Queen Elizabeth II & the Duke of Edinburgh celebrate their 70th anniversary

To mark the 70th Wedding Anniversary of Her Majesty The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh, new photographic portraits have been released worldwide. The Queen and His Royal Highness will celebrate their Wedding Anniverary on 20th November 2017. The portraits, by British photographer Matt Holyoak of Camera Press, were taken in the White Drawing Room at Windsor Castle in early November. In this first release, The Queen and His Royal Highness are framed by Thomas Gainsborough's 1781 portraits of George III and Queen Charlotte, who were married for 57 years. The marriage of the then Princess Elizabeth to Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten took place at Westminster Abbey on 20th November 1947. Find out about The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh's wedding day by following the link in bio. #weddinganniversary

A post shared by The Royal Family (@theroyalfamily) on

Today is the 70th wedding anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh. To celebrate the milestone, Buckingham Palace released a special photo of the couple. They posed together in the White Drawing Room of Windsor Castle this month for the photo. A few things. Is there a BLACK Drawing Room, racist?!? (JK, seriously.) Also, doesn’t it sort of look like the Queen was Photoshopped into this photo?? It feels like she’s “too big” compared to Philip. Granted, he’s shrinking a bit with his advanced age, but the proportions are really off in this photo. Conspiracy: the Queen and Philip couldn’t even be bothered to pose together after 70 years! The Queen can’t stand the sight of him. Here are some details about the photo:

Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are celebrating their milestone 70th wedding anniversary with a stunning new portrait. The gorgeous photo, shot by British photographer Matt Holyoak, was taken in the White Drawing Room at their home of Windsor Castle in early November.

And the Queen, who looks lovely in a cream day dress by Angela Kelly, made sure to wear an accessory close to her heart: a brooch given to her by Philip. The “Scarab” brooch in yellow gold, carved ruby and diamond, was a personal gift from Philip to the Queen in 1966. Their long-lasting union isn’t the only royal marriage to be honored in the photo. They are framed by Thomas Gainsborough’s 1781 portraits of George III and Queen Charlotte, who were married for 57 years.

“I feel very honored and privileged to have been asked to contribute to this very special occasion,” Holyoak said. “My vision for the image was to capture an intimate and natural portrait of the Queen and Duke to celebrate their landmark anniversary. The Queen and the Duke were very happy and relaxed which made it a pleasure. I feel the images showcase their strength and unity.”

[From People]

Notice Holyoak doesn’t say anything about the Queen and Philip posing together at the same time. It’s almost like he’s talking around the idea that they weren’t even in the same room at the same time.

Meanwhile, I do believe that in the coming year, we’ll be seeing less of the Queen in particular. There is already a “soft handover” or a “quiet regency” thing happening between the Queen and the Prince of Wales, and we will be seeing more signs of it in the coming year. What bugs me is that Charles will be taking on more and more Buckingham Palace duties without handing over his Prince of Wales portfolio to his sons. Reportedly, Charles would love to hand over much of his PoW portfolio to Harry and William, but they aren’t interested in it. We’ll see.

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Instagram, Getty.

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

76 Responses to “Queen Elizabeth II & the Duke of Edinburgh celebrate their 70th anniversary”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Tila says:

    I really do wish we could abolish this archaic institution.

    • Lolo86lf says:

      A lot of British citizens feel the same way as you do. In reality the English monarchy has no real power as they did in eras past. The royal family is merely a decorative institution.

      • Sabrine says:

        I always thought the monarchy was there to boost tourism and give Britain character. Without the monarchy, they’re just another country. As to their longevity, they surely have a lot less stress than regular people. Yes, they cut ribbons and do walk-abouts, but it still seems a lot less taxing than working a 9 to 5 for 40 years.

      • Princessk says:

        Rubbish, the majority of British people support the monarchy.

    • dodgy says:

      Same. Especially in light of Brexit, and us being poorer, the last thing we need is to be supporting the Royals in such a lavish lifestyle.

    • MarcelMarcel says:

      agreed. at the very least I wish Australia (my home country) wasn’t a part of the Commonwealth.

      • HeidiM says:

        Same for this Canadian.

      • Princessk says:

        Why?

