New photographs celebrate Queen and Prince Philip's 70th wedding anniversary

[steve2470]

https://news.sky.com/story/new-photograph-celebrates-queen-and-prince-philips-70th-wedding-anniversary-11133146

?20171119214101


?20171119214816


?20171119214418


?20171118201910
The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh pictured after their wedding in 1947


?20171118184604

New photographs of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh have been released to mark their 70th wedding anniversary.

Three images were published on Sunday night, including one where Her Majesty is sitting in a gold-coloured chair, with Prince Philip standing alongside her.

Two of the other new photos are of the couple standing next to each other.

The Queen is wearing a cream day dress by her in-house designer Angela Kelly, which she also wore at the Diamond Wedding Anniversary Service of Thanksgiving. The brooch she is wearing was given to her by Prince Philip in 1966.

[VermontKevin]

1. I wish them all the best.

[UTUSN]

2. They/anti-democratic parasites

[steve2470]

3. oh my

[UTUSN]

6. I didn't join the Royalist Underground, but am breaking my own rule of skipping

what I'm unpleasant about

[brooklynite]

10. Is someone forcing the British electorate to maintain a monarchy?

[steve2470]

12. did you mean to reply to me ?

I don't think so, no. It's their government, their choices.

[Denzil_DC]

14. We've never had a vote on it.

They're an expensive luxury. I have some time for Liz herself as a stateswoman in terms of things like the Commonwealth, but the whole institution needs paring down to more modern standards (I think that'll happen after she dies - I think the younger generation of royals would like to live more normal lives, while being kept comfortably, of course).

[brooklynite]

15. ...and that's because your elected representatives (Lib, Lab and Cons) have chosen not to have one

Maybe you should take that up with them?

[Denzil_DC]

17. Why? And why's it matter to you anyway? You like them so much, you can have them!.

I'm not sure what constitutional shenanigans it would take for parliament to engineer toppling the monarchy. It's caused a bit of trouble when it's been tried in the past.

Anyway, I'd rather Liz as head of state than the dunderheads we'd no doubt end up with as president in a new republic, right enough (Jeremy Clarkson? Boris Johnson? ...) .

My reps are SNP, BTW. Third largest party in parliament at the moment.

[brooklynite]

19. This is a political blog; we talk about politics here.

[Denzil_DC]

22. Really? Dang. I hadn't noticed.

And here's me thinking it was a Mixed Martial Arts site.

It's funny, but Americans are often more royalist than Brits, certainly Brits on the left of the spectrum, and I think most of the Brits on this board.

Given your history as a country, that doesn't seem right somehow.

[brooklynite]

25. I could care less whether there's a monarchy or not...

...but I don't agree that it's "anti-democratic" when there's a democratic solution if the voters choose to demand it.

[Denzil_DC]

26. Let me entertain this for just a moment, since you're so serious and political and all.

How can voters choose to demand it in a constitutional monarchy?

All our MPs have to swear allegiance to the Queen:

I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

They can't take their seats at Westminster to vote in parliament unless they do (e.g. Sinn Fein).

Holding an election (please don't suggest a referendum ... we don't do those very well) has to be OK'd by the Queen, so it would be a little bit awkward for the prime minister of the day to go to the palace and say to Her Majesty: "We want to hold an election, ma'am. Oh, by the way, part of our platform is we're going to get rid of you."

If she even agrees and the party promising to set the wheels in motion to do that wins (if you think Brexit's complicated, you ain't seen nothing yet, as the monarchy's embedded in our legal system, armed forces etc.), it's back to:

All our MPs have to swear allegiance to the Queen:

I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

They can't take their seats at Westminster to vote in parliament unless they do (e.g. Sinn Fein).

Then there's the House of Lords, which has to pass any legislation. We can't vote them in or out (there have been some noises at various times about moving to some sort of senate system, but nothing serious, as it benefits the parties in power to be able to nominate non-hereditary peers).

Tell me about democracy again?

[steve2470]

27. I didn't realize the monarchy was so embedded in the UK system, but it makes perfect sense

What seems more likely (if it's possible) is that Parliament gradually scales back the yearly allotment of pounds they get, and eventually no one wants the job because it doesn't pay enough for what they must do. My understanding is that they have to go to all kinds of diplomatic, national and charity events to do their "royal duty", and I can see how one would pass all that up if the pay is crap.

[Denzil_DC]

33. Oh yeah.

Last edited Mon Nov 20, 2017, 11:36 AM - Edit history (1)

You might have gathered from my tone above that I was partly joshing (think Yes, Minister).

In theory, everything I say is true. In practice, the Queen's role is more ceremonial and as constitutional window dressing. It would be unthinkable, for instance, for her to withhold royal assent at the last stage of passing a law, though it's one of her theoretical powers (it's not been done since the time of Queen Anne, in 1707).

As I said earlier, I have a feeling the next generation of royals are going to want to scale back their duties and lifestyle (possibly more along the lines of nordic royalty). But it is very hard to see how we could engineer a vote to remove the monarchy (and again, please don't suggest a referendum ...).

[brooklynite]

34. Luckily, you don t have a Constitution...

“That’s how we’ve always done it” may have cultural clout, but it’s not legally binding if Parliament decides to change things.

