History Talk: The British Monarchy

[doodlebug]

57 minutes ago, chitowngirl said:

Isn't he the King the doctors kept the cancer diagnosis from him?

Yes, back in that era, it was not unusual for doctors not to tell patients that they had cancer.  The thought was that knowing their diagnosis would cause them to give up hope.  The king, like a lot of other cancer patients back then, was never told he had cancer.

[VCRTracking]

[dubbel zout]

That’s a terrific picture of them.

[roamyn]

Congratulations on an amazing milestone!

[PinkRibbons]

That right there is an incredible feat in itself.

And I never thought much about it before but Her Majesty has aged REALLY well. Her skin looks amazing. /shallow

[Pallas]

16 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

That’s a terrific picture of them.

Here's the photographer's website. (No, that's Orlando Bloom on the homepage.) 

[andromeda331]

That's really amazing. 

[vibeology]

3 hours ago, PinkRibbons said:

And I never thought much about it before but Her Majesty has aged REALLY well. Her skin looks amazing. /shallow

That comes from a lifetime of wearing hats. Also the money to afford premium skin care products but mostly I'm going to credit the hats.

Congrats to them. That's a truly impressive milestone!

[Hanahope]

I could see the hats being a primary reason.  Keeps the facial skin out of the sun.  Tanning may look nice for a brief time, but pale skin ages much better.

[pivot]

On 10/16/2017 at 11:05 AM, Yokosmom said:

Do we know that it will be a whitewash?  They may focus on her neuroses and suicide attempts.

I think it is more likely we'll see Diana get drug through the mud. This show seems to be focused on making Queen Elizabeth a Mary Sue and they aren't going to let Diana look good in comparison against the Queen.

[VCRTracking]

Prince Harry 'thrilled' to marry girlfriend Meghan Markle next year

[Fireball]

Ever since I read that Meghan was not renewing her contact with Suits, I've been expecting an announcement. So I wasn't' surprised by the "big news".  The timing of announcement is kind of funny to me because I read an article from the Palace just a couple of days ago basically telling the media to stop with all the engagement rumors; it also implied that there was no engagement impending. Of course I can't find the article now.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

8 minutes ago, Fireball said:

Ever since I read that Meghan was not renewing her contact with Suits, I've been expecting an announcement. So I wasn't' surprised by the "big news".  The timing of announcement is kind of funny to me because I read an article from the Palace just a couple of days ago basically telling the media to stop with all the engagement rumors; it also implied that there was no engagement impending. Of course I can't find the article now.

She's 36; if they want their best chance at a few kids, they will want to start pretty soon after the wedding.

[VCRTracking]

14 hours ago, pivot said:

I think it is more likely we'll see Diana get drug through the mud. This show seems to be focused on making Queen Elizabeth a Mary Sue and they aren't going to let Diana look good in comparison against the Queen.

There's a difference between seeing the POV of a character and a person being a "Mary Sue".

[Inquisitionist]

I'm currently reading a fascinating biography of Vicki, aka the Empress Frederick, who was the eldest child of Queen Victoria.  At 17, in early 1858, Vicki married Frederick of Prussia, and in 1859 gave birth to their first child, Wilhelm, almost dying in the process (she went on to have 7 more children, one fewer than her mother).  Vicki was very intelligent and serious and adored her father, Albert, who died in late 1861, when Vicki was only 23. The book tells her story in the context of European history at the time, particularly the people and forces that led to Prussia's military power and the eventual unification of Germany in 1871.  Her husband served as emperor of Germany for only a few months, as by the time his father, Wilhelm I, died at age 90, Frederick was 56 and very ill with throat cancer.  The crown passed to 29-year-old "Willy," whose political views differed strongly from those of his parents.  If this period of history interests you, I highly recommend the book, An Uncommon Woman by Hannah Pakula.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Inquisitionist
Date correction.

