Posted on 11/17/2007 4:28:09 PM PST by fanfan
Queen and Prince Philip recreate honeymoon photo to mark 60 years of wedded bliss
Beyond the obvious signs of ageing, there is little about the Queen and Prince Philip that appears to have changed in the 60 years since these pictures were taken - least of all their dress sense.
The scene for both is the same: the grounds of Broadlands in Hampshire where the couple posed first on their honeymoon in November, 1947.
And that pose is strikingly similar for the second shot 60 years on.
The Queen's right hand nestles in the crook of her husband's left arm and she wears the same warm smile.
ROYAL ROMANCE: Two pictures taken at Broadlands 60 years apart, but Prince Philip and the Queen appear to have duplicated the loving shot, below, on their 1947 honeymoon. The official portrait, above, is released by Buckingham Palace today to mark the couple's diamond wedding. The pose is the same, what they are wearing is strikingly similar and the Queen has the same brooch and necklace
The Duke of Edinburgh returns her gaze, yet, as ever, appears a little less comfortable in front of the camera.
But most remarkably of all in this latest photograph - part of a set officially released to mark the couple's diamond wedding anniversary on Tuesday - they are wearing outfits almost identical to those from their honeymoon.
Even the Queen's jewellery is the same: a double strand pearl necklace that was a wedding gift from her father George VI and a brooch, believed to be one given by Prince Albert to Queen Victoria before their marriage.
Despite the similarities, Buckingham Palace sources insisted yesterday that the couple never set out to formally recreate the honeymoon pictures.
It was simply gentle encouragement from a photographer, they said, that led to the Queen linking arms and turning to face her husband.
And they are symbols of constancy, after all.
The Royal couple will tomorrow mark their milestone with a special service of thanksgiving at Westminster Abbey where they married.
Some 2,000 people will gather for the celebration, the day before their actual anniversary.
As well as more than 30 members of the Royal Family - including the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall, Prince William and Prince Harry - Gordon Brown and Baroness Thatcher are among the guests,
Future king William, 25, will give a reading, while the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, will bless the Queen and the Duke and deliver the address.
~snip~
Good for them.
Yeah well, it would be all the more sweet if they gave me back the money they have stollen from me and abolish the plague that is their monarchy.
I loathe the monarchy.
That said - anyone that can put up with him for that long deserves credit. ;)
What money did they steal from you? The Crown Estates make more money for the treasury than they receive in return from the Civil List. If anything they MAKE money...
As a young Princess, she went to war just like everyone else - I found this pic:
Learned how to turn wrenches servicing engines in the Territorials.
That was a whole different generation from what we're living with these days...
LOL.
I agree!
They don’t make people like her anymore.
It must have come from living through the war, and the aftermath.
I am convinced that my “fellow citizens” in America would have caved under The Blitz.
The Brits were made of sterner stuff, then.
I have always loved the good Queen. And she is a dead ringer for my Mom who even carried her purse like the Q.
She is a wonderful person, good staunch character. Must be going nuts with the young ones.
Even with the hateful smear campaign against her in the film The Queen, starring Helen Mirren, I have great respect for Her Majesty. Happy Anniversary to the royal couple, and may they enjoy many more years together.
somewhere along the line I’ve seen a photo of Elizabeth, an annoyed look on her face, and I think her hands are in a muff. Phillip is following her down the steps, smirking, trying to reach her arm, and saying something. It was the morning after the wedding. :’)
http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/6913/solstice2550wm9.jpg
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/76086669.jpg
http://www.britishroyalwedding.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/elizabethphilip.jpg
http://worldroots.com/brigitte/gifs/queenelizabeth59.jpg
Civ, that second link isn’t working?
PING~!
Very sweet story, and sweet pictures, too!
I remember as a little girl seeing B&W film of Queen Elizabeth’s coronation, and just being in awe at the ceremony.
But from afar, they are a couple of characters in their own right!
