner of London.

    • Evelyn says:

      Cheer up! This time next year you’ll have a Labour government and Jeremy Corbyn as PM. We won’t get a Democratic congress for a year and a half and won’t get rid of President Pence until January 2021.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Dodgy, I’ve given up on newly-made clothes. Have you checked your local charity shop? Might be something classic, summery, and in one shade instead of floral overload. At my local thrift store I found a floor-length plum sheath for an evening wedding – for the cost of cup of coffee or two.

    • anon says:

      That money goes towards preserving your heritage! I cannot believe it even needs to be discussed. A country without a past has no future…..As for more money for its citizens, from an outsiders’s perspective, I think the UK already has some of the most liberal benefits. Reading about all the Manchester and other terrorists, basically financing their terror from benefits.
      Instead of asking for the government to keep spending more and more money on people, why not ask what was the need to put people that might not even have understood English, right in the most expensive part of the world, in high rises, where they might not even understand safety instructions? Wouldn’t it be better to house refugees in the suburbs, where it’s easier and safer to support them?

      • Lena says:

        The problem is that the queen already had gotten money to repair he palace- and spent it elsewhere as well as mismanage it. Additionally, they wanted for years to open the palace more to the public, so some of the money for the repairs could have been gotten through that as well as that the public could actually enjoy their heritage. But the queen refuses. Why should she get money for the renovations if she could pay them out of her own pocket if she refuses to open it to the public?

      • Tan says:

        Refugees tend to clamour in the heart ofnthe big cities, atleast so I have seen in Germany. There are far ans fewer willing to live in suburbs than cramping together in cities where opportunities are more.

        As for Heritage, the royal fsmily gets obscene amount of perks and the maintenance that is not at all needed to maintain a few heritage buildings.

        A country does not need to cling obstinately to a increasingly less relevant piece of antiquity to have a future.

        Even if the RF is maintained, they have enough private wealth and only a small amount of token money is more than enough to recognise the token role they play in the matter of things now.

      • porcupette says:

        you must live a very special privileged life anon

    • Cookiejar says:

      It’s even worse, I read that the borough of Kensington and Chelsea ran a surplus of £274M, and gave a £100 rebate to the richest before the council elections as a “bribe” of sorts.

    • MM says:

      I agree with you. And on top of that she married her second cousin.

  2. frisbee says:

    Nope, that’s not how I’m reading it. We have the Trooping of the Colour every year it’s part of the Royal Calender and I’ve never seen a suggestion anywhere that it is any way ‘Brings the Country Together’ so there would be no expectation it would achieve that aim now. She would never cancel, that would be ‘giving in’ to the people who want to attack us. I read the statement as an acknowledgement of the huge efforts of both the Emergency Services and people on the street to help out,
    I’m far away from Manchester and London but in another big city that could be subject to attack at any time. I just hope we respond with the same grit, generosity and determination to help that has been shown by the Mancs and the Londoners . In London it was people in the local neighbourhood of all hues, backgrounds who pulled together and took up the slack and offered the support the authorities significantly failed to do. If anything good has come out of these horrific events it’s the knowledge that there are very many good and decent people out there who do care enough to help when they need to.

    • Mel says:

      That’s not how I read it, either.
      I am not into such events (not to mention I am not British), but cancelling the event – the monarch’s official birthday celebration – could have been read (especially by monarchists) as conveying a winding-down of the monarchy itself. In these volatile times it could have been a point of no return for the monarchy. They are all about symbolism, so they have to be VERY careful with symbols.

  3. Lena says:

    Five guards fainted in the heat. And that was to be expected. So the queen thought making the poor stand in the heat till they faint while they watch would bring the nation together. Makes total sense.

      • Liv says:

        For a royal ego stroking. Just end this nonsense family once and for all. There are homeless children right now who could be filling up their empty draft castles.

      • frisbee says:

        No it’s not a Royal ego stroking. Like it or not (and I’m a Republican so I don’t like it much) TQ is our head of state. The Trooping of the Colour is no different to the Parades seen in countries across the world, the US celebrates National Independence Day, China and Russia both have parades – usually involving rather a lot of Tanks – this is exactly the same thing. It has nothing to do with a particular Royal ego being stroked, like everywhere else its how we celebrate a sense of ‘Nation’ and in rough times like these it’s no bad thing to carry on regardless.

      • Lena says:

        That’s why I wrote it is to expected that they faint. My opinion is that if it happens every year maybe they should make some changes. Or at least not pretend that having people stand in the sun until they faint to celebrate your birthday is somehow bringing the country together.

      • Cookiejar says:

        I think they need to rethink when they hold this once Charles is king. No point in changing in the few years ERII has left but after? Climate change is real, unseasonably hot weather is more and more common.

    • Ange says:

      Troops all over the world parade for various reasons and inevitably in the warmer months a few go down with heat. It’s a bit of a reach to blame it solely on the queen.

    • Achoo! says:

      They faint because they are wearing those Bear Skin beanies and heavy woolen uniforms which are so thick they can stand up by themselves, suggest to them that they might want to change the uniform and opt for a synthetic version and the ranks howl like banshees. None of the other 3 regiments have probems with fainting just the Bear Skin hat brigade and that’s the way they like it.

  4. Sensible says:

    The Queen runs rings around any politician. A self important pollie at the top of the tree or a woman born and raised to understand duty? I am glad to live in a Commonwealth country. HB Lizzy!