[dubbel zout]

I loved that book. Her last days were pretty awful—she had breast cancer, and the German doctors wouldn’t give her enough morphine for pain management, as they didn’t want her to become addicted. As a consequence, she got relief for only a small period of time after a dose. She was in so much pain that her screams upset the guards enough that she was moved to a different part of the palace so they couldn’t hear her. So grim and sad!

And of course, her son was a disaster, and that caused a lot of guilt (because of his birth defect [the withered arm]) and frustration.

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

I'm currently reading a fascinating biography of Vicki, aka the Empress Frederick, who was the eldest child of Queen Victoria.  At 17, in early 1858, Vicki married Frederick of Prussia, and in 1959 gave birth to their first child, Wilhelm, almost dying in the process (she went on to have 7 more children, one fewer than her mother).  Vicki was very intelligent and serious and adored her father, Albert, who died in late 1861, when Vicki was only 23. The book tells her story in the context of European history at the time, particularly the people and forces that led to Prussia's military power and the eventual unification of Germany in 1871.  Her husband served as emperor of Germany for only a few months, as by the time his father, Wilhelm I, died at age 90, Frederick was 56 and very ill with throat cancer.  The crown passed to 29-year-old "Willy," whose political views differed strongly from those of his parents.  If this period of history interests you, I highly recommend the book, An Uncommon Woman by Hannah Pakula.

I've read An Uncommon Woman, I agree it really is a good book. She really was smart. Unfortunately for all the education her father made sure she had he really didn't prepare her for life in Prussia/Germany. Its unfortunate her husband didn't live longer. Would anything had been different if he had? 

[anyanka323]

On 10/17/2017 at 11:38 PM, Dejana said:

Given some of the figures I've seen described as handsome/beautiful by the Daily Mail, there seems to be a very different bar for attractiveness among the British horsey aristocratic set. It's all subjective, but with him it's not a total headscratcher like some of the great beauties of the 1700/1800s. Anyway, here is the real Philip in motion at 26:

Looking at the younger Phillip, it's rather obvious that Charles and William, as well as Anne inherited quite a few of the Mountbatten/Battenberg genes.  Edward and Andrew have more of the Windsor look to them.  Harry is really the one of Charles and Diana's kids to favor her side. 

[roamyn]

1 hour ago, anyanka323 said:

Looking at the younger Phillip, it's rather obvious that Charles and William, as well as Anne inherited quite a few of the Mountbatten/Battenberg genes.  Edward and Andrew have more of the Windsor look to them.  Harry is really the one of Charles and Diana's kids to favor her side. 

I disagree.  Harry looks just like his grandfather, albeit w/red hair.  Anne & Charles are WindsorS, Edward a little of both and Andrew a Hanover or Teck.  William, of course, looks like Diana.

[Pallas]

It cracks me up that the Pathe newsreader in the video clip Dejana found and Anyanka quoted above, speaks of how the happy couple met with "Indianapolis cadets" rather than "Annapolis" cadets...  

But it just occurred to me that this engagement day -- July 10, 1947 -- is only a month from Indian Independence day -- August 15, 1947 (and presided over by Philip's uncle, the Last Viceroy Mountbatten) -- so that may have played a part in the miscue.

[Inquisitionist]

20 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

I loved that book.

 

19 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I've read An Uncommon Woman, I agree it really is a good book. 

So glad to have found others who recommend the book!  I'm a little over half with through.  The historical parts, while fascinating, are slow going for me.  I have to keep flipping back to the family trees in the front of the book to remember who is who!  

[dubbel zout]

Queen Victoria’s family tree is a nightmare to keep track of, isn’t it? Especially when you get two and more generations away from her. Everyone is some sort of cousin some degree removed.

[Fireball]

On ‎11‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 1:14 PM, ItCouldBeWorse said:

She's 36; if they want their best chance at a few kids, they will want to start pretty soon after the wedding.

