Plan B Forum

LONDON — Buckingham Palace says Queen Elizabeth II has canceled a Christmas party for her staff this year because of the tough economic climate.
The Sun newspaper reported Thursday that the party for some 1,200 guests had been scheduled for Dec. 13.
A palace spokesman said: "Given the economic climate, it was thought appropriate to show restraint."
The Sun said the party is held every other year, and draws staff from three royal residences and employees of the queen's private estates.
The palace spokesman said The Sun's report was "broadly accurate" but declined to confirm details.

Source


“Three royal residences” with a staff in total of 1,200?????

I think I can see other opportunities for restraint.

It takes 1,500 or so people to run a cruise ship for a week. 1,200 to manage several huge households plus provide the Queen with support in her role as head of state doesn't seem outlandish by comparison.

No, the number of staff does not seem outlandish. What is outlandish is that an inbred old biddy gets to have "several huge households" for no other reason than that she happened to be sired by a guy who didn't do any more to earn the position than she did.

Any more outlandish than when it happens to be a guy who gets to have several households because five partisan members of the Supreme Court made him President of the United States?

Not an accurate comparison, I would argue. The White House and Camp David - there are only two official Presidential residences - have nothing on the opulence of the British Monarch's palaces.

While I agree that Bush was unfairly appointed by the SCOTUS, at least he was a candidate for election in a democratic society who received a large percentage of the vote.

Monarchies are foolish and should be done away with worldwide, IMHO.

Sure, then we too can have partisan hacks and corporate lackeys as our heads of state.

Scooter wrote:It takes 1,500 or so people to run a cruise ship for a week.

Yep, and the thousands of people who use it have to pay enough to make it profitable. Reserving the whole thing for one old biddy to use on a whim, without paying, would mean it went bust pretty quick.

As I have pointed out on a previous occasion, what the British treasury gets from the Crown Estate makes what it spends on the Royals more than profitable (to the tune of a 400% return on investment)

Scooter wrote:Sure, then we too can have partisan hacks and corporate lackeys as our heads of state.

When the head of state is not the head of government -- unlike in the US, where one person is both -- why does it matter whether the head of state is a partisan hack or a corporate lackey or an inbred dowager?

Scooter wrote:As I have pointed out on a previous occasion, what the British treasury gets from the Crown Estate makes what it spends on the Royals more than profitable (to the tune of a 400% return on investment)

And there would be even more money in the British treasury if the Crown Estate were in the British treasury.

Anyway, the asserted profitability of the arrangement does not explain why the person who gets to live like a feudal potentate -- oh, wait; she doesn't live "like" a feudal potentate; she is a feudal potentate -- should get that totally unearned privilege simply by having been sired by a previous inbred feudal potentate who didn't do one damn thing to earn the position either.

Andrew D wrote: Anyway, the asserted profitability of the arrangement does not explain why the person who gets to live like a feudal potentate -- oh, wait; she doesn't live "like" a feudal potentate; she is a feudal potentate -- should get that totally unearned privilege simply by having been sired by a previous inbred feudal potentate who didn't do one damn thing to earn the position either.

Unless of course he engineered the introduction of his brother to Wallis Simpson as part of his master plan...

Andrew D wrote:And there would be even more money in the British treasury if the Crown Estate were in the British treasury.

The Magna Carta established the principle that property may not be expropriated without just compensation. When Parliament decided that it did not want the Crown to have independent spending power (because monarchs had used revenues from their own lands to finance ventures of which Parliament did not approve, and which they could only stop if they could control the purse strings), a deal was struck whereby the revenues of virtually all Crown properties would flow directly to the Treasury, and in return Parliament would vote an appropriation to support the monarchy itself, and separate appropriations to finance the other functions of government.

Anyway, the asserted profitability of the arrangement does not explain why the person who gets to live like a feudal potentate -- oh, wait; she doesn't live "like" a feudal potentate; she is a feudal potentate -- should get that totally unearned privilege simply by having been sired by a previous inbred feudal potentate who didn't do one damn thing to earn the position either.