  5. grabbyhands says:

    I feel like her statement was meant to be unifying in the sense of keeping to tradition is helpful in moving forward, in that it is something normal and dependable in the face of what the nation has been dealing with lately. Sometimes it is helpful in regaining a sense of balance, at least somewhat.

    I think the Queen is more savvy than to think or behave that this was anything or than that. And I think she is feeling the weight of that. And despite it, is showing a lot more steel than the PM. The fact that Theresa May couldn’t talk to Grenfell residents because you know, “security” and then the Queen had her “hold my crown” moment and went to speak to people face to face delicious shade.

  6. Seraphina says:

    I get it. Continue as we always have to have some normalcy and put this behind us. BUT for me, maybe she could have gone a different route to bring the country together, reach out to the families of those suffering from the tragedies (maybe) instead of putting on the sideshow of individuals born into the elite priveldged class born who will never experience what is normal serfs do.

  7. Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

    The fact that TQ is the one coming out and positioning herself as Leader of the nation while our PM hides away at No. 10 is very telling of the current political situation. Maybot’s days are numbered and we will have a new PM soon – the chaos she started is going to continue for a while more. The Brexit negotiations may survive another PM change but not another election. If Corbyn gets his wish for one he will regret it – he is showing the same arrogance that May showed before she called the snap election. He’s high on the gains his party made and seems to think he has some sort of mandate from the people – er no, you lost to an opponent who had a horrific manifesto and ran the worst campaign in recent history, that says that you still have a long long way to go to persuade the masses that you are fit for office.

    • LAK says:

      I’m furious that Corbyn has turned this into a political point scoring. May is a disastrous PM, but no need to use this tragedy to gain more power.

      And as she lets Corbyn run with the media narrative, she’s doing nothing to counter his points.

      A quick google search throws up 5 very pertinent points that would stop Corbyn in his tracks, but Maybot is just hiding away and letting him take charge.

      It’s glaringly obvious that she’s a goner coz not a single Tory is publicly fighting for her or for the party. No Tory has submitted to interviews to try and explain the govt / tory views. Normally they’d be doing what Corbyn is doing and being all over the media, but for May? Nada. Not a one until this morning, but Hammond did more damage than good and stuck to meaningless figures.

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        Me too – his visit to the tower was staged managed to the hills and blatantly used to promote his political agenda. He’s creating more chaos and feeding the frenzy to get what he wants and thats another election as he thinks will win.

        I think she is struggling to regain her footing after the vote – the result clearly knocked her off her perch. Am not defending her as this is all of her own making but she needs to turn this around and quickly if she wants to stay in power. I still have no idea who’d replace her and a Labour gov would be disastrous.

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        PS. To add to my comments above. Corbyn is a shark of a politician, he’s not the ‘nice and honest’ man his PR would have us all believe. He’s as ruthless and ambitious as the rest of them.

      • Bianca Moran says:

        What is your grievance against Corbyn? That he hasn’t change his political ideas in 30 years. That what you see is what you get?

        I met Jeremy Corbyn on 2015 before he was Labour Leader. He came to one of the Symposiums that the Mexican Students in the UK hold every year. We were going through a difficult period because 43 students disappear in Mexico and we were looking for them; the government took them. He was very thoughtful and didn’t make a fuzz or tried to give a political speech. He just stood in a corner with his small satchel and listened to our concerns. In the end, he was kind enough to take a picture with a poster saying we have 43 missing students. There were no cameras, no limelights or staged opps.

        I have a lot of trouble understanding Tory supporters… I came to this country eight years ago, I came here without a knowledge of politics or the economics of this place and scared. As time passed by I realised that this is an amazing place, people is good and deserve every chance to succeed in life. I came here when the slogan of We’re all in this together was high and mighty, when the hope was that everyone would come through. After seven years of austerity, I see that only the richest came through, and the poor just got poorer.

        Hard choices and live within your means is the motto now. Why the politicians don’t ask EVERYONE TO DO THAT, why the deregulation of big companies and huge tax breaks, let the little guy to struggle and THEN scorn them for being poor or using food banks. .

        It is immoral that people have to choose between food or fuel, it is immoral to live in zero hour contracts without knowing where the money will come next, and have the payday lender on speed dial because you know you won’t make it to the end of the month; it is immoral that teachers are over worked and school underfunded.

        It is immoral that independent contractors are called blessed as self-employed, and it means freedom. Freedom to be abused and underpaid. It is immoral that nurses have to use food banks because they cannot even have food and then get scolded by the current PM for wanting everything (this happened at a Q&A at York with May).

        It is immoral having people living on the streets and saying these are the hard choices and shelter under those words.

      • Diana says:

        Hi LAK, if you’re happy to talk about it, would you mind sharing the info your Google search turned up? I’m not in the UK but I was so affected by news of the Grenfell fire. It’s a horrific thing to have happened and I’d like to hear your take on things if it’s not too distressing for you to go over.

      • Sixer says:

        If there wasn’t a vacuum comprising the complete evacuation of local and national government action, Corbyn wouldn’t be able to fill it. We’re at Katrina levels of disgrace from authorities here. They’ve had to draft in Ealing Council now because Kensington, after five days, still has not put its contingency plan into operation and national government, despite managing troops on the ground after a terror attack, has not stepped in. We are a banana flucking republic for poor people.

        And what’s he actually DONE, anyway? Make one visit to a rescue centre. As you’d expect the leader of the opposition to do after a disaster. Appear on political TV shows to put the opposition’s views. As you’d expect the leader of the opposition to do after a disaster.