Not sure exactly why you quoted me; I said I wasn't surprised by the announcement. I do think it was funny that basically the Palace said "there is no engagement" and then in like 2 days the Palace announces the engagement.  I agree that if Meghan and Harry want kids, and apparently Harry has said he does, then they will need to start having kids pretty much right after they get married.

[PinkRibbons]

I have a $3 (we're cheap) bet with my father over whether she's already pregnant. My argument against is that if she was pregnant, they wouldn't be announcing an upcoming wedding in Spring, they'd be announcing a wedding that took place yesterday. His argument is based on how she apparently looks in a coat she was photographed in. *shakes head* Men.

[Scarlett45]

20 hours ago, PinkRibbons said:

I have a $3 (we're cheap) bet with my father over whether she's already pregnant. My argument against is that if she was pregnant, they wouldn't be announcing an upcoming wedding in Spring, they'd be announcing a wedding that took place yesterday. His argument is based on how she apparently looks in a coat she was photographed in. *shakes head* Men.

Ha!

 

No Meghan isn’t pregnant. I’m sure she will probably be pregnant soon after the wedding (all things considered) but I doubt she’s pregnant now. 

[Inquisitionist]

In another thread(s), there has been some discussion of whether the actual Prince Philip was handsome as a young man.  An Uncommon Woman, speaking of the mid- to late-1800s, asserts that "Among the generally unattractive European royal families, the Hesses were noted for their good looks."  Philip is a descendant of the House of Hesse.

[Peace 47]

Wow, I just (finally) binge-watched the whole series.  Late to the party, I know.   I probably can’t say much more than what was covered in the various episode threads (the budget, costumes, backdrops and acting are all amazing, etc.), but I did have one thought. 

As an American, I never had much investment in the debate over retaining the British royal family other than to think that the tradition and history were rich and maybe good for tourism dollars, but one thing this series has done is push me firmly over into the (British) republican camp.  The personal drama of all these episodes is completely riveting, but anything royal-related is without historical consequence.  I know that the royal family had tremendous symbolism during WWII, but it seems clear to me that by the 1950s, they had outlived their usefulness as an institution.  Every “crisis” that Elizabeth had to face was of no real import except to the tremendous detriment of her own family and relationships.  Her job is to be a cipher and keep her family in check, but to what end?  She’s symbolic head of the church, but she has no power at all to sway the clergy and government, even if the public and press wanted it.  All she could do was hurt her sister and follow the orders of her old, white male advisors in every single respect. 

And she gets to scold (if it happened) Churchill and the other guy about keeping Churchill’s strokes a secret, but other than that dressing down, it had no impact:  Churchill did not have a come to Jesus moment about his health as a result of her actions, it’s not like she got subsequent updates on his health thereafter, and everything continued on status quo until Churchill reached his own retirement decision later on.  Same with the smog crisis—she wanted to do something but nothing she did or didn’t do ever really mattered or could matter.  She certainly had to work hard on the foreign tours, but promoting imperialism was going out of vogue by that point, and it was a somewhat large personal cost (relationship with husband and children) for her to be scheduled within an inch of her life for so many weeks.  She was ill-educated (not her fault and admirable for her to try to rectify it, if she did in real life), but getting tutoring didn’t really have impact on the nation that we’ve seen—Eisenhower didn’t even come for her crash course in Dwight to have paid off.

[Inquisitionist]

The NY Times obituary for King Michael of Romania has a photograph from his 1948 marriage to Anne of Bourbon-Parma and notes:
 

Quote

 

In November [1947], Michael had attended the wedding of Princess Elizabeth of England and Prince Philip of Greece, his cousin and childhood playmate. There he met Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma. As they both later recalled, they fell instantly in love.

The couple married in an Orthodox ceremony in Athens in June 1948 after Pope Pius XII refused to permit Anne, who was half French and half Danish, to marry a non-Catholic.

 

 The man on the far right of the photograph looks almost like a present-day Philip.  Any idea who it actually was? 

