The funeral of the Queen was bound to be a historic event. But the funeral pales in comparison to the series of last moments leading up to today. Since she died eleven days ago, there have been multiple moments. The ones that finally bring it home to you that she is gone.
Each of these moments has affected people differently. For some it was the moment they saw the coffin. For others, queuing at Westminster Hall. Who could forget the corgis awaiting their mistresses arrival? Or the sight of the Queen's fell pony, Emma, with the Queen's headscarf on the saddle?
Seeing 1926-2022 for the first time. The blankets of flowers, the marmalade sandwiches, the Paddington bears, the thoughtful tributes. The last official portrait. The stoic members of the royal family, sharing their grief with the world. The stoicism slipping in public. Royals being human. Imagine that.
The touching official statements. The King's first speech. The historic vigils of the Queen's children, and grandchildren. The meaningful jewels worn in tribute, the wreath and note on the coffin. The editorial cartoons. The sight of Prince George and Princess Charlotte at the funeral service, starting a lifetime of sharing their grief with the world.
Leaving Balmoral for the last time. Last stay at the Palace of Holyrood House. The last flight. The last stay at Buckingham Palace. The last arrival at Windsor. Hearing her styles and titles read aloud. Watching the Lord Chamberlain break his wand of office and place it on her coffin. The removal of the regalia atop her coffin. Her duty done. The last sight as she descended into the royal vault, finally at peace, away from the public gaze. Reunited with those she loved and who loved her.
I can't pinpoint the exact moment it hit me. Maybe taking these moments together is enough. Watching the funeral, the interminable drive to Windsor. It felt like this moment would go on forever. Watching these moments all week, it was almost too much. Now that it is over, it may never be enough.
What is the moment it finally hit you that she was gone?
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
As details emerge regarding Queen Elizabeth II's funeral arrangements, one question on many minds is where she will be buried. While Westminster Abbey, the site of her wedding and coronation, as well as the final resting place for previous monarchs, would seem fitting, St George's Chapel, Windsor, has been the preferred location for royal burials. Sovereigns from several dynasties are buried there. While many historical royals are buried in the vault, it is now used as a temporary location to keep coffins until ready for burial at Royal Burial Ground at Frogmore. Or another location, such as the interment of Prince Philip's mother, Princess Andrew of Greece, who was initially interred in the royal vault in 1969 before being transferred in 1988, to the Mount of Olives convent in Jerusalem. The longest royal to stay in the vault is Prince George, Duke of Kent, who died in 1942. It wasn't until 1968, after his wife's death, that he was removed for joint burial. Some members are sent directly to the private burial ground instead. The Duke of Windsor is the only former monarch to be buried there.
Public domain
In Queen Elizabeth's case, it was very unlikely she would be buried in the private grounds. It is speculated she will be interred in the King George VI Memorial Chapel. This chapel is not specified on the official Royal Family website. As of this writing, the arrangements end with A Committal Service will then take place in St George's Chapel.' But many expect the King George VI Memorial Chapel to be her final resting place. When the Queen's father died in 1952, he was temporarily kept in the King George III vault, until a new chapel was built. The King George VI Memorial Chapel was the first new addition to the St George's Chapel since 1504.
It was designed by George Pace, with stained glass windows by John Piper and Patrick Reyntiens. There were design challenges in applying a 20th century design that worked with the existing architecture. Over 200 drawings were created for the building and furnishing of the chapel. The final design was inspired by the spirit of late-Gothic. Located off the North Quire Aisle, the chapel took nine months to construct and was completed in 1969. It was designed in two parts, the outer Liturgical Chapel and the inner Mortuary Chapel. The chapel is tiny, but it also looks simple. According to the designer, this is not so. The Queen and Queen Mother took a personal interest in the planning and design, which leads me to believe it was planned as a final resting place, not only her father, mother and sister, but also the Queen and Prince Philip in time.
By VCR Giulio19 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikipedia
The stonework of the chapel is Clipsham stone, and a polished Purbeck stone floor. The wrought iron gates are inspired by the ones at Edward IV's tomb. The chapel is entered through an arched opening, down three steps, and the ceiling is painted with a network of gold leaf tracery. A black marble ledger stone, reminiscent of the one for Henry VI, marks the entrance to the vault. The names of George VI and his consort, Elizabeth, are inscribed and bronze medallions of the King and Queen are mounted on the wall. The king's medallion was made by William Reid Dick, and the Queen Mother's by Michael Rizzello. A Caithness stone slab commemorates the interment of Princess Margaret, who had died in February 2002. Her ashes were interred at the same time as her mother's coffin in April of that year.
The chapel is furnished with a small stone altar, on top of the altar stands a modern Celtic cross donated by Princess Margaret. The altar has two silver candlesticks on each side. These were presented to the Queen by the Royal Air Force to mark the fiftieth anniversary of its foundation. As Prince Albert, King George VI was certified as a RAF pilot in 1919.
King George VI was privately transferred to the chapel in March 1969. The chapel was dedicated on Monday, March 31st 1969 with a service attended by the Queen, the Queen Mother and other extended royal family members. You can watch footage on the day of the dedication below.