        What did you want him to do? Stay silent? Say it’s not political when poor people have BURNED TO DEATH in their own homes because of a now-discredited austerity agenda?

        I don’t even rate Corbyn that much personally, but if you all you can summon in response to what has happened is to resent the LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION for having an opinion about a NATIONAL DISASTER, then some serious reflection is in order. And not by Corbyn.

        Sorry. You know I love you guys. But not about this.

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        I’m no Tory supporter but Corbyn’s political ideas are straight out of the 70s, those policies didn’t work then so why does he think they will work in the 21st century. I consider myself progressive – i want to see new ideas and new ways of doing things like completely over hauling the UK’s archaic tax system so that its fair to everyone and closes loop holes that the uber wealthy exploit. Taxing 5% of the population to fund the rest is untenable – the math does not add up. I’m all for paying more for our public services but I also think that EVERYBODY should pay more for services used by EVERYONE but i get that this is quite the controversial idea.

        Corbyn is at his core a far left socialist – he’s nowhere near the centre as his PR managed to persuade people during this election just gone past.

        He actually has changed his political stances:
        1) Trident. He’s been against it all of his career but changed his stance during the election saying that he was now not opposed to it but would be reticent about using it
        2) Immigration. He was all for FOM but the day after his manifesto came out he changed his mind and said that immigration would have be to be controlled after Brexit. He did nothing to stop May’s Article 50 bill from going through parliament even thou it mentioned nothing about the rights of EU citizens in the UK and then once it passed tweeted that the ‘fight’ was on
        3) Pacifism. He has been loud and proud about being a pacifist for most of his career. If you recall the press conference the day his manifesto came out he loud and proudly stated that he was NOT a pacifist

        These are a few that I can think off of the top of my head.

        As the recent tragedy – no politician has handled this well. Yes those people have been let down and its not acceptable and yes May needs to be held accountable but the election is over, all party’s need to band together to support the public enquiry, help these people and hold Kensington Council accountable for their incompetence for they way they haven’t stepped up. Its a time for unity.

      • Lionika says:

        I’m sorry if I’m replying to the wrong people here, as it is a bit weird on my mobile phone.
        To the people who are criticising Corbyn, I sincerely ask – what would you have him do? Bianca and Sixer’s responses below I totally agree with, I love you guys!
        Digital Unicorn and Lak, I’m sincerely asking you because I generally respect and appreciate all your comments on this site.
        I don’t care much by the way, if Corbyn’s PR is trying to make him out to be a nice guy. It’s PR and he’s a politician, I don’t have to like him. I’m only concerned about his record.
        If it makes any difference, I’m a Londoner and my heart is broken over this.

      • LAK says:

        Diana: Thank you for asking. I live in Kensington. We were and continue to be distressed by this tragedy. And that’s an understatement.

        I do not feel comfortable discussing politics here because as you see from previous posters, if it isn’t the right kind of politics or opinions, then i am branded an evil, soulless, person without compassion or understanding. Not to mention the baseless, uninformed assumptions inherent in other posters’ comments in order to paint such a black picture of someone like me.

        I regret that i expressed an opinion in my earlier comment, but my anger overrode my usual caution, it won’t happen again.

        Back to royal history. Much safer discussion on an open forum.

      • frisbee says:

        These people are doing what they do, being politicians. Corbyn is being a clever politician without going too far over the top, May is being utterly useless by making no effort at all. The people on the ground are proving yet again we, as a people, deserve far better leaders than we’ve got. As you know (I’ve said it often enough) I’m a Republican BUT at times like these I’m thankful for an apolitical Head of State like the Queen to turn up and do the decent thing while the venal politico’s (and they are all venal in one way or another) do their’s and all of them behave just as appallingly as we have come to expect from them.

      • Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

        @Lionika. The Glenfell tragedy aside I have a natural dislike and distrust for politicians who are surrounded by some sort of personality cult – something that appears to have sprung up around Corbyn. Since he has been leader he hasn’t really done anything to oppose the Tories (see a previous post above re: article 50), he has failed to stop anti semitic behaviour and bullying within his party, he has failed to unite his party against the tories (I have lost count of MPs that have resigned because of him), he has voted against almost every anti-terror law put forth in parliament (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/26/revealed-jeremy-corbyns-three-decades-blocking-terror-legislation/) but somehow allowed the Tory gov to pass a highly controversial cyber snooping law (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/19/extreme-surveillance-becomes-uk-law-with-barely-a-whimper). These are but a few on his record.

        @Sixer: I have spent most of the morning watching the political shows hence why my head was in that space. Yes, gov local and national has failed the vulnerable in our society and should be held accountable but now is not the time for them to be on TV political point scoring as thats not going to rehouse these people. I think I’m going to avoid talk about politics for a while, it gets me into trouble sometimes.

        TQ for PM!!!!!!

      • Zaratustra says:

        @ Digital Unicorn

        Corbyn does oppose Tory policies but that doesn’t get into the news. It just won’t be reported. Go to the blogs or listen to PM Questions and debates on video.

        Adding to that I think it is quite sensible and rational to be wary of politicians who have some kind of person cult around themselves. But I don’t think Corbyn did built this all by himself. It is more the case that Corbyn appears to be a better political option that the current austerity-and-cuts Tories.