[dubbel zout]

I thought at first the older blond boy sitting in front at left was Philip until I remembered he and Michael were age contemporaries. The guy on the right is too old to be Philip; maybe he's the father of the bride? All that bling means he's someone high up.

[biakbiak]

16 minutes ago, Inquisitionist said:

The NY Times obituary for King Michael of Romania has a photograph from his 1948 marriage to Anne of Bourbon-Parma and notes:
 

 The man on the far right of the photograph looks almost like a present-day Philip.  Any idea who it actually was? 

It's King Paul of Greece who was his best man. 

[doodlebug]

1 hour ago, biakbiak said:

It's King Paul of Greece who was his best man. 

King Paul of Greece was also Philip's first cousin, so it makes sense there is a family resemblance there.

Here's a link to more photos and info about him:

http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/king-paul-i-of-the-hellenes/

Edited December 6, 2017 by doodlebug
add a link

[Inquisitionist]

3 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

King Paul of Greece was also Phillip's first cousin, so it makes sense there is a family resemblance there.

Thank you!  I was pretty sure it had to be a relative of his!

[Roseanna]

On ‎4‎.‎12‎.‎2017 at 0:43 AM, Peace 47 said:

Wow, I just (finally) binge-watched the whole series.  Late to the party, I know.   I probably can’t say much more than what was covered in the various episode threads (the budget, costumes, backdrops and acting are all amazing, etc.), but I did have one thought. 

As an American, I never had much investment in the debate over retaining the British royal family other than to think that the tradition and history were rich and maybe good for tourism dollars, but one thing this series has done is push me firmly over into the (British) republican camp.  The personal drama of all these episodes is completely riveting, but anything royal-related is without historical consequence.  I know that the royal family had tremendous symbolism during WWII, but it seems clear to me that by the 1950s, they had outlived their usefulness as an institution.  Every “crisis” that Elizabeth had to face was of no real import except to the tremendous detriment of her own family and relationships.  Her job is to be a cipher and keep her family in check, but to what end?  She’s symbolic head of the church, but she has no power at all to sway the clergy and government, even if the public and press wanted it.  All she could do was hurt her sister and follow the orders of her old, white male advisors in every single respect. 

And she gets to scold (if it happened) Churchill and the other guy about keeping Churchill’s strokes a secret, but other than that dressing down, it had no impact:  Churchill did not have a come to Jesus moment about his health as a result of her actions, it’s not like she got subsequent updates on his health thereafter, and everything continued on status quo until Churchill reached his own retirement decision later on.  Same with the smog crisis—she wanted to do something but nothing she did or didn’t do ever really mattered or could matter.  She certainly had to work hard on the foreign tours, but promoting imperialism was going out of vogue by that point, and it was a somewhat large personal cost (relationship with husband and children) for her to be scheduled within an inch of her life for so many weeks.  She was ill-educated (not her fault and admirable for her to try to rectify it, if she did in real life), but getting tutoring didn’t really have impact on the nation that we’ve seen—Eisenhower didn’t even come for her crash course in Dwight to have paid off.

Although I am entirely satisfied that Finland had been a republic and a democracy since becoming independent 100 years ago, I leave other countries decide what's best for them.  

Regarding The Crown, after studying history I can understand what the Etonian professor teaches to the young Elizabeth because the government's business is to make political decisions, it also divides people. Therfore it's the Crown's lot to unite people with authority. 

It reminds somewhat what Heidegger spoke about acting and being. Our culture overvalues action and forgets the importance of being which is the very core of life.

This season shows Elizabeth learning her job, so it's natural that she is still insecure, and I guess she will learn.  But even in the future, acting againts the advice of the government would be unconstutional. As for "swaying the clergy" - it's for them to decide spiritual matters. The public and the press is fickle.  

Regarding Margaret, I don't agree that Elizabeth hurt her. Margaret did it herself: one can't keep her keep her cake and eat it.             

