Seeing the Queen

[Doe Be Doe]

Queen Elizabeth will be in New York today for a few hours. She speaks to the UN, goes to Ground Zero, then to Hannover Square, then to the airport and home to London.

 

Any other New Yorkers thought about going out to see if you could sneak a peek? I think hanging around Ground Zero would give one the best chance to see her. Any other thoughts?

[AdamSmith]

Snug in my apartment in Hell's Kitchen, the AC blasting, I have to say: This is what TV is for.

[JT Brooklyn]

Long Live the QUEEN..BUT!

 

Exactly my sentiments. TV was invented for just such things!

[Doe Be Doe]

I know. I know. It is hot. I may end up just watching the tv coverage. But I've always wanted to see her. Odd as that may be.

[Guest DuchessIvanaKizznhugg]

If you want to increase your chances of seeing her, take along a Corgi

It worked Saturday for a group of Corgi owners in Winnipeg.

 

http://i965.photobucket.com/albums/ae139/DuchessIvanaKizznhugg/QueenCorgi.png

[Doe Be Doe]

No corgis, alas. I have a couple of cute cats, but I don't think she's a feline fan.

[Guest DuchessIvanaKizznhugg]

......but I don't think she's a feline fan.

 

Only if they're food for the Corgis!

 

[Guest greatness]

lol

 

You are so practical.. I love her. I would go out to see her if I were in NYC..

 

Snug in my apartment in Hell's Kitchen, the AC blasting, I have to say: This is what TV is for.

[+ purplekow]

I've seen plenty of queens in New York and this one does not even dress as well as they do. That being said, I would prefer to see one of the Princes.

[Karl-G]

There is a 7 minute video on MSNBC of the queen speaking.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38102849/ns/us_news/

[+ Charlie]

Aaagh! Call the fashion police!! She has also become rather hefty lately. When the tv cameras focused on her at Wimbledon, she had a very sour look on her face, and it struck me that in her old age she is looking more and more like her great-great-grandmother, Victoria (except sartorially--Vicki wore only black after Albert died).

[AdamSmith]

She has also become rather hefty lately.

 

If I can look 10% as good as she does at her age -- never mind Prince Philip at his age! -- I will cede a good part of my soul to the devil.

 

Having Charlemagne's bloodlines evidently counts for something. (She does, doesn't she?)

[Guest greatness]

well

 

People say that a camera can add up to 10 pounds.. I don't think she is hefty.. I like her dress too..

[+ ArVaGuy]

Yes, it's moments like these that television proves its usefulness. Though I give Her Majesty credit, visiting NYC when it's over 100 degrees takes some stamina particularly at age 84. However, she might be around for quite a while longer. Her mother the Queen Mum lived to age 102.

[+ azdr0710]

Aaagh! Call the fashion police!!

 

she had a very sour look on her face,

 

 

she's been dressing and looking that way for decades

[seaboy4hire]

I fail to see the impotantce of any of the royals in any country. They feed off the state where such funds could go to important social programs rather then the cleaning of the palace.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[+ ArVaGuy]

I fail to see the impotantce of any of the royals in any country. They feed off the state where such funds could go to important social programs rather then the cleaning of the palace.

 

Hugs,

Greg

 

Greg, you fail to consider, on the part of the UK at least, those royals generate a hell of a lot of tourist money. Without the history of the monarchy England would be pretty damn boring. Furthermore, the Royal charities generate a hell of a lot of income for various groups that otherwise would not get state funding.

[Mark Gordon]

The British Monarchy

 

QE II has done a fine job in the role she was born into. But the usefulness of monarchies, monarchs and the royal families that go with them has long since passed. The US figured that out 234 years ago and it is about time that the UK, Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth did as well. Without the monarchy, Britain's heritage would continue to generate just as much tourism revenue as it now does; witness the case of republican France (Versailles?). Britain will always have its history; people don't go there expecting to spot the Queen walking her corgis in St. James' Park. The charitable money they raise could just as easily go to other comparable worthy causes. British and Commonwealth taxpayers would save a fortune. Her role in Canada, with our 20% French population, and an ever dwindling minority Anglo population, is particularly fractious and obsolete. Our entire quasi-governmental royal layer, including the Governor General and the 10 Lieutenant Governors, should be stripped away to reveal a more true and vital democracy.

[dfw2sfo]

Queen's visit

 

They said on the news that she hadn't been here in over 30 years. I wonder if that is on an official visit" or if she really hasn't been to NY in that long. Interesting if she really hasn't been here in 30 years.

[JT Brooklyn]

This Queen definitely Rules!

 

Unfortunate to realize that on her Passing the Books will be written by others!

 

The Queen has done a hellava job and will take a Hellava "Lifetime Story" with her!

[+ azdr0710]

British and Commonwealth taxpayers would save a fortune.

 

some headline today in the paper said this whole royal family operation costs the "subjects" less than a dollar a day each....I know it's a touchy subject for all the citizens under her "rule", but I think the majority still want the royals to stay, right??....I don't know.....to me, it's a quaint, cute tradition that seems out of date, much like organized religion and its attendant costs.....

[NYTomcat]

some headline today in the paper said this whole royal family operation costs the "subjects" less than a dollar a day each....I know it's a touchy subject for all the citizens under her "rule", but I think the majority still want the royals to stay, right??....I don't know.....to me, it's a quaint, cute tradition that seems out of date, much like organized religion and its attendant costs.....

 

yes actually I believe the amount was $0.92 per taxpayer per year in Brittain. I think at that cost.... well I'd give my 92 cents to keep her around and Im a colonist. Thats just my 2 cents on the matter. the other ninety will be in the mail

[Mark Gordon]

The Cost?

 

yes actually I believe the amount was $0.92 per taxpayer per year in Brittain.

 

That's an innocuous way of saying $57.8 million a year. Money that could be much better spent. And what of the cost of having an extra royal layer of quasi-government in Canada and other Commonwealth countries? And what of the cost to the ideals of true democracy in favour of upholding quaint tradition? I am no one's subject.

[MsGuy]

Azdr, I think you mean a buck a year per English subject (about $58 million last year). http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/0706/Queen-Elizabeth-II-visits-New-York-What-does-royalty-cost-British-taxpayers

[Mark Gordon]

Azdr, I think you mean a buck a year per English subject (about $58 million last year).

 

Per UK citizen, the UK being comprised of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, not just the English. The Windsors are the most expensive monarchy in Europe. The cost of the British Monarchy is more than five times the cost of the Spanish Royal Household. The Queen has an estimated net worth of $450 million.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family