        But they try to mis-quote Corbyn to make him unelectable. See here:
        https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/02/labour-accuses-tories-of-fake-news-over-video-of-corbyn-ira-comments

        “…Labour has accused the Conservatives of creating “fake news” after a Tory attack video that went viral was edited to show Jeremy Corbyn refusing to condemn the IRA, when in fact the Labour leader said: “I condemn all the bombing by the loyalists and the IRA.” …”

        Corbyn and May debate Trump & NHS at #PMQs FULL
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUKRJTXCdrM
        “The importance of being awkward”

        Shouts as Corbyn & May face off at PMQs FULL
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoRMtl1NVgc
        May never answering questions.

      • Bianca says:

        @Digital Unicorn I think is good that we can debate here. Is not about going at each others throats. I read what you said about blocking terror legislation and it takes me back to a Q&A during the campaign. Human rights, where is the point where you stop being who you are by promoting these “terror legislation” that desecrate human rights. Isn’t that what western society is all about? We have been bombing middle eastern countries for the sake of “these values” (cough, cough oil) and became shocked when there is retaliation. But hey Saudi, let’s sell them weapons that in turn give to the same people that radicalise the stupid people here. I remember that around 10 minutes of the Q&A at York was WASTED because people kept pushing on Corbyn to bomb the shit out of other countries without peace talks. No man, if as you said you want “new ideas”, restrictions of this type and surveillance legislation is not the way. Yes, Corbyn hasn’t been able to rally the Blairites behind him I wonder why. The “New Labour” which was a Margaret Thatcher 2.0. I encourage you to read more and contrast it with the mainstream media. We need to stop regurgitating what we see on TV only, I find myself too distressed when I see people don’t do their own research before they post comments without any face value.

      • Kelly says:

        LAK, how is Corbyn political point-scoring? By turning up and doing his job? I was under the impression that the Leader/Prime Minister and Opposition Leader were supposed to visit all disaster areas? At least that was what I was raised and taught to believe. So I don’t understand how you can blame Corbyn for May (and I liked her before this) not doing her job and duty and not turning up. How is it his fault that he does his job, and she doesn’t do hers? How can that possibly be his fault, no matter whether you are Conservative or Labour? It her that is causing the ‘political point-scoring’.

        I think reading differing political views is great, so you really make yourself look bad when you drop a clanger like that, refuse to explain, and THEN attack others because they corrected you and called you out. Have the guts and courage of your convictions, and explain your pov, instead of running away and arrogantly spewing attacks and insults on others.

      • LAK says:

        Kelly, i’ve been posting on CB a very long time and i rarely back away from an argument as many here will tell you, i can even be annoyingly pedantic about it. I also apologise when i’m wrong.

        I would love to explain my POV because i love a debate, but like i said earlier, when it comes to politics, my viewpoint is not welcome even if i explain it with irrefutable evidence, and i already regret dipping a toe here.

        You might read my position as cowardly or arrogant, but i see it as self preservation because even my little toe dip produced the above comments, including your own where you assume that i can’t defend by position or why i described their comments thus. What is the point in engaging further when that is the predictable reaction?

        Let’s just leave it with all of us in our corners.

      • Pumpkin Pie says:

        @LAK: “I do not feel comfortable discussing politics here…..”

        You are one of the best commentators! Post only what you feel comfortable with but don’t let negativity get to you. Sorry if that sounds cliché and for the unsolicited advice.

        This is for ‘everybody’: CB has a diverse group of readers/commentators and at the end of the day, it’s a place where we can share opinions, learn, and laugh.

      • Liv says:

        Truthfully, going by your adoration and frantic defense for the monarchy it was always clear to me where you stood politically as well. No big surprises here, you may as well get it all off your chest. Are you or have you ever been a Thatcherite? (kidding)

      • LAK says:

        Liv: I marched against the poll tax!😊

      • bluhare says:

        Not all people who like the monarchy are Thatcherites or Tories, Liv. I agree with LAK on just about every aspect of the monarchy; however, I’m nowhere near a Tory, although I do live in the US now . I think it’s dangerous to assume that if people think one way, that they follow a predictable pattern with the rest of their opinions.

      • Cee says:

        What the people of London have gone through this past month is devastating and I wish you the best. The opposition needs to act, and they will seize the moment. This is how politicians behave. Negligence and corruption kill. It’s not about bribes or short change or even being a cheap SOB. These poor people were left behind by their own society and government, and they burned to death for it. I’m not sure Labour will be any better, nothing can guarantee things will be better. But the gap between the rich and poor is growing all over the world and people are getting angry. Angry people make terrible choices. Governments need to realise the tides are turning.

    • Magnoliarose says:

      Thank you for this thread it really brought home how much the UK is suffering at the moment. The news is saturated with Tangerine and sadly world news isn’t as reported as much as usual.

      @Sixer When you said it is like Katrina I knew what you meant. That disaster was a nightmare that finished Bush’s presidency.

      • Sixer says:

        I keep thinking of the photo of George Wendy, looking out of the plane window at the Katrina devastation.

        What happened at Grenfell Tower wasn’t an apolitical tragedy. It was a highly political consequence of the kind of longstanding institutional indifference and neglect – and contempt for the poor – that can only be achieved with public consent.

        We’re all complicit. It’s not a party political thing. New Labour were as guilty as the Tories. Labour councils are as guilty as Tory councils. There was political consensus for austerity after the financial crash. We all said there was not enough money for welfare so that poor people could have affordable rents (but there was enough money for tax cuts for the rich). We all said there was no magic money tree that could make public housing fit for habitation (but there was a magic money tree to provide £400bn for QE so that rich people’s investments weren’t lost). We all agreed.