The message on the gates of the entrance is from the poem, "God Knows', by Minnie Louise Haskins. The King quoted this poem during his 1939 Christmas broadcast.
'I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year;
Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.
And he replied:
Go out into the darkness and put your hand into the hand of GOD,
That shall be you better than a light and safer than a known way.'
Prince Philip, who died in 2021, is likely, currently still in the royal vault, with preparations made to inter him with the Queen. George VI referred to himself, his wife and two daughters as 'The Firm'. If the Queen and Prince Philip are interred in the George VI chapel, they will all be together again.
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
The Queen died on Thursday, September 8th. At 96, it wasn't a shock. She had looked frail in photos and public appearances in recent years, no doubt having slowly gone downhill after the death of Prince Philip. Those around at the time of the death of her father in 1952, unlikely to provide perspective in how to grieve someone like her. Someone many of us have never met, but who has been a constant in our lives. The only monarch many of us have ever known. We are in a less deferential time, experiencing the event different from previous generations. What would people in Queen Victoria's day make of hearing the news via social media alert?
On Thursday morning I awoke to the news she was under medical supervision, but thought little more about it. She is frail, but she will rally. This is the person who recovered from Covid. She wasn't going anywhere. A photo of her at Balmoral, meeting her latest Prime Minister had her looking frail, but still with that spark. Truth be told, I thought she would outlive us all. We would celebrate her 100th birthday in due course and with concern, while admiring her all the more for it.
Later that day, when I heard she died, I was surprised. When I heard Prince Charles referred to as The King, I was even more surprised. This was new and would take some getting used to. From this point forward we would have three kings. It is unlikely we will ever say God Save the Queen at any point in our lifetimes. Depending on whether Prince George's first child is a girl, it could be 100 years from now, or more. Who could have known that Wednesday, September 7th would be the last time saying it would apply?
Watching her coffin leave Balmoral for the last time brought it home to me. Watching coverage of her cortege as it made its way to the Palace of Holyroodhouse, the official residence of the British monarch in the Scottish capital. It will remain in Scotland until Tuesday, when it will make the journey back to London by airplane. We will watch again as it disembarks. Another hearse, another journey, lying in State in Westminster Hall, then her State funeral, before she makes her final journey to St. George's Chapel Windsor. A life, and a death under global scrutiny.
I'm not a monarchist by any means. I had a respect for the Queen, but truth be told, I've long thought she should retire. No one could argue she has not carried out her duty. The longest serving monarch in British history, she had earned the right to rest, and enjoy her life. When Prince Philip retired from public life in 2017, I thought he had the right idea. No one thought any less of him for doing so. Nor would anyone have thought any less of her. It was difficult to watch her grow frail before our eyes. No one could avoid the reality. It was only a matter of time before we would face a new one.
On September 19th we will say our final goodbye. Finally, a long earned rest, free from the gaze of the public eye.
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Two years ago, I watched in awe as Prince Harry finally got his happily ever after. Looking at Meghan's ecstatic face, bouncing with joy, as she joined Harry at the altar, you would never have suspected the family controversy only days before. The only evidence was Meghan walking alone, part way, up the aisle. Creating one of the most compelling royal wedding images ever.
Today was indeed special. Harry had spent the last 7 years playing third wheel to William and Catherine at joint engagements. Now he would finally have a happy family of his own. There were signs this ceremony would be different, it was more personal and less formal. Judging by the reaction shots of the royals during the ceremony, they seemed uncertain how to respond to Bishop Michael Curry's energetic sermon. I doubt St George's Chapel had ever hosted an American gospel choir within its 500 year history. It was an unforgettable and unique day.
At the time. William, Catherine, Harry and Meghan, were lauded as the 'Fab Four'. Two years on, the royal family looks very different. It is hard to celebrate when the two couples held such promise for the future. Each generation plays a role in reinvigorating an institution viewed by many as outdated in democratic society. Queen Victoria was 18 when she inherited the throne, a fresh start after reigns of dissolute kings. King George VI, Queen Elizabeth and their young family, offered stability after the abdication crisis. Their daughter, Princess Elizabeth, now Queen Elizabeth II, heralded a new future when she made her 21st birthday speech in South Africa in 1947.
Each heir has a path, a predetermined future, providing continuity people expect. But there are consequences when you step out of your lane or ignore it altogether. Prince Edward, later King Edward VIII and Duke of Windsor, was a counterpoint to his stuffy parents. He brought the worst controversy in modern royal history. Princess Margaret had a scandalous relationship with Peter Townsend. Charles, Diana, Andrew and Sarah Ferguson brought their own troubles. Diana's death struck a different blow. For all of the doom and gloom predictions, the royal family survived, as they always do. But it is somewhat ironic that Camilla, the source of so much anguish in Charles and Diana's marriage, should be the one to help steady the ship.
William and Catherine are now caretakers of the future. Harry and Meghan tried to mould a different future and paid a high price in trying. Despite good intentions, maybe they never had a chance to begin with. Regardless of what happens in the future, the royal institution will continue, as it always does.
Today is Harry and Meghan's second wedding anniversary. A day to celebrate their happiness and joy. It is also a reminder of a promising future and what might have been.