      • Sensible says:

        Nope to Marcel Marcel, I am an Australian and I worked for years in education at The Museum of Democracy….and believe me, just do a little study and you will find a lot of reasons to keep the monarchy, the stability of the country politically owes a lot to the insertion of monarchy into our constitution. For this and reasons of incompetent self serving politicians vying for “President of Australia” ….no thanks.

      • Ange says:

        That argument makes no sense. The politicians are still vying for Prime Minister and as any Aussie can see thanks to Abbott in particular incompetent and self serving politicians still make it into high office. The Queen is just a figurehead and serves no real purpose. The Governor General should be the same.

      • Tina says:

        I’m with Sensible. The options are either to keep the royals/Governor General, go to a German or Irish type system where you have a politician who is the president who is a figurehead with no real power, or have a joint head of state/head of government like in the US. None of them are great options (especially the US system, sorry guys) but if you’re going to have a figurehead, my preference is to keep the present system rather than spend a lot of time and money changing it.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I expect many countries to vote out the monarchy after HM passes. They’re just biding their time out of respect and affection.

      • Citresse says:

        I’m not sure Canada has the same level of Republicanism as Australia. I don’t know, perhaps some of it is distance? I mean Canada is just over the pond. And I think Canadians identify more with the royals even though younger generations don’t care as much. I see Australia leaving the Commonwealth before Canada. I do think a future King Charles will have a difficult time generating interest and relevance and it’s a shame given his work, all the work he took seriously for many years.

      • Michelle says:

        Citresse, I agree. I’m Canadian and most of the people I know have at least a fond tolerance for the Royal family and most people are happy with the status quo. I honestly don’t see us leaving the Commonwealth anytime soon.

    • Bella Dupont says:

      Awwww…..i feel sad when i hear people say this (abolish) ….i feel like they provide such strong entertainment value ((for me at least!) that i don’t mind paying the extra 10 quid or whatever it is a year to have them around.

      I think of it as paying for an extra cable channel or smthg similar.

      If they did get abolished, I might be forced to go back to exploring such delights as the Kardashians or (Heaven forfend), the weeknd/bellahadid/selena gomez drama.

      🙁 🙁 🙁

      • aenflex says:

        I think it’s closer to £60 per year per person. Granted not too much, but still, why? Couldn’t they take that money and mend those B and C roads, or stop with the Dart charge?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Estimated at 600 million a year, esp when you figure in all the costs of security. It is often hidden in local budgets.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        Is it as much as 60??! Wow, I thought I was being generous when I rounded UP to 10…!

        Of course from a logical/intellectual perspective, its pretty difficult to defend….its more of an emotional attachment for me.

        Gossiping about the royal family is still one of the few things my mother and I still argue/bond over.
        The worlds most expensive gossip.

      • thaliasghost says:

        Interesting that people never care to pay the extra quid for all the people who are suffering in Britain. A LOT of people. Even if you choose to give those ‘extra quids’ to somebody outside of Britain, say Roma people in Europe that money would go a long way. Instead it buys hair appointments, designer boots & yacht vacations. You gotta have priorities I guess.

        Recently, I’m listening to different versions of Evita. ‘They need their exciitement, they need their escape.”

  2. aquarius64 says:

    Seventy years is quite an accomplishment, even with rumored affairs by the Duke. Small family gathering for the anniversary but Elle UK has just reported Meghan has touched down in London. If she’s going to dinner I don’t know but I would be surprised.

    • Bettyrose says:

      It *is* an accomplishment, and I want to believe that they’re best friends after a lifetime together. I liked that they were portrayed that way in the Helen Mirren film.

  3. Jenba says:

    To me it just looks like she’s a bit in front of him and the camera was angled up at them, like an odd illusion?

  4. PettyRiperton says:

    That’s nice

    Chuck should start dumping some of his “work” on those “young royals” since they are so keen to do more.

    • Maria says:

      Couldn’t be keener!

    • notasugarhere says:

      William should be taking over some work of both Duchy of Cornwall and The Prince’s Trust (which is really the Prince of Wales Trust complete with POW feathers as the emblem). It isn’t Harry’s job to take over those duties as he will be neither the Duke of Cornwall nor the Prince of Wales. Why should he do William’s job?

      Anne/Andrew/Edward don’t help Charles with any of this as his siblings – because it isn’t their role. This is Wiliam’s job, not William-and-Harry’s job. Welcome to Winner Takes All Primogeniture. Harry *is* the one who has been seen visiting Duchy properties in Romania though, not William of the did-he-ever-finish-the-bespoke-Land Management Program.