[Denzil_DC]

37. Yes, we do have a constitution.

Britain's unwritten constitution

Unlike most modern states, Britain does not have a codified constitution but an unwritten one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions. Professor Robert Blackburn explains this system, including Magna Carta’s place within it, and asks whether the UK should now have a written constitution.

For most people, especially abroad, the United Kingdom does not have a constitution at all in the sense most commonly used around the world — a document of fundamental importance setting out the structure of government and its relationship with its citizens. All modern states, saving only the UK, New Zealand and Israel, have adopted a documentary constitution of this kind, the first and most complete model being that of the United States of America in 1788. However, in Britain we certainly say that we have a constitution, but it is one that exists in an abstract sense, comprising a host of diverse laws, practices and conventions that have evolved over a long period of time. The key landmark is the Bill of Rights (1689), which established the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown following the forcible replacement of King James II (r.1685–88) by William III (r.1689–1702) and Mary (r.1689–94) in the Glorious Revolution (1688).

From a comparative perspective, we have what is known as an ‘unwritten constitution’, although some prefer to describe it as ‘uncodified’ on the basis that many of our laws of a constitutional nature are in fact written down in Acts of Parliament or law reports of court judgments. This aspect of the British constitution, its unwritten nature, is its most distinguishing characteristic.

...

The Monarchy is one of the three components of Parliament (shorthand for the Queen-in-Parliament) along with Commons and Lords. In legal theory, the Queen has absolute and judicially unchallengeable power to refuse her assent to a Bill passed by the two Houses of Parliament. However, convention dictates the precise opposite and in practice she automatically gives her assent to any government Bill that has been duly passed and agreed by Parliament. Another important convention is that government ministers must have a seat in Parliament (and, in the case of the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, specifically in the House of Commons) in order to hold office. This is a vital aspect of what is known as the ‘Westminster system of parliamentary government’, providing a direct form of executive responsibility and accountability to the legislature.

https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution

The article goes into great detail about it.

A vast amount relies on convention - in this case, "That’s how we’ve always done it". The whole legal system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (unlike that of Scotland or other European countries founded on a different system of law) is firmly based on precedent (a term related to "convention", with overlapping meanings).

It goes well beyond "cultural", unless you're going to stretch that term to the extent that it has no meaning in this context.

It doesn't make it easy to amend. We don't have specific Articles that can be debated, amended or repealed. It's all perfused throughout the system, which is what I pointed out above.

[malaise]

38. Excellent post

I miss many late night posts.

[Retrograde]

16. Other monarchies have cooler monarchs

The current king of the Netherlands until recently was moonlighting as an airline pilot (domestic only after he was crowned, but he used to fly his mother overseas on official visits) and Denmark's queen still does the occasional set designing. Britain's monarchs are just plain dull.

[cwydro]

31. Lol.

Your teeth hurt? Shoes too tight?

Hide thread is your friend.

[cwydro]

32. She has served her country for many many years.

Over 70. What have you done?

[tammywammy]

4. 70 years is quite an accomplishment.

Lovely photos.

[Glorfindel]

5. God bless Her Majesty and Prince Philip

They are shining examples of duty, honor, and loyalty in a chaotic world.

[Princess Turandot]

7. President Obama was the 12th US president during her reign...

and I bet she liked him (and Michelle) the best.

On their final official visit to the UK, the Obamas stopped at Windsor to see them. With Phillip driving, they went out to the helicopter landing site and then, he and Elizabeth simply drove them back to the castle themselves.

[roamer65]

8. The Queen is looking well.

I think she will be around as long as her mum.

[LeftInTX]

9. I don't if it's me, but Phillip looks a little "off"

I wouldn't be surprised if these photos were touched up a bit.

[Denzil_DC]

13. Nah, that's just how he looks.

Pickled. (He is 96.)

[Hassin Bin Sober]

23. Weren't they planning for his passing just just a couple months ago?

Wasn't there some talk of him being kept out of the limelight for the duration due to illness? Dementia?

[Denzil_DC]

24. He's officially retired from public appearances, only the odd exceptional one nowadays.

Just getting old and frail, IIRC.

Don't worry, the plans for either of them passing are well advanced, and have been for years. We don't mess around when it comes to that sort of thing.

[NurseJackie]

11. Love! ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

[kskiska]

18. And she drinks four cocktails a day.

Salud!

[FakeNoose]

20. She can because she doesn't have to worry about driving

[steve2470]

21. that's a great gif lol nt

[CTyankee]

35. I wonder how her liver is holding out. Four alcoholic drinks a day?

Alcohol is notoriously difficult for the liver to deal with. I very much doubt that her physicians would let her do that...

[MFM008]

28. 70 years..wow

[RobinA]

30. I Guess We Know

who Prince William looks like these days. Wow!

[smirkymonkey]

36. That is a lovely photograph of them.

70 years together. That is something these days.

[OnDoutside]

29. She has been a formidable person for a lifetime and

I have great respect for her. As an Irishman, it was a stain that Republican scum murdered her uncle in our country, but I was delighted she eventually got to visit in 2011, and especially Cork city.