*Loathe* them? What harm do they do? Yes,they get lots of taxpayers' money...but it can't come to much more than 5 or 10 pounds per taxpayer per year.IMO,if you want to look at it from a "value for money" standpoint I'll bet that the Queen,due to her "image" and notoriety,brings more money (specifically,tourist money) into the British economy than they take in the form of paychecks from the government purse.
I loved this item when Nia Vardalos met the Queen here in Canada...
Vardalos and the Queen Compare Greek Relatives
14 October 2002 (WENN)
My Big Fat Greek Wedding star Nia Vardalos dined at the same table as British monarch Queen Elizabeth II - and they chatted about their Greek relatives. The star of the surprise hit film was asked to explain the idea for the movie to the Queen, who confessed to identifying with the subject matter. Vardalos says, “She asked me to explain my movie to her. And I said, ‘Well it’s all about my family and they’re right there.’ And the whole family went, ‘Whoo!’ and waved — and she smiled and waved back.” Vardalos went on to tell the Queen how her small low key wedding to husband Ian Gomez in 1993 had spiraled out of control after her family became involved - before Her Majesty explained how her husband Prince Philip is also Greek. She says, “I said I realized I was having a big fat Greek wedding and she laughed and she said, ‘Well, you know Phil is Greek.’ She asked how big my family was and I said I have 27 cousins and she said, ‘I have 23.’ “
They actually make a profit for Britain.
OK, GSC, I am with UKrepublican on this one. No person in a republic has the right to “just 5 or 10” quid just for being who they are. That is taxation by royal right. Until relatively recently, the monarch was not required to pay taxes. This goes back to sovereign law, where the sovereign cannot tax itself. Rex Gratia Dei is no longer the law, and Dinero Gracia Dei (for my Spanish speaking friends) should not be the law either.
Given everything the more recent generation of royals have done (including the drugs/sex scandal tied to an blackmail attempt thwarted by Scotland Yard), having these folks with their hands in your pocket is ... well ... un-American.
UKrepublican for PM!
oops. that came out of the Google image search, and there was some extra crud on the end (after the “.jpg”) that I eliminated and tried. It worked without it, must be because I’d been there before.
We fund the royal family, to the tune of tens of millions of pounds.
That is MY TAX MONEY.
Their estates, make money selling all sorts of things, including produce etc - but it would still be making money if we didn’t have a royal family.
None of that money comes back to me.
Problems of world could be solved following the teaching of Islam: Charles
Pak Tribune
Posted on 11/03/2006 2:21:00 AM EST by CrawDaddyCA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1731303/posts
“Britain’s Crown Prince Charles has said that Islam is a religion of peace and brotherhood and the problems being faced by the world could be solved by following the teaching of Islam.”
Like I said they take my money,
I don’t carw HOW much it is - it could be once singly penny for all I care.
The point is, they are an unelected head of state.
I have no personal gripe - mostly they are decent people, and I have much admiration for those in the royal family that have served their country. It is a sign of real personal class.
HOWEVER my issue is with the institution of the monarchy. It is outdated. Sure foreigners love it, but I don’t care, I believe in complete democracy, and while my tax money is paying for them to live a life of luxury, I won’t be satisfied.
Thank you.
You know even IF they were making a profit it wouldn’t matter.
FACT - Tourism from royal residences make up not even 1% of UK tourism income
FACT - France has been a republic for decades and has THREE TIMES as many tourists as the UK
Ultimately the royal family takes millions upon millionsw of pounds in subsidies etc.
The queen and co take many millions of pounds in personal income.
I have to say, though, most of my interest in England is in my curiosity about the Queen and her family. I was able to go to London for the Queen’s Jubilee in 1977. She seemed to be making everyone a great deal of money then: It was murderous to get a room or a seat for dinner; and everyone was buying tea-towels, et al.
The Crown Esates are the rightful property of the Queen. The revenues are surrendered to the government in return for a payment from the civil list, which amounts to the equivlent of about 50p per annum from every person in the UK. Hardly extortionate is it?
But as I say, the Crown Estates make more money for the government than the Queen receives from the treasury in return, and to deprive her of the civil list payments would mean breaking the agreement dating back to George III’s time when the revenue was surrendered in return for the Civil List payment. By rights the Crown Estates and all their revenue should then revert back to the Queen. If the Government tried to seize them, well, only someone who does not believe in the right to private property would advocate that...
France can be DRIVEN to.
“The Crown Esates are the rightful property of the Queen”
Correct. I am not proposing they be taken from her.
“The revenues are surrendered to the government in return for a payment from the civil list, which amounts to the equivlent of about 50p per annum from every person in the UK. Hardly extortionate is it?”
As I said - it is my money, a penny or a pound.
Ultimately we are losing many millions of pounds.
The tax status of the royal estates is messy at best and the intake we do receive no where near compensates for the many more millions of pounds we are forced to spend.
The financial cost of the monarchy as an argument against it is a ridiculous argument, as I’ve already demonstrated. In any case, do you really think a president would work for free? Having a republic would probably cost the UK taxpayer more than just keeping the monarchy.
As for the argument that they’re undemocratic, well, considering polls have consistently shown overwhelming support for the continuation of the Monarchy, I would say that Republicans are the ones who are undemocratic. Unless democracy is defined as YOUR opinion carrying the day, and sod what the majority of the British people think....
“The financial cost of the monarchy as an argument against it is a ridiculous argument, as I’ve already demonstrated”
No you haven’t - you’ve pushed out a load of old tosh - you support state interference in the economy, something most Conservatives oppose, and that is exactly what this is. Added advantages for royal estates, and a massive tax contribution from the british taxpayer. Ultimately we spend more on them than we make - to argue otherwise is a nonsense, and even then what ‘they’ make would still be made, as it is for every other farmer and landowner in the freemarket economy that survive with a far smaller subsidy from the British taxpayer.
What they contribute is ultimately a proportion of what the extremely successful Royal households make. That isn’t going to stop because they are no longer the ‘monarchy’ of the UK, unless they make that decision itself. In fact, minus the gift from my pocket to theirs and minus the tax benefits and subsidies they receive, we could quite easily make just as much, only legally and democratically.
“In any case, do you really think a president would work for free?”
Of course not, but we wouldn’t be paying for his whole family, but we would be paying for a democratically elected head of state.
“As for the argument that they’re undemocratic, well, considering polls have consistently shown overwhelming support for the continuation of the Monarchy,”
And polls have also shown a great majority see your country as more of a threat to the world than Iran and opposition to fighting wars with you.
I guess we should stop that also should we?
“Unless democracy is defined as YOUR opinion carrying the day, and sod what the majority of the British people think....”
I’m not proposing FORCING my opinion on anybody.
At very least their should be a referendum. There isn’t plans for one, there never has been one and most likely there never will be one.
I’m not interested in whether what I say is popular. I know what I say is right - I believe in modern democracy, not out dated un elected, elitist and snobby monarchists.
Polls show all sorts of crap - alot of it isn’t friendly to what Conservatives believe. We don’t however shut up shop and turn in on ourselves - we stand by what we believe because we know it is just and fair.
First of all, I’m British, not American. And Conservative values in this country by the very definition of the word ‘conservative’ imply that one should generally support the traditional values of your society, which includes the monarchy. Any Briton who advocates republicanism cannot with a straight face describe themself as a ‘conservative’ small ‘c’ or large, because they oppose something that is a fundamental part of the British constitution and are therefore a Radical.
As for the financial viability of the monarchy, The Crown Estates bring in the best part of £100,000,000 in revenue for the UK government ( http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Crown+Estate ), whereas the civil list comes to less than £10 million. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/the_royal_accounts/civil_list.stm ) The Queen therefore puts in about 10 times into the treasury as she receives in return from the treasury. Most, if not all and more of it, would also be spent on a president of a British Republic for the purpose of upkeep of buildings, staff salaries, entertaining dignitaries etc, as well as personal expenses.
More would have to be spent because you wouldn’t just have one president and their family to take care of, you would also have to pay the pension and security expenses of all the living former presidents as well. There is no living former British monarch and there is only one family to protect....
“And Conservative values in this country by the very definition of the word ‘conservative’ imply that one should generally support the traditional values of your society, which includes the monarchy. Any Briton who advocates republicanism cannot with a straight face describe themself as a ‘conservative’ small ‘c’ or large, because they oppose something that is a fundamental part of the British constitution and are therefore a Radical.”
That is complete nonsense. Conservatives in this country are by any means a diverse group for a start. The monarchy is an established part of this country by un democratic means, and historically that is a fact. Time change, and our democracy hasn’t been moving with those times.
The traditional values of our society are democratic - and an un elected head of state completely contradicts that.
“As for the financial viability of the monarchy, The Crown Estates bring in the best part of £100,000,000 in revenue for the UK government ( http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Crown+Estate ),”
Your web site is available to subscribers only, I cannot access the page.
Now to take that up, the monarchy alone costs nearly 100,000,000 a year to PROTECT:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article482303.ece
“the cost of protecting the Royal Family is said to be almost £100 million a year.”
“Most, if not all and more of it, would also be spent on a president of a British Republic for the purpose of upkeep of buildings, staff salaries, entertaining dignitaries etc, as well as personal expenses.”
Yep - but they would be ELECTED. There would be far less of them - i.e. not a whole family.
After all, the whole Bush family is not entitled or expected to carry out public duties.
Also compare to even the expenditure of the Irish president:
“REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
In Irish pounds, for the year 1996
Office of the Secretary to the President:
salaries and wages, £376,000
Travel and subsistence, £156,000
Incidentals, £15,000
Postal and telecommunications services, £62,000
Office machinery and supplies, £41,000
Centenarians’ Bounty £35,000”
It simply doesn’t compare.
http://www.put.com/~monarchy/expense2.html
“More would have to be spent because you wouldn’t just have one president and their family to take care of, you would also have to pay the pension and security expenses of all the living former presidents as well. There is no living former British monarch and there is only one family to protect....”
Yes one family that in total ammounts to more individuals than there are for example former living PMs and Presidents COMBINED.
PP: "Did you say "Charles got caught with ANOTHER arab boy?..."
lol. That look kinda goes along with that. Good job!!!
ping
Thanks you.
In the film QUEEN, James Cromwell gave an interesting performance as Prince Phillip...He was not portrayed as “warm and fuzzy”.
He’s always cheated on her.
I do think it’s funny as all git out that you’re finding it tough to criticize the monarchy on a board full of knuckle-dragging right-wing Yanks, but I can be as sentimental as the next guy. They look like really sweet people. And my tax money is paying Hillary’s salary. Just shoot me. ;-)
However much I dislike Hillary - she is elected and as a believer in democracy she can rightfully claim some money
I never elected the royals.
As for criticism - I think most here would agree - they may ‘like’ them, but ask them if they want the same, the’ll laugh in your face.
Beside, as I’ve said, it’s nothing personal, most of them are decent people - I just disagree with the concept of a monarch. Orf with my head I guess....
She appeared bitter and spiteful towards Diana after she died. And Diana was the mother of her grandsons.....it was shameful.
..the Queen no doubt expected Diana to 'smile & press' on regardless of Charles infidelities....
..but when Diana didn't/wouldn't...
.. the Queen took umbrage.
My tax money - one of MANY reasons I am opposed to the royals.
You, my friend, are my kind of Englishmen. Windsor-Hanover-Saxe Coburg must go!
I have made several trips to England and Scotland, I would have paid to tour a royal residence but at the time it was not possible. Can you do that now?
William and Harry were her grandsons.........she should have cared about and respected their mother....the fact that she didn’t is disgusting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