Edited December 7, 2017 by Roseanna
correcting grammar

[Fireball]

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 10:19 PM, PinkRibbons said:

I have a $3 (we're cheap) bet with my father over whether she's already pregnant. My argument against is that if she was pregnant, they wouldn't be announcing an upcoming wedding in Spring, they'd be announcing a wedding that took place yesterday. His argument is based on how she apparently looks in a coat she was photographed in. *shakes head* Men.

Taking my reply over to the Tabloids: Gossip, Innuendo, and Déclassé thread. 

[SWLinPHX]

So pleased with Season Two (and so unhappy that I had gone thru all ten episodes so quickly) I decided to re-watch Helen Mirren in 2006's "The Queen".  I know they share some of the same talent behind the scenes so although there is a 35-year gap between where Season Two of "The Crown" leaves off and "The Queen" begins I could totally see the exact mannerisms, sense of duty and "person" as portrayed by Foy, although physically aged and even more seasoned and confident.  Mirren would be fine to revisit the role in the last two seasons of The Crown, but either way it serves as an excellent companion piece!

NOTE TO MODERATORS:  I meant to post the above post under an established sub-category but instead accidentally created it as its own.  Please move where appropriate.  Thank you.

Edited December 13, 2017 by SWLinPHX

[CousinAmy]

On 11/29/2017 at 1:28 PM, dubbel zout said:

Queen Victoria’s family tree is a nightmare to keep track of, isn’t it? Especially when you get two and more generations away from her. Everyone is some sort of cousin some degree removed.

It's hard to keep track of the children and their children, but World War 1 was basically an argument among cousins. 

[Jeeves]

12 hours ago, jumper sage said:

I loved the fact that the little Parker girl is Camilla, now married to Charles.

^^ That quote is from the "Company of Men" episode discussion. I brought it over here to point out that, no, she isn't.

The Duchess of Cornwall was born Camilla Shand. Her father was not Mike Parker. Her first husband had a double-barreled surname, Parker Bowles.

On 12/12/2017 at 10:04 AM, MissLucas said:

 If we could travel back to pre-war times in a Tardis we would have a rude awakening at the number of people who were willing to put up with the Nazis as bulwark against communism.

 

On 12/15/2017 at 2:42 PM, locomoco said:

Perhaps Prince Philip did that, and that's why he was so against letting come back to visit.

^^These comments are in the discussion of the "Vergangenheit" episode.

I believe that Philip did no such thing. He was born in 1921, and had four (much) older sisters. The youngest of them was 7 years older than he was. His sisters married into German royal families, beginning around 1930, when Philip was still a child. 

In the meantime, some or all of his German brothers-in-law became Nazis. I haven't tried to track it all down in detail. I believe at least one of them was a fairly ardent Nazi. Maybe they all were.

But all that was happening when Philip was an adolescent, hardly in any position to "put up with the Nazis" in the sense in which the original comment suggests - i.e., an adult choosing to support the Nazi party vs. some other political philosophy.

Here's what Wikipedia says that Philip did for a couple of years in Nazi Germany - beginning at age 12: 

Quote

In 1933, he was sent to Schule Schloss Salem in Germany, which had the "advantage of saving school fees" because it was owned by the family of his brother-in-law, Berthold, Margrave of Baden. With the rise of Nazism in Germany, Salem's Jewish founder, Kurt Hahn, fled persecution and founded Gordonstoun School in Scotland. After two terms at Salem, Philip moved to Gordonstoun.

BTW. Gordonstoun is the school portrayed in the episode "Paterfamilias," which Philip insisted Charles attend, and Charles loathed. 

At age 18, Philip joined the British Royal Navy, and graduated the next year (1940) from the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, as the best cadet in his course. He served in the British Navy during World War II, apparently with distinction, in both the Mediterranean and Pacific theaters. 

I'm not aware that Philip as an adult ever said anything that showed support for the Nazis.

