Queen's Speech 2017

Started by Kritter, December 06, 2017, 09:49:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kritter

The Queen to film her Christmas broadcast in the coming days ? Royal Central

QuoteThe broadcast is kept under tight wraps, so no one knows what The Queen has said until it airs. However, it would be safe to assume The Queen will mention something of her grandson, Prince Harry marrying Meghan Markle and London hosting the Commonwealth Nations at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting from 16-20 April 2018.

Will this be a welcome to the new addition, Meghan?     :xmas16:

LouisFerdinand

Has the Regency Room usually been the location for Elizabeth II's Christmas broadcast? 
:xmas10: :xmas10: :xmas10: :xmas10:


Kritter

#2
Queen?s speech 2017: What time is the Queen's speech on Christmas Day? | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

QuoteWatching the Queen?s speech has been a Christmas tradition in Britain ever since it was first broadcast live on television in 1957.

This year, the Queen?s Christmas message will air at 3pm and be shown on BBC One, ITV, and Sky One.

The 10-minute message will also be broadcast on BBC Radio 4.

Those not interested in what the monarch has to say can watch Channel 4?s ?alternative Christmas message?, which will air at the same time.

Double post auto-merged: December 25, 2017, 02:05:15 AM


Queen's speech 2017: Elizabeth II praises Prince Philip?s 'support and humour' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

QuoteTHE QUEEN will sing the praises of husband Prince Philip?s ?support and unique sense of humour? in her annual Christmas address to the nation later today.

Going to make excuses for his racism then.   :fool:

TLLK

Queen to pay tribute to Prince Philip's 'unique sense of humour' in Christmas message

QuoteThe Queen will use her Christmas message to pay a rare public tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh, praising his ?unique sense of humour? in the year of their 70th anniversary.

In her annual address to the nation, the Queen will deliver poignant thanks to the Duke, hailing his valuable support this year and throughout her record-breaking reign.

The Duke stepped down from his official public duties in the autumn, but has remained by his wife?s side for key moments including Remembrance Sunday.

I really like her festive white dress with the gold details.  :snowflake: In the photo she has a lovely smile on her face.


Duch_Luver_4ever

Noticed not all the Queens great grandkids were pictured on her desk.... :snowflake:
"No other member of the Royal Family mattered that year, or I think for the next 17 years, it was just her." Arthur Edwards, The Sun Photographer, talking about Diana's impact.

Curryong

No, only the so-called 'important' ones, obviously.

MissFrouFrou

Apparently, the courtiers arrange the photos. But it's interesting that the divorcees are at the back.

wannable


The children of William and Kate front and center, it may be implicit that HM would prefer the parents as the next Monarchs...I also noticed the pictures of the divorcees are in a round table in the back.

The arrangement to me is very much in your face. Ouch.

Curryong

Anne is divorced and she and her mother are close. Charles is divorced and his mother has handed or is in the process of handling, many of her duties over to him. It's been said that the Queen gets on reasonably well with Camilla, who is a divorcee. She sees Fergie on occasion and gets on with her. Andrew is the Queen's favourite child, it's often been said. He also is divorced.

It's ridiculous to imply that, of all the Queen's relatives the only ones who past muster with her are the Cambridge family, and that the rest of her many children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, mean nothing, simply because of photograph placements on one occasion. And where were the photographs of the undivorced Kate and William? Certainly not front and centre on her desk.

We don't even know if she and Prince Philip see the Cambridges particularly regularly. They hardly pop into Windsor or BP or Balmoral every week or we would hear about it. Rank doesn't play a huge role in the Queen's relationships within her family. If it did, then none of Charles's difficulties with his parents in the past would have existed, and her other children would have been ignored.

Kritter

Queen's Speech nation's most-watched Christmas TV show  | Daily Mail Online

QuoteShe is the ruler of Great Britain and now her majesty is also the Queen of Christmas TV after her annual address was crowned the nation's most-watched show.

The Queen's Christmas Day message drew a combined audience of 7.6 million, across BBC1, ITV and Sky, making it the most popular programme and pipping madcap comedy Mrs Brown's Boys.