      William should also be working closely with Charles over land management of Balmoral and Sandringham since he (not Harry) will PERSONALLY inherit those properties. Charles does all of this now, of course with a lot of staff, but these are duties and responsibilities that fall to William as first born and heir. This is how William should have been spending the last 15 years, not jumping from service to service ignoring his responsibilities while taking the perks.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        This might be a cruel thing to say, but its one of those things you see everyday in life……their birth orders should have been reversed. Harry just seems (in my tiny mind at least), sooooo much more suited for the position.

        He’s not constantly brimming with contempt and disdain at the position that’s been foisted on him. I know Harry says he wouldn’t want to be King, but i still think he would have done a far better job of it, especially at connecting with the British people than William does.

        I do hope he (Will) grows into the role with time. (not holding my breathe)

      • Nic919 says:

        William knew about his role from his birth and his parents let him slack as a child. Once he was done university though he should have started the real work just like any other adult does. Now he has managed to delay it at the age of 35, and still can’t work full time “Royal” work.
        Harry doesn’t get the title and should not have to do the work for the Prince of Wales Trust. He won’t be ever be a Prince of Wales. And to his credit he started other things like Sentebale and Invictus Games, the former at a fairly young age, and his older lazier brother has yet to do anything that significant.

      • Citresse says:

        Yes I was wondering why the Prince of Wales portfolio would be handed over to both William and Harry. William is the heir. It really doesn’t involve Harry. William probably misses living at Amner and the privacy that goes with it. With the quiet hand over to Charles, I don’t see how William can avoid the increased workload no matter how many more children.

      • Megan says:

        I don’t think Charles is at all keen to hand over PoW duties until he is the king. Right now, Charles is consolidating his power so he is in the strongest position possible when he takes the throne. Diffusing his role by empowering William, who is seen as more popular than Charles, would undermine Charles’ efforts.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Charles needs his line to be popular, even needs it to be more popular than he is. He needs the public loving W&K and he’s PR-smart-enough to know that. In many circles Charles is far more popular than William, especially in recent years.

        There is no need to consolidate power; the nation isn’t going to throw him out and put William the Petulant on the throne instead. There will be an informal Regency, HM and PP will pass quietly, and there will be no crowds in the street calling for William to be king instead of Charles.

      • Megan says:

        Charles isn’t worried crowds will be calling for William to be crowned instead of him, Charles is worried he will be deeply unpopular, or worse, irrelevant once he takes the throne. To that end, Charles very much needs to consolidate power.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Charles has already been through his unpopular phase. He survived, as did Camilla, and I doubt things will ever get as bad as they were in the War of the Waleses or right after Diana’s death.

        There will be the odd Diana fan who protests, but Camilla will be queen consort, even if she keeps going by Duchess of Cornwall. Charles already has all the power in the family; it isn’t like anyone in the family is going to challenge his line for all the royal title and goods.

        Ultimately, Charles has already won because he managed to “off” all the other lines (especially that of his least-liked sibling, Andrew). Now he needs to get his line to work instead of whining.

      • LAK says:

        Charles once said publicly as if it were a joke that he’d tried to get William and Harry to take over some of his work, but was flatly turned down.

        Philip did the same back in 2011/12 in an interview when he said he longed to retire, but the younger royals weren’t stepping up.

        If commonsense and decency at the advanced age of his aging parents and grandparents can’t get William and Harry to step up, nothing ever will. Except being forced.

      • Maren says:

        So, what IS Harry’s responsibility??? Why do the British support him as he parties, and visits Africa with his girlfriend for a month, and flies to weddings in Jamaica and to Toronto to visit his girlfriend?? And if he pays for that travel, does he pay for the security to travel to his many jaunts also??

      • LAK says:

        Maren: Harry’ s role is to be the spare. Like a spare part incase he is needed. Cold, but hard truth. See the plan in action at 1936 abdication.

        As William has children, Harry’s importance diminishes. Like Andrew and Margaret in the past, and Charlotte’s future.

        As we become less tolerant of a bigger tax-funded royal family, all spares will have to figure out their lives without recourse to public funds. Not necessarily right now, but certainly by the time Charles and William are monarchs.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Who pays for it when W&K fly off to France, Mustique, France again, The Maldives, Switzerland, both fly again to France for separate skiing trips the same weekend, when William heads to the US for a friend’s wedding with his brother, when Wm heads off to Jecca’s wedding in Kenya and schedules a last-minute meeting after news of the trip hit to make the whole trip paid-and-secured by taxpayers, etc.?