        The thing is, we also all think of ourselves as decent people. So, when the inevitable consequences of policies we all nodded through go from poverty we can turn a blind eye to, to people actually burning to death in their unsafe homes, we all shout that it shouldn’t be politicised. Because that way, we don’t have to blame ourselves.

        Corbyn hasn’t done or said anything that he hasn’t done or said all along. It’s shame that makes us resent him for saying it now. That’s all. Our own shame. So we lash out at him rather than admit it.

      • porcupette says:

        Sixer: I totally agree.

        Also, there is no perfect political leader. See also Prince Charming. Jeremy Corbyn has never profited from a lifetime in politics. He’s an authentic person and fights for fairness and decency and the rights of the 90%. What is not to like?

        vs the Tories????

        faints

    • anon says:

      Corbyn is exceedingly arrogant and always aligned with terrorists, whether IRA or islamic terrorists. Also, he seems a bit of a sham, pretending to care for these poor people, when he comes from a very wealthy background and has several houses. Why doesn’t he open up his house to shelter some of them? He’s just toxically, arrogant, without much reason for his arrogance.

  8. Lolo86lf says:

    I am so sorry for being off-topic but Prince Harry looks absolutely handsome and sexy in that picture.

  9. Kate says:

    To think Prince William, PRINCE WILLIAM, one of the laziest man in the Commowealth, met the survivors and the families before May. That woman should be ashamed of herself.

  10. Jaii says:

    For me the Queens actions with Grenfall just prove why it works having a non political head of state, bcos all I see is both Labour and the Tories trying to use last three tragedies to push their political agenda. Gotta say that pic of William hugging that poor women on the mirror site who lost her husband really did touch my heart. I know some will shout PR , but shrugs I believe it was genuine .

    • SoulSPA says:

      Jaii, I’m with you!!!! Leaving aside the politics since I am not British, I could believe that Willies’ gesture was an honest one. For once.

    • Zaratustra says:

      This non political head of state doesn’t raise any questions why building rules were relaxed so much. And this works for you?

      The Prime Minister Theresa May has already indicated that she isn’t going to review these relaxed building rules which allowed this tragedy to happen. And the Head of State is apparently not willing to challenge the Prime Minister to correct her way.

      I think this doesn’t work.

      • frisbee says:

        The Queen is not a political figure, she has no overt political power . Our political system is nothing like that of say, the US who have a President – and elected head of state with political power, the Queen is not the equivalent of an elected head of state, she is a figurehead only so it is impossible for her to directly challenge the Prime Minister in public. In times like these, as I’ve said elsewhere on this thread, The Queen shows it’s a good idea to keep politics out of what is a profound human tragedy. If politicians don’t use it as political capital they will certainly be perceived as doing so. May is not directly reviewing the relaxed building regulations BUT she has ordered a public inquiry that will review those regulations and advise parliament accordingly. Then it will be up to Parliament to decide whether or not to change the regulations, a strong opposition would ensure that they do.

      • Zaratustra says:

        @ frisbee

        They will not revise the building regulations. May indicated that in her interview with Emily Maitliss. It is on youtube.

        The relaxing of the building regulations was / is considered an achievement of the Tories. They are happy about it. They will not make a U-turn on this.
        May will not make a U-turn because she is a weak Prime Minister and a U-turn would make her look even weaker in her opinion. Because unfortunately she is the stubborn kind. Stubborn to the point of rather going under than giving up an undefendable position.
        Watch that Maitliss interview. It is very revealing.

        Arguing that in that special British case the British head of state needn’t do anything in harsh times is plain wrong arguments. Remember the movie “The king’s speech”? It depicted albeit over-dramatized the speech which king George gave to make his subjects fight Hitler. That was a very direct political intervention because many in the British government at the time wanted to make a deal with Hitler instead of fighting him.

        Nowadays “Hitler landlords” are killing their (poor) tennants by building social housing like blast furnaces because of greed. Admittedly that was a slightly over-dramatic phrasing but nevertheless true.

        And at the same time the British Prime Minister refuses to review building regulations.

        Of course under such circumstances any head of state must act. Speech, please.

      • frisbee says:

        The Prime Minister does not make the laws, Parliament makes the law on the basis of majority voting. Her position is weakened because she has weakened her majority and if an inquiry demonstrates that the building regulations need to be changed back and Parliament decides to do so then they will. I can see her opposition from the SNP and Labour as well as a few rogue Tories voting against her on exactly this kind of issue. The Tories are not popular and a lot of their policies clearly haven’t worked, now it’s up to the opposition to challenge them.
        As for insisting that the Queen should ‘Speak’, no she shouldn’t, that is not her job, she is not a Politician end of.

      • Zaratustra says:

        @ frisbee

        Really?

        End of it? Really? Sounds like you try to throttle a discussion by intimidation?

        The Prime Minister makes laws with her government. She can also throttle laws. She can make her government review laws.
        May has refused to review building regulations. Watch the Maitliss video on youtube.

      • bluhare says:

        Yes, Zaratustra, End of. The Queen is not a political figure, nor should she be. That is entirely separate from the political discussion and building regulations, on which, by the way, I agree with you. They should be changed to make cladding like that illegal.

        If anyone is trying to be intimidating here it is you with statements like that.

      • LAK says:

        Zarasustra: Please educate yourself about how our Parliament works, how laws are made and what constitutional monarch is because your statements illustrate that you do not know.

        Emily Maitlis’s interview is a perfect illustration of journalist who should know better asking questions that she knows can’t be answered by May (or Corbyn if she was interviewing him) because our parliament doesn’t work like that.