The Queen's broadcast on BBC1 attracted 5.9 million, as well as 1.6 million on ITV and around 175,000 on Sky (excluding plus-one channels)

:duel:

MissFrouFrou

The reply of some isn't any more 'ridiculous' than any other. I don't think the Queen considers the divorce of her children as the same as one of her grandchildren marrying a divorcee. She can't realistically disown her children/grandchildren. Charles' situation was vastly different. But I won't get into that here for obvious reasons.

Wannable: thank you; agreed again. I think the Queen couldn't put William & Kate at the front table because it would have been overkill with G&C. You can't ignore facts and be credible. The divorced and unpopular couples are at the back - it's sending a subliminal message at least. C&C are not popular and Meghan is a controversial choice. Even her fans ought to concede that. What I mean is that people were expecting Harry to marry a Cressida "type".

Kritter

I guess the Queen couldn't find room for W&K or she just didn't want to.   :windsor1:         

MissFrouFrou

Apparently, it's the courtiers, so it's not personal. It's about the "firm". The Queen may privately like Meghan (although I doubt it, she wouldn't know her well enough just for starters), Harry might be her favourite grandchild (I think it's Peter Phillips) but it wouldn't matter.

Personally, I think it would have been too much to place W&K right next to G&C. The setting was more tactful and people just love cute royal children.

Kritter

She could have put that Christmas photo W&K put out with all four included.    :teehee:  I thought it was the Queen that made the final decision.   :lol:

royalanthropologist

Hmm. I wasn't aware there was a special table for unpopular divorcees? I wonder where she would put Diana's photo...somewhere in the middle? She was a divorcee but also quite popular. Heaven help us if most people lived like that.  :no:

Of course she decides what photos go in her rooms. That is precisely why Diana is never there and will never be there. This time she decided to put a nice photo of her son, daughter in law, grandson, his fiance and two grand children. Just like any normal grandma would do.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

MissFrouFrou

Kritter: it makes sense to me that the courtiers would place the photos. I don't think the Queen has time for such trifles, truly. She probably is advised prior to the broadcast, of course and she may have input. But it's easier and more time effective to just agree or suggest from those she trusts. This is what happens with major state dinners, apparently.

royal: I enjoy your posts but what has Diana got to do with this? I get that you don't like the woman, but come on, that's really grasping ... sorry, this is not just the Queen's private room as a 'grandma'- are you kidding?! No camera would be allowed to broadcast from her private sitting rooms - this is in her role as monarch, one of her most fundamental and celebrated duties! That was the point I was making ... perhaps some people don't understand her constitutional role.

It is just my opinion and that of Wannable's that the Queen had the divorced people at the back. She is the Commander of the Church of England after all ... it may be coincidence and you can disagree, but the evidence is clear. The weight you put on that is optional.

Kritter

The Queen put her Son & his second wife along with her Grandson ( who is not divorced) & his Fiancee out. She did not put all the divorcees at the back.

She put two photos of herself & PP up front (young & old). She could have moved one of those & put the "Golden Couple" out but apparently didn't want to look at them.     :D

MissFrouFrou

What was she supposed to do? Put separate photos of H&M? ... unless you're a true pedant, I'm sure you got my meaning. That's just quibbling and doesn't alter my point.

royalanthropologist

@MissFrouFrou. I was being facetious with tongue in cheek. I totally understand your point. Just wanted to show how silly the "photo wars" can get. No offense meant.
"In the past, people were born royal. Nowadays, royalty comes from what you do"...Gianni Versace

MissFrouFrou

Nor with me, sorry, I didn't get your sarcasm. That's on me, not my strong suit.  :flower:

No one knows about the place settings of the photos, it's all guesswork. I just thought it was making a rather bold statement to have G&C at the forefront, keeping C&C, H&M at the back.

Curryong

On TRF there are posters who have links to staff at BP. It's been posted by one of them today, (when I was out) that someone who was dressing the room had to go to the souvenir shop at BP and get a postcard of George to put into the frame on the desk. If you notice, all those photos in the room (and happens in Charles's interviews as well, same thing) have been published before in the media. There is therefore no chance that private photos from the BRF's own collection will be seen in a public setting, and therefore that no conclusion could be drawn from the placements of them.