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
A new royal year begins. Thankfully every British royal survived 2016 and we royal watchers can all go back to our daily lives without worrying about it. At least for now.
2016 ended on a worrisome note for the royals. What with the Queen and Prince Philip both suffering from colds and foregoing taking the train to Sandringham because of it. Cue the alarmist 'KEEP CALM but here's why we should worry' and 'Here's what happens when the Queen dies...' articles. Why wait for official confirmation when we can stir up hysteria and take practice runs?
2016 was a terrible year for celebrities. Tom Hanks was spared but as the list of other notable deaths grew (David Bowie, Prince, Glen Frey, Alan Rickman, Mohammed Ali, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Carrie Fisher, Debbie Reynolds), some couldn't help but fear for the Queen and Prince Philip. As if 2016 was some indiscriminate grim reaper wreaking havoc on beloved celebrities instead of just a number. As the evidence mounted that no one was safe, it was time to transfer the Queen to the safety bunker! We could breathe a sigh of relief upon either reaching January 1st, 2017 safe in the knowledge that 2016 had bypassed the most important royals. Or could we?
There is no denying that minor ailments to the young can be deadly for the elderly. The Queen and Prince Philip are now 90 and 95 respectively. Being reminded of their mortality is enough to raise anxiety and put knots in anyone's stomach. It did to mine. But just how constructive is it to count the number of days between public appearances? Concern grew when the Queen did not make her regular appearance at the New Year's Day church service. It was as if people want the Queen to get better but also make a public appearance if only to reassure us all is well. New updates on how the Queen is 'on the mend' is not enough. The Queen once reportedly said that she has to be seen to be believed. For royal watchers this has now turned to 'we won't believe it until we see her.'
One twitter follower labelled it 'ambulance chasing' and I think that is a perfect label for this type of coverage. Unfortunately, with the Queen's advancing age, we can now look forward to more of it.
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Elizabeth at 90 is a special tribute to Queen Elizabeth on her 90th birthday. Featuring rarely seen footage of the Queen through her childhood to being a young mother and monarch, Elizabeth at 90 provides a personal glimpse of the Queen through her family. Various members of the royal family contributed to the special, including the Prince of Wales, Prince William, Prince Harry, Lady Sarah Chatto, the Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra, Queen Margarethe of Denmark, the Queen's first cousin, Margaret Rhodes and most significantly, the Queen herself. In her entire reign, she has never given an interview, so it is a rare treat to listen to her asides about the footage.
A very enjoyable special. Make sure you enjoy it while it is still online!
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
On par with royal weddings, births and deaths, a significant birthday is like Christmas for fans and critics alike. The perfect occasion for royal correspondents and armchair royal experts to provide best wishes and uncritical commentary. For critics it is a valuable opportunity to get their point across on a high profile scale. For politicians a chance to provide loyal addresses to be quoted in future. In between the saccharine greetings and parade raining tweets, I would like to take a moment to reflect on this occasion.
Along with holding records for the longest reign and marriage, she also holds the record for oldest British monarch. Today she has become the first monarch to ever reach the age of 90. At this rate, if she keeps going, she will be sending herself a 100th birthday card. The Queen can comfortably rest on these laurels, safe in the knowledge that no one will ever come close to surpassing her. To the Queen it seems to be business as usual. Unveiling plaques, lighting beacons and cutting cakes is just another day at the office for her. When she surpassed Queen Victoria, she put the occasion into perspective:
"Inevitably a long life can pass by many milestones - my own is no exception - but I thank you all and the many others at home and overseas for your touching messages of great kindness."
The Queen will no doubt express the same sentiment today and people will laud her all the more for it. With her unquestioned dedication, the Queen has more than earned the respect she is given. No matter how valid their opinions may be, critics cannot dampen the Queen's universal appeal without making themselves look bad. As the Queen well knows, it is easy to get caught up in the occasion. Best to wait until the hyperbole has died down before making a comment that won't fall on deaf ears.
Unless you want your message to get drowned out, today, (April 21, 2016) is not the day to talk about how the monarchy is wrong in principle and has no place in the modern age. How undemocratic the system is and how there is no guarantee that the monarchy is safe and secure for the foreseeable future. Be patient and wait until the bunting has cleared. Your time will come.
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
You: Sacrilege! How can you possibly dislike a speech where a young woman declared her dedication to the nation? Have you no heart?
Okay, I have nothing against the speech itself. It is patriotic and who can argue with the sentiment? No, I dislike when other people repeat it. Especially now that the Queen is almost 90. Actions speak louder than words and since she spoke those words in 1947, she has more than proven her dedication to the point there is no question. Whatsoever. If you think you have a good reason to question it, you haven't been paying enough attention.
In recent years she has hit several milestones. In 2012 she celebrated her Diamond jubilee. In 2015 she became the longest reigning monarch in British history. In 2016, the Queen will turn 90. On that occasion we will no doubt hear this chestnut trotted out time and again by people who have only read about her in books or observed her from a distance. No doubt they have memorized the words so that when someone asks how the Queen has remained so dedicated throughout her reign they can say: "Well, in 1947 she said....'I declare before you all.."