        And if Emily Maitlis doesn’t know how our govt works, she should be removed immediately and sent on a remedial course.

        Finally, for your sake, please do not use hollywood as your guide to world events. Hollywood takes creative licence with events, timelines, people etc. It makes for dramatic effect, but rarely stands up to the real life events.

      • suze says:

        @ Zarasustra – In modern times, the role of the British monarch has been as a ceremonial head of state. I am not sure if you are arguing that it should be changed in this instance, and if you are, I would argue that would be an unwise precendent.

        If your argument is that monarchies themselves are outdate for many reasons, I can see that.

      • frisbee says:

        @ bluhare, Lak, Suze – thanks guys, I felt like I was banging my head up against a brick wall there for a while, and it doesn’t appear that helpful links work either.

  11. TheOtherOne says:

    I think Camilla looked lovely. Elegant yet muted. I would tell Kate to take note but why bother.

    • SoulSPA says:

      I am sometimes wondering whether they read comments like ours. Voice of the people, with reason. I guess that The Firm have people who do follow comments on TF, as we can see some sort of damage control from time to time. They “live” from what the public say, but are too powerful so they give out some crumbles from time to time.

    • PrincessK says:

      In one of the many pictures you can see Camilla peering at Diana’s grandchildren. I bet she has not laid eyes on them for a year. I don’t blame William for keeping his children away from her, it must turn his stomach to think of her trying to play ‘grandma’.

  12. Bianca Moran says:

    I truly feel Theresa May MUST GO, she is doing more harm than good. No one talked on BBC or the media about the protests against her in Downing Street they are trying to play it down. No, is here the unrest, the desperation. She must go, she is just dividing us more and more… The air in the country is so thick, you can hardly breath anymore.

  13. Alix says:

    When did monarchs stop using the royal “we”?

    Double-spacing after periods — was the queen’s message typed on a Smith-Corona?

    Harry looked hot. And speaking of hot, how warm was it that guards fainted but coats and coatdresses still abounded?

    • Kelly says:

      You are SUPPOSED to have 2 spaces after full stops (periods are something women have once a month). I know Americans have their own ‘type’ of English, and they have bad grammar and cannot spell. However it is PROPER ENGLISH GRAMMAR to have TWO spaces after the end of a sentence and the start of a new one. Heck, I learned that in typing school during the 1990s. Even in computer typing we were told double-spacing in between sentences is a must.

      Are you honestly saying you didn’t KNOW that in English you are supposed to have two spaces? Really? Don’t you have grammar lessons where you are?

    • Kelly says:

      Btw Double spacing is still taught in typing classes and in English classes today. At least in most of the English-speaking world (not counting America obviously). And it definitely is easier on the eyes because single spacing makes the sentences look like they all run in together with no gap. It’s a mess and hard to read.

  14. Zaratustra says:

    Greenfell Tower Fire happened because of greed. And no Queen’s birthday will help people get over that. Because decadence and luxury won’t help you getting over greed which pays for the former although the Queen didn’t earn on that.

    “Expressing concern and empathy” isn’t enough in the face of such blatant greed. But the Queen does no more than that although she is head of state. Any head of state would be obliged to at least raise questions why building regulations have become so ineffective. But this head of state doesn’t do anything except “expressing concern and empathy”. It is not enough. Not any more.

    There were allegedly 120 flats in Greenfeld tower. Allegedly 30 confirmed dead so far.

    What surprises me is that there are no pics of people with burn wounds. Surely some people survived this with injuries? Where is the tough British press who reports on this? To me it seems the press was gagged.

    Btw. Buckingham Palace has a sprinkler system, doesn’t it? Paid for by the taxpayer, wasn’t it? Buckingham Palace undergoes a Pounds 370 Million refurbishment, for your information.

    And for your information: Westminster Palace is going to be repaired to the cost of 4 billion Pounds. Apparently it is sinking into the mud due to the Thames being close and some failures by Thames Water.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/18/buckingham-palace-to-undergo-370m-refurbishment

    • Zaratustra says:

      You could build a REALLY nice new villa for 100 Million and save 270 Million this way.

    • Ennie says:

      in afire,usually people die of asphyxiation, the smoke would be the first killer. If there weren’t many ways of escaping, there would be less survivors.

    • Bianca says:

      Exactly my point before…. Yes, the Queen went, much appreciated, but isn’t that her job? I read once that the biggest family on benefits is the Royal Family…

    • frisbee says:

      Nope you are just not grasping how our political system/ constitutional monarchy works. You might want to read this.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy

      “A constitutional monarchy may refer to a system in which the monarch acts as a non-party political head of state under the constitution, whether written or unwritten.[2] While most monarchs may hold formal authority and the government may legally operate in the monarch’s name, in the form typical in Europe the monarch no longer personally sets public policy or chooses political leaders. Political scientist Vernon Bogdanor, paraphrasing Thomas Macaulay, has defined a constitutional monarch as “a sovereign who reigns but does not rule”.[3]

      • Zaratustra says:

        @ frisbee

        You delivered a description of several european constitutional monarchs. Or does “reign but don’t rule” actually mean “not doing anything”? That these monarchs “reign but don’t rule” might be the case. But that is just a description of what is there. It is not a discussion of what should be there. What is required is a norm for constitutional monarchs. And any head of state not saying anything while her subjects die due to relaxed building regulations and while the actual government doesn’t do anything isn’t working. The head of state is failing her duties. The current Prime Minister is trying to not do anything and refusing both responsibility and consequences. The Prime Minister won’t review the building regulations. That means such fires will happen again. In such a situation any head of state is obliged to demand action. Otherwise a head of state and the rulebook are useless.