EDITED to add: during his childhood and adolescence, especially after his mother's mental breakdown and hospitalization, Philip was taken under the wing of his mother's family the (British) Mountbattens. Actually, Philip's uncle who first took him in and was his guardian was Dickie's brother, George, Lord Milford Haven, who died of cancer in 1938. After that, uncle Dickie stepped up to the role of guardian. As far as I can tell, most of Philip's education, except the two years in Germany and some early schooling in France, was in British schools. 

[Inquisitionist]

This photo of Elizabeth and Philip square-dancing in Canada circa 1951 is adorable.

http://www.elleuk.com/fashion/celebrity-style/articles/g15690/queen-elizabeth-ii-s-style-through-the-ages/?slide=34

[PeterPirate]

14 hours ago, Jeeves said:

The Duchess of Cornwall was born Camilla Shand. Her father was not Mike Parker. Her first husband had a double-barreled surname, Parker Bowles.

 

And Mike and Eileen's daughter was named Julie.  

[Jeeves]

13 minutes ago, AirQuotes said:

I hope I don't get roasted for this, but Buckingham Palace really is in not the greatest condition. 

From the "Mrs. Kennedy" discussion.

Buckingham Palace is in such sh*tty condition that they are beginning an enormous renovation project.  From the articles I've read, it seems that they are lucky the place hasn't had a major fire or flood. Electrical, plumbing, and drainage systems are old and - reading between the lines - dangerous.

[WatchrTina]

Bringing this over here from another thread:

William and Harry were raised differently because the 80s and 90s were a radically DIFFERENT time.   

They were and yet SOME things involving royalty had not changed. I think Lady Diana Spenser got a proposal of marriage not because she and Prince Charles got on so well, but because she was suitably high-born as well as "fair, chaste and fertile."  By 1981 there weren't a lot of women who could tick all those boxes AND were willing to take on the responsibilities and loss of privacy that came with marrying into the royal family.   I think that if the Wales had decided to send William and Harry off to boarding school no one would have batted an eye at that decision since aristocratic English families still do that today.  Wealthy American families do it too.  I don't live in that sphere but I have one friend that does -- she plays polo and has the vacation home in the Hamptons and, yes, her daughters are attending boarding school.

I attribute the decision to send William and Harry to Eaton to Charles' deplorable experience at boarding school coupled with Diana's determination to keep them close to her.  She was, after all, a kindergarten teacher when she got engaged.  Obviously she enjoys the company of children.  If Charles had married a woman of different sensibilities -- one who rather liked the idea of her children attending boarding school -- I wonder how things would have played out.

[dubbel zout]

Wiliam and Harry would have gone to boarding school no matter what, and they went to Eton rather than another school because it's the tradition in Diana's family.

[Roseanna]

39 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I attribute the decision to send William and Harry to Eaton to Charles' deplorable experience at boarding school coupled with Diana's determination to keep them close to her.  She was, after all, a kindergarten teacher when she got engaged.  Obviously she enjoys the company of children.  If Charles had married a woman of different sensibilities -- one who rather liked the idea of her children attending boarding school -- I wonder how things would have played out.

In other respect Wiliam and Harry had a harder childhood because their parents' affairs became public. To Diana winning Charles seems to have been so important that she didn't think what quarrelling with him in public would mean to their sons. 

[Dejana]

1 hour ago, WatchrTina said:

Bringing this over here from another thread:

They were and yet SOME things involving royalty had not changed. I think Lady Diana Spenser got a proposal of marriage not because she and Prince Charles got on so well, but because she was suitably high-born as well as "fair, chaste and fertile."  By 1981 there weren't a lot of women who could tick all those boxes AND were willing to take on the responsibilities and loss of privacy that came with marrying into the royal family.   I think that if the Wales had decided to send William and Harry off to boarding school no one would have batted an eye at that decision since aristocratic English families still do that today.  Wealthy American families do it too.  I don't live in that sphere but I have one friend that does -- she plays polo and has the vacation home in the Hamptons and, yes, her daughters are attending boarding school.