        Presumably Harry’s responsibilities will be like those of Anne, Andrew, and Edward moving forward. Hundreds of engagements a year, but none of those others started their own outside charities – so he’s ahead of them in that department. He needs to step up his game and do more engagements, but it isn’t his responsibility to run anything related to the Duchy of Cornwall or The Prince’s Trust. His own children will never be working royals.

      • Tina says:

        What everyone else said. Plus, if HM, Charles and William all die before George reaches majority, Harry would need to act as Regent until George is 18. Unlikely in these days, but it wasn’t as unlikely when people lived less long.

  5. Louise177 says:

    Why is it a big deal that the photographer didn’t say they posed together? It’s not something to mention considering it goes without saying. I think they look off because the Queen is wearing a bright dress and the Prince is wearing a dowdy dark suit.

    • Bella Dupont says:

      I think Jenba (upthread) got it actually…..it looks like she’s standing strategically in front of him to create the illusion that she’s taller than she is. (or maybe it just looks better that way, who knows)

    • Erinn says:

      Yeah, honestly – I think it’d be even weirder if they made a point to say they did pose together. I don’t doubt for a second that they were in the same room. But I’m also willing to believe that a couple of photos might have been meshed together because one of them looked better in one photo while the other looked better in another.

      Ultimately – I think some Peter Jackson kind of thing is being done like Gandalf. I think they’re doing some trick to make one look taller than they are by having one closer to the lense than the other or something like that. Also I could see them wanting her to be more in the forefront.

  6. YankLynn says:

    I saw a series of pictures, including a similar pose to this but they were standing in what appeared to be a gray-box set.. My first thought, what a strange set to take portraits when a whole castle is available and gardens. This photo almost looks like they were ‘shopped on a homey background from the gray-box series.

    • bluhare says:

      That backdrop was deliberate. The tweet I saw called it a platinum background in honor of their anniversary. This photo above was done showing the now second longest married monarch as well.

  7. Kitty says:

    They have done so much for the monarchy and 70 years of marriage is impressive!!
    Sad to think what the monarchy will be like once they are gone. I don’t like it.

  8. Thebees says:

    At this point I think she is a robot or an alien! Lol . She will out live us all.

  9. FishBeard says:

    Did they ever address the Paradise Papers controversy?

    • LAK says:

      Did you not see the heavy-handed PR across media for about two days before the story disappeared entirely?

      Slew of articles along the lines of ‘the innocent poorly advised Queen’ or ‘how dare her money managers put her in this position?’ And after a day or two story was killed across the board. The other people caught in this net should thank their lucky stars thaf the Queen was also caught because in cleaning up her PR mess, they were also cleansed.

      • FishBeard says:

        I saw those articles, but I didn’t know if they addressed it directly. Good to know.

      • LAK says:

        Fishbeard: it was a master lesson in deflection. Then story was removed which is always a red flag indicating TPTB manipulating the masses.

  10. browniecakes says:

    Americans love the British Royals! You have to commit very young to be married that long. When it is the right person, time just rolls along. We celebrated our 30th in Sept. and if I live to be 93 and the Bob lives to be 97, we can do 70. Amazing.

  11. Tan says:

    This sound incredibly bitchy and mean but everytime I see their pic and the picture of their youth, marriage pic
    I cannot help but think how extraordinarily average looking people these two are and how extremely lucky they are.

    They do not give out any sign of being more than average and spoilt
    Dull eyes

    Privilege!! The miracles you can do.

    Anyway congratulations to the couple for completing 70yrs together

    Another incredible privilege to age with so much comfort together.

    • bluhare says:

      Then you have not seen Philip in his younger days. A very nice looking man with sex appeal.

      But I won’t argue with privilege. They are.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, Philip was dishy when younger as was Henrik of Denmark.

      • Mel says:

        “A very nice looking man with sex appeal.”

        *Especially* sex appeal.
        I remember thinking “ughhh! yuck!” when I heard my mother talking about how handsome he was, when I was a little girl. Then I grew up. 🙂

      • Princessk says:

        Prince Philip had sex appeal well into his 60s and 70s ask his carriage driving companion.