      • frisbee says:

        Zaratustra
        You don’t like Monarchies, fair enough, I hope for your sake you don’t have a constitutional monarchy in your country BUT you are still confusing the notion of Head of State (with no political power) and a Head of State (i.e. President) that does have political power. You seem to be working on the notion that a head of state with no political power is a useless entity – that’s your perogative – but in a constitutional monarchy that is the point, that they are a figurehead with no power. In times of tragedy a figurehead that is not making political capital out of human tragedy is a more acceptable to me than the alternative. That is all.

      • Zaratustra says:

        @ frisbee

        It is inacceptable that you don’t want to make the differenciation between a description of a phenomenon (current europ. royal heads of state) and setting norms for heads of state. That is the difference between that what is and that what should be.
        It is absurd if you don’t want to discuss in how far a current head of state lives up to norms of democracy, parliamentarism or theory of state. Because that is what political debate is all about.
        It is slightly odd for you to ignore historic evidence of British constitutional monarchs interfering in politics (e.g. King George).
        But then you should do the honest thing and simply admit that you don’t want a differenciated discussion.
        You should admit that you prefer to discuss things in the same way discussions happen in beer halls. Fair indeed. But this kind of discussion doesn’t work for me. I want differenciation and academic arguments and a distinction between what is and what should be. If you don’t want to go that route then just say so.

      • bluhare says:

        Zaratustra, I think you need to deal with what is before you can deal with what you want to see. The fact is that Frisbee is right. The Queen is apolitical and will not get involved in the political machinations over this. She didn’t even voice a public opinion on Brexit. She won’t do so now.

        And I agree with Frisbee, as a unifying element the royal family should transcend politics. Whether Britain should have a monarchy is another question.

      • LAK says:

        Zarasustra: if you want an academic argument, start by understanding the subject! #pippatips

        Further you render your arguments void when you quote a hollywood film as your source material because everyone knows Hollywoid takes licence with real world events for greater dramatic effect.

  15. aquarius64 says:

    Harry looked lonely on the balcony. It would be amazing to see Meghan by his side.

    I thought the queen struck the right tone on these tragedies. William needed to be there because this will be his job once he takes the throne.

  16. TheOtherOne says:

    Harry looks annoyed and irritated. I am going to take a guess it’s the Lady in the Bright Pink who is annoying him. He had a similar look when the same Lady in the Bright Pink engaged in her usual antics at the WWI Memorial.

    http://www.celebitchy.com/493128/duchess_kate_wears_a_2900_zig-zag_missoni_coat_at_wwi_memorial/

    This event should have been somber due to recent tragedies in England but the Lady in the Bright Pink made it about her.

    • Pumpkin Pie says:

      So Harry has more medals than Bill the Ordinary.

    • imqrious2 says:

      And what about Autumn Phillips in Emerald green? Did she ignore “the memo” as well? Or is it just Kate that everyone loves to pick on? I’m no “stan”, but it seems that this is the one person everyone loves to just pile on. She certainly has her faults, make no mistake (not doing enough for charities, not being out there representing the crown/country, doing only the “fun” stuff, etc.), but c’mon… it’s just a friggin’ dress!

    • CynicalCeleste says:

      Oh my, I just realized what is going on with that outlandishly pink ensemble. It’s Baker-Miller Pink, aka Drunk Tank Pink. “Dr. Alexander Schauss, Ph.D., director of the American Institute for Biosocial Research… ‘Even if a person tries to be angry or aggressive in the presence of pink, he can’t. The heart muscles can’t race fast enough. It’s a tranquilizing color that saps your energy. Even the color-blind are tranquilized by pink…’” This is some mad genius at work, and I’m looking at you, Poor Jason.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        Kate. Tsk tsk tsk with that dress. My cousin said she looked like an emaciated Canada mint. I may have choked on my lemonade.

        There’s a medication here in the States (not sure if it goes by the same name everywhere): Pepto Bismol. Bismuth, basically – for upset tummy & other unmentionables. And it comes in a bottle and it’s the EXACT same flipping color as Kate’s dress.

        A friend of mine and I were chatting Royals the other week, and I happened to mention Kate reminded me of a paper doll. Why? Because the only thing she’s good at apparently, is having tacky outfits hung on her. From what I’ve gleaned of people who have spoken to her face-to-face (interviews, offhand comments by people who have met her on the ‘walkabouts for the unwashed masses’), is that trying to hold a conversation with her is about as productive as having a conversation with a blank sheet of paper. Bland, flat, and there’s no there, there.

  17. Zaratustra says:

    A lot of people died in a fire in Greenfell Towers which happend due to wrong cladding due to relaxed building regulations due to greed and cost-cutting
    And the Royal Family is having a jolly celebration in luxury clothes. Their clothes and jewelry would have paid for safer cladding several times over.

    Nope, doesn’t work for me.

    • Joannie says:

      Oh for pete’s sake blame the people responsible. The developers and the tenants who didn’t want to pay extra. It all comes down to money. They cheaped out and this is the cost. Blaming the RF is completely misguided and does nothing to help those who are suffering a huge unimaginable loss. Hopefully other buildings will be upgraded to avoid another disaster such as this.