The actual speech is much longer (835 words) but it is the following 34 words that people quote the most:
I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short
shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial
family to which we all belong.
Good heavens! Even I'm doing it!
Yes she is dedicated. She has reiterated it a number of times over the years, most recently rededicating herself anew in 2012 during her Diamond Jubilee year. To be quite honest, I thought the last reminder to be completely unnecessary. A) Because she has proven it B) Because if you're on a roll, why jinx it?
The main reason I dislike quoting that speech is because it tends to ignore a crucial reality. The Queen is mortal and she will die. It makes no allowances for anything less than that. She is slowing down (regardless of whether people want to acknowledge it). Holding her to a speech she said at 21 is completely unrealistic in light of how old she is. Sometimes I wonder, if, for arguments sake. If the queen were to decide to retire/abdicate would people hold it against her? Mention the mere idea and you won't be allowed to complete the senten--
"It will NEVER happen! She said so herself...'I declare before you all...' and although I've never met her the very idea is an anathema to her..."
But she is getting older...if anyone deserves a break it is her?
"NO!..It will NEVER happen..."
As wonderful as it would be, the Queen cannot keep going. She has remarkable stamina for her age. Longevity is in her DNA. But the people who quote the speech at every milestone want her to keep going, regardless. As if the idea of her slowing down/taking a break (read: acknowledging her mortality) is wrong. When Pope Benedict XVI resigned and monarchs in Netherlands, Spain and Belgium abdicated because they knew their limits they were criticized as quitters. Instead of being seen as a prudent decision in light of their health or to make way for the new generation, it was seen as a negative.
Those families acknowledged reality while we maintained smug bragging rights.
"Well, they couldn't hack it but our queen..OUR Queen knows what dedication is.. Why, she said so herself in 1947: 'I declare..'"
Now, fast forward 10 years to her 100th birthday. Still reigning, dedicated and going strong.
Me: Maybe she should take a break? Step down?
"NO, NO...she said 'I declare before you all'
Fast forward to 2030. The Queen is 104 and although in sound mind she is frail and fading slowly. Maybe it is time to call it a day?
"Never! Remember when she said 'I declare before you all..."
As she gets older this will become more absurd. It's as if it is a point of pride for people. We are here to remind her that she must keep going - no. matter. what. It wouldn't surprise me if people quoted it on her deathbed. The Queen did not write the speech and privately she must have misgivings about being held to those words: 'Out of all of the things I have said since then, that is what people remember?' How many of us would want to be held to something we said when we were 21? Even if it was the most moral, righteous, perfect statement. It would be a lot to live up to for anyone.
Here's the thing. Those words do not represent her reign. They do not encapsulate who she is as a person. If she decides to step down tomorrow, it will not diminish her stellar duty and devotion. If anyone deserves a break, it's her! After her death, it will be a long time before we see anyone as dedicated as her again.
So the next time she has a bout of ill health or another monarch steps down, instead of quoting that speech, how about looking at her realistically and cutting her some slack instead?
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
I've never made any secret that I'm not a monarchist. It is in the tagline for my blog. I do things which conflict with that. For instance, I avidly collect magazines and some memorabilia whenever a royal event happens. I also read articles and lurk on message royal message boards. Not to mention that I went to Britain for William and Catherine's wedding and hit royal landmarks during my recent trip.
I'm a complicated individual. Don't judge me.
However, I also disagree with the monarchy. Not based on anything political but on principle. The idea of bowing down to someone because of an accident of their birth is an anathema to me. During twitter arguments I secretly rejoice when a republican has made a valid point and fume when a monarchist has shot it down with a predicable, yet valid, one. I have a hard time understanding monarchists who admire the royals for the sake of admiring them. Showing deference because they believe royals and those in authority are somehow 'better' than the rest of us. It is just not true.
On this occasion in particular, my republican leanings make me wonder what we are celebrating for. The Queen's longevity? She definitely has great genetics. Sure, her stellar sense of duty should be acknowledged but it also goes without saying. Yet people try. At the rate we are exhausting saccharine platitudes, will there be anything left to say in the future? Is it any wonder the republicans are vociferously presenting the other side? In all honesty, I think members of the Republican movement make themselves look bad when they try to argue against it. Railing against an 89 year old woman would make anyone look bad.
However, sometimes you can also have too much of a good thing. In the last four years we have had the royal wedding, Diamond jubilee, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, now this. Planning for her 90th birthday is underway and there is even speculation about her Platinum jubilee in 2022. Haven't we run out of cake yet?
Despite all of this, reading the coverage about Queen Elizabeth II becoming the longest serving monarch in British history, I can't help but feel a small sense of pride. She made it! Looking at photographs of her, I see her evolution, the growing respect. Her sense of duty is unquestionable and all in all, I would say she has been an asset to her realms. History will be kind to her. Because she has set the bar so high, the same cannot be said about those that come after her.
Based on this, getting off the fence has its appeal. Even if it only for one day. Despite this temptation, I know that I will never be a monarchist (nor a true republican), but I will always remain fascinated.