    • Bella Dupont says:

      To continue the slightly bitchy theme…..I think the Queen was pretty but not extraordinary looking when she was younger……..I’d say maybe a 6/10 in my estimation…..But I’ve noticed that she did put a lot of effort into her appearance……enough that i think she would have rather enjoyed being considered very stylish/fashionable

      Having said that, I have never seen or read anywhere that she was considered a fashion icon (i could be wrong)….so I’ve often wondered if she held any resentment/unconscious jealousy towards Princess Diana for how quickly and completely she got billed as an absolute fashion icon for the ages.

      • LAK says:

        Margaret was considered the beauty and fashion icon of the two.

        And regardless of hyperbole, Margaret really was a beauty. She aged really badly. It was as if all her inner sourness and disappointment emerged on her face and body as she grew older.

      • bluhare says:

        Margaret really was beautiful. https://www.pinterest.com/explore/princess-margaret/?lp=true

        But I agree, LAK. Alcohol, arrogance and petulance took over as she aged. A lot like Andrew. He was attractive when he was young, and now he looks like a pompous, arrogant ass. Arrogance and petulance is etched on his face as well.

      • Bella Dupont says:

        Wow, you weren’t exaggerating, she really WAS beautiful…. (shock horror!)

        https://i.pinimg.com/236x/85/cb/c0/85cbc07c3c4688737bf321af1352b213–margaret-rose-princess-margaret.jpg

      • notasugarhere says:

        She was also said to be incredibly intelligent (not just what passes for “smart” in the Windsor family). So much of her abilities were wasted because none of them, herself included, knew what to do with her and her role.

      • Citresse says:

        I think HM was quite pretty in her younger years. Margaret was more showy, film star pretty but the Queen has and still has a beautiful smile.

      • MyUsername says:

        I don’t know, i never used to think ANY of the royals were attractive, but as i grew a bit older, i found that the Queen was indeed incredibly attractive. Nice eyes, beautiful smile. Margaret’s eyes are too close together, and while she is gorgeous in the portraits, not so much in the candids.
        Also…I always thought that QE was more into Philip than vice versa? They’ve never spoken of his proposal. All that was said was that she didn’t ask her parents’ approval. Perhaps SHE proposed to HIM?

      • Curious says:

        Philip was a pauper so the marriage proposal saved him financially.

      • Ange says:

        Even Margaret went a bit horsey. Everyone in that entire gene line recedes from their teeth as they age.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Philip was a pauper with a treasure of diamonds tied up in his mother’s spare tiara. He wouldn’t have been rich-rich, but if he had stayed in the navy, he would likely have had a good career and ended up married to someone from the landed aristocracy. Louis Mountbatten would have made sure of it.

    • spidey says:

      Beauty is only skin deep.

      Margaret was beautiful outside.

      • HM has the most amazing twinkle in her eyes and a lovely smile, thats what draws attention when you are not stunningly beautiful. Both HM and Prince Philip seem endlessly curious about the peoplethey meet and places they go to, while also sharing a sense of humour. They are fully engaged in living their lives as fully as they can. How sad that the ‘keen’ Cambridges already seem bored by all the richness life has to offer – what will their faces look like at 90?!

  12. Tiffany says:

    Could The Queen be standing on a box, which is why so much if her bottom half is cut off.

    • Citresse says:

      I don’t think HM is on a box, you can see the height difference when they’re photographed on the balcony at the remembrance I just think they were photographed separately. When I first saw the photo I thought Philip’s blazer doesn’t go well with the shade of blue slacks. Black would be better.

  13. Giddy says:

    My parents were married 67 years. On their 40th anniversary he gave her 40 yellow roses, because we’re Texans, and a great card. It read: “ Here’s to the best front forty a man ever had. Now let’s get started on the back forty.”

  14. spidey says:

    My grandparents managed 70 before Grandma died a month later. My parents miss 50 by 6 months when my Dad died.

  15. Citresse says:

    It would be nice if BP releases photos from their party today but since it’s private, I doubt it but perhaps they’ll release a group photo of the entire family and all the guests?

  16. redheadwriter says:

    She isn’t clutching her purse!

  17. notasugarhere says:

    Philip looks awfully tired in that balcony photo. In past years, you’d never see him actually collapsing against the wall like that.

  18. Curious says:

    Paradise Papers.