      • Kelly says:

        I don’t think you understand. The tenants are POOR! The buildings are *Council Flats* – or what you Americans call ‘The Projects’. These people DON’T HAVE MONEY! They don’t have a choice.

      • Joannie says:

        Im not American! Im English/Canadian. Blaming the RF in any way is plain silly. If anything they will raise charitable contributions that will go directly towards those that need it. They started a fund immediately and went there in person. Taking shortcuts in constructions is just courting disaster and eventually something like this happens. Put the blame where it belongs.

      • Pumpkin Pie says:

        So poor that even rich people’s pets eat much better and nutritious food, receive medical care, and will very likely never be in danger of dying in a fire.
        (hope this doesn’t come out wrong).

      • graymatters says:

        I almost agree with you on this one. The investigation into the fire has only just begun, but it really looks like a combination of greed and laziness (and arrogance, by ignoring the tenant’s concerns) on the part of the landlords. As I understand it, the tenants were low-income people on government assistance. They wouldn’t be entitled to much, but even prisoners have the right to safe living quarters.

        It seems as though every time the poor suffer publicly, people comment on how the rich ought to share their wealth, either through paying more taxes, giving more to charity, or inviting the homeless into their homes. I guess that since the RF is a very visible symbol of inherited wealth and privilege they’ll attract a lot of that type of commentary.

        Since HM has mismanaged her funds to such an extent of needing a 300 million pound bail-out in a time of austerity — possibly even encouraging officials to take short-cuts with council home safety — people are going to apportion some of the blame to her as well. But it was the government’s decision of how to spend the money, not HM’s. And the particular decisions that led to the tragedy certainly weren’t HM’s.

  18. Skylark says:

    Really not sure why the queen and William are being praised for doing something so fundamentally basic as visiting the site and meeting with victims. Apart from anything else, it’s on her own bloody doorstep, so to NOT go would have been unthinkable. Nothing special at all about this.

    As for those who think Corbyn – by attending the site, by talking/listening to victims and volunteers, by subsequently and openly expressing anger and apportioning blame at the truly despicable and preventable failures that resulted in this appalling tragedy – is milking it for his own ends, well, I’m kind of lost for words.

    I applaud him for being angry and for being vocal about it and ‘making it political’ because if such gross and shameful negligence and lack of basic care for human life, in one of the wealthiest cities in the world, isn’t political, then I don’t know what is.

    • Lionika@gmail.com says:

      Perfectly put. How can people say this shouldn’t be made political when it’s the residents and survivors of Grenfell that are making it political, pointing out criminal negligence??

      • Skylark says:

        And the point is, the queen is not in a position to make it political. I’m not knocking her or denying her obvious and genuine upset, but all she can do, at best, is offer meaningless platitudes from her ivory tower to those who have lost everything and those who are raging at the injustice.

        Corbyn is doing the job he’s been elected to do, to be a voice for the people he serves, and that voice, at this moment in time, is to represent those whose lives have been devastated because of ‘politics’ and demand answers on their behalf.

        Between the queen who can’t and the current PM who won’t, Corbyn is 100% solidly doing the job he’s been elected to do.

      • Pumpkin Pie says:

        The residents did raise several concerns about fire safety. Who is it that did not listen to them?

    • Nic919 says:

      Is there talk of criminal negligence charges against the landlords yet? Because there should be. The tenants need to be compensated for their losses and while that won’t bring back the lives of those who died, it is the least they deserve.

      I don’t see how watching Kate in a pepto pink dress does much of anything to relieve the pain that these residents are going through. The Queen is trying to be more subtle but the Trooping is really just more Bread and Circuses to distract the masses from the fact that they are being screwed over. The BRF remains an utterly useless and costly institution however nice the Queen may be.

      Real solutions need to be provided immediately. Like temporary shelter for the tenants. Not pony parades.

      • Bianca says:

        You are on point girl!!! Let’s open up Buckingham palace for the people that lost their homes now.

      • Pumpkin Pie says:

        Not just the landlords. All those involved at any point in a relevant way – BBC said it was a Council building?, those from the company undertaking the refurbishment, those who authorized certain materials to be used, the supervisors, all of them. And the MPs who did not pass the regulation that would have ensured, from what I read, that such tragedies do not occur, most of them being landlords themselves, again, from what I read, they are accountable as well.

    • Bermary says:

      Spot on. This was corporate manslaughter.

  19. Betsy says:

    Harry looks delicious.

    I always enjoy seeing (most of) the royals.

    Could they not drag a comb through that small blond child’s hair? She looks like she just ran in from playing outside.

  20. Prairiegirl says:

    Looking at the pictures, I’m struck by the realization that this is the first “balcony shot” I’ve ever seen of Prince Philip wearing something other than a uniform. EVER. #retirement

  21. notasugarhere says:

    I like HM’s, Camilla’s, and Beatrice’s fashions here. The bubble/button things on Camilla’s collar are odd, but overall it adds interest while staying in the same palette. Beatrice is very fond of that boater style hat; this is her third or fourth that I can remember.

  22. Cee says:

    Is it strange Kate hasn’t been troted out to visit the Grenfell Tower fire victims? The Queen and William were seen, of course, but I would assume Kate would have a part to play, too, as a future QC and William’s wife. It speaks volumes of how little they believe they can rely on Kate for. Even when she visited the Manchester Attack victims, the visit didn’t get much publicity?

Commenting Guidelines

Celebitchy aims to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy

Use the "Report this comment as spam or abuse" link to ask the moderators to delete a comment if it's offensive. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please e-mail cbcomments at gmail.com to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment