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~
“The elected representatives of Great Britain, put in power by British voters in free elections, wanted no part of a Republic of Great Britain.”
WRONG
The British government is put in place at the request of the UN-ELECTED monarch. That is how the British system has always worked. The government yes commands a majority of voters in parliament, but if you think that they allow every bill to pass through to a second reading based on actual support for it - you are living in a fantasy world.
Please know the basics of the monarchy and our system before discussing it.
That is such a stupid arguement. Just because something has evolved, i.e as in a monarchy, or on occasions even a dictatorship, it does not mean it has a democratic mandate or credentials.
Non sequitur.
Your thinking is so concrete that it is obvious that trying to debate with you is a waste of time.
So, let me simplify things for you:
You want a Republic of Great Britain?
Get the majority of the British electorate to agree with you. After the next democratic election and after the time necessary to pass the required legislation, it will then be so.
Simple as that. Good luck.
“Non sequitur.
Your thinking is so concrete that it is obvious that trying to debate with you is a waste of time.”
Yes nice linky etc - but I’m here to debate the facts - and I responded to your points without dismissing you. You should try and do the same.
“You want a Republic of Great Britain?
Get the majority of the British electorate to agree with you. After the next democratic election and after the time necessary to pass the required legislation, it will then be so.
Simple as that. Good luck.”
Yes all very nice and well, I have no problem with that but you failed to actually respond to what I said or any of the points I made.
I keep forgetting how pretty she was. She is like Deborah Kerr without the red hair. But this would be the Kerr of “The Sundowners,” where she played without the make-up.
Then the Windsors have to be paid off, and I guess that like the other formerly royal houses, they would remain among the richest families in Europe.
In any society, be it democratic or dictatorial, the monarchy can simply be told to pack their bags and hit the road. No society has to pay off royals.
Prince Phillip's family was once told to do just that when the Greek monarchy was abolished in 1922.
Au contraire, the film "The Queen" made her out to be a cold-hearted, anal-retentive monster who had no finesse in keeping faith with her people after Diana's death - she needed Tony Blair to ride to the rescue to save her throne.
She was made out to be a diginified human being who makes mistakes and admits them. It’s certainly nothing resembling a smear job. The Royal Family was pleased with the film and there was talk about Helen Mirren being invited to Buckingham Palace for tea.
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.