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~
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.
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.
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.