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
As the Queen draws closer to breaking Queen Victoria's record for the longest reigning sovereign in British history, there will be much commentary about the significance of the moment. Much of it will be the inevitable saccharine tributes with the oft-quoted 21st birthday speech thrown in for good measure. But some of it will be critical as well. As in the case of David Starkey's comments that the Queen "has done and said nothing anybody will remember." Although I think that is a harsh assessment, when it comes to her actual reign, he raises a point.
Other than 1992's 'Annus horribilis' speech and her aside right before the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum for people to "think very carefully about the future," I genuinely can't think of anything that will provide history with the defining words to encapsulate her reign. The Queen is the embodiment of keep calm, carry on, and only respond if the problem doesn't immediately go away. On occasion it backfires and she is brought to heel for it. But moments like that are rare.
It could be said - and no doubt it will be - that it is not what she says, it is what she does. Or doesn't do. The Queen does not give sound bites. She does not give interviews. She does not pander to the public. She does not need to. She steers clear of controversy and remains neutral. It is one of the reasons why she is so well respected. She may not say much but, how can you argue with such a shining example of selfless duty?
In the last 63 years, had she expounded on every topic like Prince Charles, the media would stockpile the ammunition. Her public pronouncements have been limited to her annual Christmas speech and at the State Opening of Parliament. I can't think of anything memorable in either case. But then again, I'm not expecting to. I doubt anyone else is either. The times of looking to the royal family to set an example are long gone.
When the Queen dies and newscasts look back upon her reign, the images are likely to be filled with scenes from her coronation, along with public appearances of her waving and smiling throughout the decades. Commentators who have only observed her at distance will speak for her, using the word 'duty' over and over again to define her legacy and what she was really like as a person.
In the absence of her own words, she will leave us to draw the definitive conclusions.
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
20 seconds of eight decade old film. You would think everything the Queen had accomplished in her lifetime would come crashing down as a result of it.
Truth be told, to our modern eyes, The Sun's footage featuring the seven year old Princess Elizabeth, her mother, the Duchess of York, Princess Margaret and their Uncle David, the future King Edward VIII, performing the Nazi salute is shocking. Given what we know about Uncle David, it is no surprise. It is surprising and riveting to see the future Queen doing so. No doubt about it.
Buckingham Palace was quick to issue a statement in her defense. Tweets and articles defending the Queen followed suit, along with more politically correct wartime images to counter it. As if it would change anything.
The Queen's was a child in the footage and holding her to account for it is absurd. No one in their right mind would countenance the thought. The Sun itself recognizes this.
The next time someone rushes to defend her, they would be wise to remember that 20 seconds of old footage does not negate the Queen's unquestionable lifetime of dedicated service.
Come what may, her track record will always speak for itself.
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Huzzah, William and Kate have finally named their newborn daughter! Introducing Her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge. Charlotte and Elizabeth seemed to be obvious choices, but the addition of Diana was a hot topic of debate on Twitter. Each name has a royal and personal connection for the couple.
Princess Charlotte of Wales via Wikipedia
Charlotte means petite and feminine. Other notable Charlotte's include Charlotte Bronte and Charlotte Church. On a more personal level, Charlotte is the middle name of Kate's sister, Pippa Middleton. Within the royal family, the name has not been used as a first name in a long time. It has a rather tragic history. The last princess to bear the name, Princess Charlotte of Wales, granddaughter of King George III and her namesake, Queen Charlotte. Princess Charlotte died in childbirth in 1817. Although the King had fifteen children, she was the only legitimate grandchild and thus heiress presumptive to the throne. Her unexpected death set in motion a royal baby race that eventually resulted in the birth of Queen Victoria. Some have also pointed out that Charlotte is the feminine version of Charles and therefore a tribute to him. Personally I think this is a bit of a reach.
Joel Rouse/Min of Def/Wikipedia
Elizabeth has Hebrew origins. In the New Testament, Elizabeth is the mother of John the Baptist. It is the name of numerous Saints, and means 'Consecrated to God'. Elizabeth also happens to be the middle name of Kate herself and of her mother, Carole Middleton. Aside from Victoria, the name Elizabeth is Royal with a capital R. Although it has a long history within the royal family, Elizabeth is currently synonymous with Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother as well as the present Queen Elizabeth II. A nice regal tribute to her great-grandmother in the year she surpasses Queen Victoria as the longest reigning monarch in British history in September.
Wikipedia/Public Domain By Nick Parfjonov
Diana means 'heavenly or divine'. It has mythological origins as the Goddess of the Hunt, Moon and Childbirth. As mentioned previously, Diana was a hot point of contention on Twitter. Would William and Kate burden their daughter with the name of a iconic grandmother she will never be able to live up to? My view is, choosing the name Diana was always up to William and Kate, regardless of pro/con public opinion. A beautiful name and a beautiful tribute to a mother gone but not forgotten.
Welcome Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge!
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Today I woke up to the news that King Juan Carlos of Spain has decided to abdicate his throne. By doing so he joins the company of other recent former monarchs, including King Albert of Belgium and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands.
Like King Albert II's of Belgium, King Juan Carlos' reign has been mired by scandal and he is ill. Juan Carlos is also not popular amongst his subjects. In his place comes a younger, fresher and more glamorous royal family. Crown Prince Felipe and his wife Letizia. Their daughter Infanta Leonor becomes, for now, the youngest heir to a European throne. Belgium and the Netherlands have experienced similar changes, with vibrant and glamorous royal couples and their photogenic children in effect, breathing new life into their monarchies.
There are some that look upon abdication as a sign of weakness, of quitting and in comparison to Queen Elizabeth II, not having the same level of dedication to their roles. I disagree. I would wager a guess that they are more dedicated because they put aside hanging on to power in favor of the future. Reading the abdication speeches of these monarchs a common thread amongst them is handing over the reigns because it is in the best interests of their monarchies to do so. I also think there is an acknowledgement of reality in these decisions. Kings and Queens are mortal and they are also not martyrs.
Something that seems to be forgotten in this issue is that the Queen herself owes her current position to the abdication of her uncle King Edward VIII in 1936. While it was a crisis at the time, it was also seen as a relief. Someone who many considered to be ill suited to the role had vacated the position. If the new King and Queen were not seen as nearly as glamorous, they radiated stability and dedication and with young Princess Elizabeth, a renewed sense of optimism in the future of the monarchy. It may have been a crisis, but no one could argue that good didn't come out of it.
Whenever a monarch abdicates it inevitably raises the question, will Queen Elizabeth II follow suit? For most people the response is a resounding NO. Articles supporting this viewpoint including quotes from her 21st birthday speech where she made her solemn declaration, dedicating herself to her subjects. We are also reminded of her sacred anointment at her Coronation and the oath she took. As if this is supposed to be the end of the discussion. However quoting a speech from 67 years ago ignores the ever present reality that the Queen is 88 and proving mortal by the minute. She has more than lived up to expectations.
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
I have a confession to make. In the last few months I've started to grow bored of the British Royal Family. For someone whose all consuming purpose in life (aside from eating and tending to my family) is to write commentary about royalty this is bad news. It is a new year and I have yet to get riled up enough to blog. I've been relegated to writing about how I am uninspired to write about royalty. What will the rest of 2014 be like?
It's off to a bad start. Recently Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge celebrated her 1,000th day as a member of the royal family. First of all, I find this number reassuring. It gives me proof that there are other people just as bored as I am. So bored they sat down and calculated how many days Catherine has been royal. It is also proof at how inane royal news has become. And it allows me to date-stamp the moment when royal news all started to go downhill.
You will find people who disagree with that statement. After all, isn't Catherine the best thing that has ever happened to the royal family in all the years of its existence? Isn't it wonderful that she is perfection personified that she has never, ever put a foot wrong? Catherine walks on water and everything she does turns to gold...
*Yawn*
I love writing critical commentary about this but right now I'm so bored I can't rouse myself to do so. I've run out of steam. Not enough to flounce skirts, gather up all my toys and melodramatically bid farewell in a blog post (sorry). But every time I read my twitter newsfeed, it slowly gets there. There's nothing controversial to write commentary about. Nothing new. No scandals to put into perspective. No sanctimonious denouncements about invading Kate's privacy by the very people who contribute to the problem. No royals getting naked or going on multiple exotic vacations. Even Prince Andrew (AKA Air Miles Andy) seems to be economizing. I used to follow various Kate fashion bloggers until my timeline was monopolized by a minute discussion about the actual color of Kate's shoes during her tour of Canada. Until that point I was completely indifferent. And this is why I'm date-stamping the downward spiral of royal news at April 29, 2011.
Before that date the coverage of Kate was much more interesting. Call it the thrill of the chase, the suspense, will they/won't they get married. The dynamic was different. The ridiculous stories were much more entertaining. Sure there was interest in outfits Kate wore, but it wasn't as obsessive as it is now. Now Kate has been relegated to a beautiful clothes horse and she seems happy to oblige. Great news for Kate fashion bloggers, but not so much for people looking for signs of substance behind it.
2013 was definitely a good year for royal news. The 60th anniversary of the coronation kept my Twitter feed dotted with tweets from grumpy republicans and smug monarchists responding to it. Surely there has to be a middle ground? Then there was Kate's pregnancy. Coverage that bordered on the ridiculous a majority of the time. But now that Kate has given birth to Prince George/Savior of the monarchy and he has been duly christened. Now what? Prince Charles shaking things up by merging PR offices. William, Harry and Catherine 'branding' themselves. Beatrice and Eugenie getting jobs. Lady Louise's successful eye surgery. William and Harry giving up playing with helicopters. Heck the most interesting "news story" is not about the royals, but about the outfit a transvestite wore to receive an honor from Prince Charles. Is this what we have to tide us over until Kate gets pregnant again or one of the royals dies?
I swear, where is a undercover reporter posing as a fake sheikh when you need one?
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Aside from finding room, one problem with compulsively collecting books (600 by last count) is that it is very hard to surprise me, especially when it comes to books containing lots of royal photographs. Books that tout 'unseen' or 'rare' royal photographs are often not the case for me. Which is why I'm often incredibly skeptical of any new release that makes these types of claims.
On first glance, Her Majesty is an impressive book. It is so large (16" x 12") and heavy (10 pounds) that it comes with its own carrying case. I would wage a guess that this book is now is the largest in my collection. It also has an impressive price tag ($150) although if you're lucky and patient you can get it on sale like I did. But just because a book is large, does not mean it breaks new ground.
Her Majesty covers the Queen's life from childhood to her Diamond jubilee celebrations. She is depicted on duty with the occasional casual photograph. Throughout her long life and reign, the Queen has been photographed by some of the finest photographers of the 20th century. Photographs, which are familiar to any avid royal follower. Unless you have never seen a book about the Queen, there are few surprises in Her Majesty. Which is disappointing given the fact that as the most photographed woman in the world, there is no shortage of material to choose from.
With Her Majesty, the text is interesting and offered in English, German and French. However, again, there are no surprises. It must be an occupational hazard for any royal biographer to come up with a new take on the Queen. Especially when other authors and journalists have already covered that same well-documented life ad-nauseam. The book becomes more interesting in the Appendix section which contains a chronology of her life and detailed list of her overseas travels from 1953 - 2011. It truly shines in the Royal Media section with newspaper and magazine covers throughout her life and reign, which serves to illustrate her cultural impact far better than any of the photographs within the book.
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Much like the observation I made about how no one is allowed to criticize Catherine and get away with it, there is another topic that seems to be off-limits. Despite the Queen's age and her recent trip to the hospital, one thing has become clear.
Do not question whether the Queen should scale back her royal duties.
Nope. She will die with her boots firmly strapped on, thank you very much.
Look at people scoffing at the Pope retiring. Regardless of how gracefully he did it. Our Queen would never do that! If she were to scale back, would people see it as a dereliction of her royal duties or breaking her sacred oath? She was 27 when she made that vow. Could something have changed in the interim?
Much like the any discussion about her abdicating, there seems to be no question about delegating. Whatsoever. That's what people say. What the Queen herself thinks is unknown. But looking back over her medical history, as the Telegraph so helpfully did we can see that she is made of good stock. Which is very impressive but doesn't change the fact that she is almost 87.
Another thing that has become clear. Though maybe people are not willing to admit it lest it jinx everything.
The Queen is human. And mortal.
And this must come as a shock because she seems as though she will live forever. The Victorians must have felt the same way about their Queen too. But look what happened. While Queen Elizabeth seems to be superhuman in terms of her work ethic, she gets ill. She goes into the hospital, media camp outside, her obituary one click away from being posted. Could it be that she needs to start slowing down?
Shhhhhhh....
Slow down? How dare you insinuate that she might be human and mortal. That she might have limits. What's up with that?
I don't think anyone would suggest that the Queen completely retire. (Actually I did, but never mind). Nor are they suggesting she should move into a retirement community where no one will ever visit her. Quite the contrary. People may think she can go on forever and take pride in her stamina but mark my words. The older she gets, the louder the question will become.
As unquestioningly dedicated to the service of her nation as she has been, there are benefits to passing the torch. Especially while she is still cognizant enough to do so. She has a son waiting in the wings and a younger generation growing older by the minute. All ready to help out if need be. And wouldn't it be good for them to have a chance to shine while they're all still photogenic and vertical?
Maybe the time has come for her to seriously consider...
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands abdication has brought up the question over whether the present Queen should follow suit. Unlike the Netherlands, abdication is not a tradition in the British royal family. After the abdication crisis of 1936 it is regarded as the equivalent of a dirty word, a sign of selfishness and a lack of dedication. But the attitude towards the 1936 abdication was based on the circumstances and associated scandal. Would it have been different if Wallis Simpson were not in the picture? Had it been any other monarch, such as Victoria, would she have been as pilloried for stepping down?
Although I'm not as familiar with the Dutch royal family, I do not get the sense that Queen Beatrix is in any way less than dedicated to her role as sovereign. Nor do I get that sense from Wilhelmina and Juliana. Does anyone think less of them for having abdicated or is it simply an acknowledgement of their mortality and a desire to pass the torch while still capable of doing so in a dignified way.
There is not a shred of doubt that the Queen will not abdicate. Dare to mention the idea and people will remind you how she dedicated herself to the service of her people in 1947, quoting her famous speech in the process. Not to mention her Coronation oath in 1953. She took a vow and was sacredly anointed. Although I am on the fence about becoming a republican, I can acknowledge that she is well respected and her dedication is unquestioned. The Queen stepping down will not happen. Period.
That doesn't mean she shouldn't.
Not to diminish those sacred oaths but the Queen is human and mortal. She is not a martyr. After 60 years on the throne, who could blame her for changing her mind in the interim? Would we hold it against her if she did? I know I wouldn't.
The Queen will turn 87 this year and she is, by all appearances, in good health. Her mother lived to 101 and there is no reason the Queen could not reach that age herself. And that would be a wonderful achievement. Not to mention a sigh of relief for people who question Prince Charles' capability to reign. But longevity aside, how effective would she be? Would she be doing the future of the monarchy any favors by continuing to reign despite her age? It may not be questioned now but just watch when she starts to approach 100.