I attribute the decision to send William and Harry to Eaton to Charles' deplorable experience at boarding school coupled with Diana's determination to keep them close to her.  She was, after all, a kindergarten teacher when she got engaged.  Obviously she enjoys the company of children.  If Charles had married a woman of different sensibilities -- one who rather liked the idea of her children attending boarding school -- I wonder how things would have played out.

William and Harry did go to boarding schools (Eton and before that, Ludgrove, starting at 8). They were just different, less harsh boarding schools than Gordonstoun, in Philip and Charles' time.  Kate went to boarding schools, too. With George and Charlotte and Baby #3, the question is whether the boarding schools will be co-ed (probably).

From what I remember of Diana, Her True Story, it painted a picture of England being a bit behind America when it came to upper-class attitudes about educating girls. Kate, whatever one thinks of how she occupied her 20s, was expected to go to university at least (not that college is for everyone, but a society saying young women don't need it because they're just going to marry well, is...not great). Diana was not a brilliant student by any stretch but university really wasn't a consideration for any of her sisters, either, while their brother was always supposed to go to Oxford or Cambridge.  Princess Anne, older than Diana but not much younger than Charles, didn't attend university. A generation later, Zara, Beatrice and Eugenie all did. 

Edited December 17, 2017 by Dejana

[Pallas]

33 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

I think that if the Wales had decided to send William and Harry off to boarding school no one would have batted an eye at that decision since aristocratic English families still do that today.

William and Harry did attend boarding schools, both of them single-sex and full-board: the Ludgrove School beginning at age 8, followed by Eton, beginning at ages 13 or 14. 

[merylinkid]

2 hours ago, Jeeves said:

From the "Mrs. Kennedy" discussion.

Buckingham Palace is in such sh*tty condition that they are beginning an enormous renovation project.  From the articles I've read, it seems that they are lucky the place hasn't had a major fire or flood. Electrical, plumbing, and drainage systems are old and - reading between the lines - dangerous.

Part of the ceiling in one of the state drawing rooms came down, almost hit Princess Anne in the head.   The repairs have been put off for AGES due  to the cost.    The Queen is notorious tight with a buck.   The electric fires are pretty light, like one or two bars of heat.   She does not want to ask the British public to renovate her home.   So they put off and now it will cost even more than if they had been fixing things all along.   The Queen may even have to live at Windsor for awhile.   Which she is just fine with because she prefers it.   But the Palace is also offices.   Moving those people around while still making sure they can do their jobs is doing to be a huge mess of logistics.

[Crs97]

I’ve read that the cost of this renovation is one of the reasons given for why Charles is streamlining the royal family.  People are angry at the expense, but I cannot imagine letting that building with all its history fall into such disrepair that it becomes uninhabitable.

[dleighg]

1 minute ago, Crs97 said:

I’ve read that the cost of this renovation is one of the reasons given for why Charles is streamlining the royal family.

what does "streamlining" mean? (I'm not a royal watcher)

[Crs97]

Who knows if it is true, but I read that Charles made it known that when he becomes king his nieces and nephews will need real jobs.  Apparently Andrew is pissed and tried to get QEII involved, but only the immediate family will be paid royals.  I don’t understand much of it all, but the article talked about the “streamlining” as a money saving effort to make the cost of the renovations a little more palatable.

[PRgal]

1 minute ago, Crs97 said:

Who knows if it is true, but I read that Charles made it known that when he becomes king his nieces and nephews will need real jobs.  Apparently Andrew is pissed and tried to get QEII involved, but only the immediate family will be paid royals.  I don’t understand much of it all, but the article talked about the “streamlining” as a money saving effort to make the cost of the renovations a little more palatable.

Don't Beatrice and Euginie (spelling?) already HAVE real jobs?