The concept of the Queen abdicating because of her age is not a factor. The idea of her abdicating is muddled by the personalities of those involved. Whether Charles is suitable to become king. Not to mention how Charles should stand aside for William. As if the monarchy is some sort of popularity contest. That is not what this article is about. If the Queen does live as long as her mother, Charles could be in his 80s and Prince William could be in his 60s or 70s when he ascends the throne himself. How frustrating would it be to know that neither will make any meaningful impact as sovereign because they were not given the chance to? In the long run, how does the monarchy stand to benefit from that?
In her speech Queen Beatrix explained her decision to abdicate: "I do not abdicate, therefore, because the task has become an onerous one, but
because I am convinced the responsibility for our country should now be placed
in the hands of a new generation.
Even Queen Elizabeth would find it hard to ignore the wisdom in that.
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
Sometimes I wonder about the future of the monarchy.
With the old guard of dedicated, hardworking royals slowly fading away, they are replaced with a newer generation whose work ethic leaves much to be desired. Prince Charles is rumoured to be in favor of a 'slimmed down' monarchy. The rest of the minor royals/royals by proximity, have to find their own way in life. With the exception of William and Harry, the rest of the Queen's grandchildren, including ones with royal titles (Beatrice and Eugenie) can look forward to an existence unbound by the obligations of duty while maintaining the bragging rights.
But while paring down the monarchy makes sense, the attitudes of the remaining royals leaves the future of the monarchy on shaky ground. What with the foibles and celebrification of Prince Harry and Catherine and more worrying, William's reluctance to take on full-time royal duties because of a deluded desire to be 'normal'. These young royals seem to want to have it both ways - royal trappings without working towards earning them. With Catherine's willingness to abet the media in dumbing her down, when she finally rolls up the crisp white sleeves of her shirt (by Ralph Lauren), she has an uphill battle to be taken seriously. That is, if she ever does.
Yes, let's line up the nails for the coffin. The young royals will supply the hammer.
When compared to the dedication of the Queen, her dignity, her ability to remain impartial, the rest of the royals look diminished in comparison. The Queen will always be a tough act to follow, but not an impossible one. Just look at Queen Victoria and her heir, King Edward VII. Unlike the present Queen, Victoria did not have a reputation for remaining impartial, but her sheer longevity earns her respect. For all of his accomplishments as a 'Peace-maker', King Edward VII's reputation as a bon vivant and arbiter of fashion take precedence. In that respect, Charles shares something in common with his great-great grandfather. Any good deeds he does are overshadowed by his personal life. Unfortunately, the same can be said for the present young royals. The Queen is indeed, the last of her kind.
Prince Charles is in a unique position to help. And he should be lauded for the work that he has done. He walks his talk. But while he has the freedom to do this while Prince of Wales, it will be different once/if he becomes king. Like his mother, he will be expected to remain impartial and above politics. So far the signs are not good. Prince Charles does not have a reputation for being impartial nor does he cultivate one. Looking at the controversy surrounding letters he has written to politicians and the antics of the younger royals, it raises questions about the future of the monarchy. Questions we won't know the answer to until Charles becomes king. If he becomes king.
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
As mentioned in a previous post about Robert Lacey's new book, A Queen a Life in Brief, I am concerned that there will be nothing new to add about the Queen's life once she heads to that great, palace in the sky.
In this respect, Elizabeth: Reigning in Style stands out. While she was beautiful and stylish when younger, referring to the Queen has a fashion icon stretches it - in my opinion. If anything, the author at least offers a (somewhat) new perspective on her life. We may not know her true opinion on politics or anything else for that matter, but at least we now know who designed her clothing and footwear and who is responsible for some of the atrocious hats she has worn throughout her life.
Thank you for enjoying this article. If you use the information for research purposes, a link to credit the work I've put into writing it would be appreciated.
What recipe calls for over 50kg of Regal-Ice, 50kg of Royal Icing, 20kg of Marzipan and over 40 tubes of Gel Food Colours? …what else? A celebration cake fit for a Queen!
To celebrate the Queen's 60 years on the throne, Dr. Oetker teamed up with food artist extraordinaire, Prudence Staite, to recreate a 6m² ‘Cupcake Queen’ portrait of Her Majesty with over 2,012 hand-decorated cupcakes.
The edible artwork used ten cans of Gold and Silver Shimmer Spray, 60,000 Silver and Gold Soft Sugar Pearls and over 140 white Wafer Daisies from the Dr. Oetker baking range to adorn the King George IV State Diadem featured in the original iconic image taken by Dorothy Wilding in 1952.
The ‘Cupcake Queen’ was built in Prudence’ studio in Pamington, Gloucestershire and also featured 20kg of Plain and Milk Chocolate Chips and 30kg of Easy Swirl Cupcake Icing, which were used to define the Queen’s face.
Delicious!
Here's a time lapse video of the making of the Cupcake Queen.
.jpg)
by Philip Ziegler, 
by Paul Moorhouse. 
by Roy Strong. If you're looking for rare and interesting outtakes from those sessions, you can find them in 
by Susanna Brown. 
.jpg)
.JPG)