Her father earned it by doing it, better than anyone might have expected, under circumstances more difficult than anyone had foreseen, and with an far better result than probably would have been the case had his Nazi sympathising brother had remained on the throne. And she learned her sense of duty at her father's knee and it has served her, and all her realms. very well.

Blah, blah, blah.

Who becomes the monarch is a matter of inbred lineage. It is not a matter of merit.

Either prove that who should be the head of State should depend on inbred lineage -- i.e., prove that all of the many, many people who are at least as qualified as the inbred monarch to do the job should be ineligible, because they don't happen to be offspring of the Germans who took over the "English" line of succession -- or admit that the monarchy is nothing but a relic of an era which belongs in the outflow of history's sewage.

Eenie, meenie, minie, moe ....

That there are many, many people who are more qualified to do the job does not disqualify all those who are elected to political positions, or who are appointed to them through a political process. We accept the fact that might not be, nay almost always are not, THE most qualified person for the job.

And I have already explained the benefit of hereditary monarchy, that being completely non-political, the monarch can be seen to be completely free of partisan political interest and beholden to no one for his/her position. No elected or appointed head of state anywhere in the world can make that claim. The fact that the monarch is not elected or appointed through any political process also eliminates the risk that the position will trigger divisiveness along partisan lines, instead of being the symboi of national unity which a head of state should aspire to be.

At the nadir of present Queen's popularity, in the aftermath of the death of the Princess of Wales, only 25% of Britons wanted to abolish the monarchy. And she had been doing the job at that point for 45 years. That is a level of popularity that elected or appointed heads of state can only dream about. Heck, how many times in American history has the presidential election itself been a source of controversy and divisiveness? Start from the last two presidents elected and work backwards... You can't tell me that such convulsions have been healthy for the political process or for the country as a whole.

That there are many, many people who are more qualified to do the job does not disqualify all those who are elected to political positions, or who are appointed to them through a political process.

I will take Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith...

Over just about anybody in our current political class....

Her Majesty, despite the hideous hats, is the real deal and a class act. The world will be the poorer for it when she passes from the scene.

ETA:

Mind you, her family's a chore...

Her kids, and/or their spouses, have been a right embarrassment....


And her sister ("The Princess Margaret") was a loon...

And her husband, is a racist conspiracy crank.....

But Her Majesty has always been unerringly correct in her behavior....

Lord Jim wrote:
I will take Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith...

Over just about anybody in our current political class....

Hang about Jim, you may get "Queen Sarah Palin the first" there yet.

Scooter wrote:At the nadir of present Queen's popularity, in the aftermath of the death of the Princess of Wales, only 25% of Britons wanted to abolish the monarchy. And she had been doing the job at that point for 45 years. That is a level of popularity that elected or appointed heads of state can only dream about. Heck, how many times in American history has the presidential election itself been a source of controversy and divisiveness? Start from the last two presidents elected and work backwards... You can't tell me that such convulsions have been healthy for the political process or for the country as a whole.

Yes, she enjoys the popularity that is one of the luxuries of total irresponsibility. Heads of government are sources of controversy and divisiveness, because they actually make decisions.

That's why Prime Ministers are controversial and divisive: They do the actual work of governing, and people get pissed off at them for what they do.

How could anyone get mad at QEII for what she does? She doesn't do anything. She's like the silverware set that sits in a display case looking pretty, but no one ever eats with it. An ornament, nothing more.

And as a symbol of national unity, she is an empty vessel. To the extent to which she is a symbol of anything at all, she is a symbol of national subservience: It's not an accident that Britons are "subjects" of the Crown. But everyone knows that she is not the ruler of anything, so even that symbolism is a hollow shell. She's a bit of nostalgic detritus, left over from an era when being the British monarch meant something other than biddying around in bad hats.

A pretty place, with fascinating history and very lovely castles, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to live there and be a "subject."

Guinevere wrote:A pretty place, with fascinating history and very lovely castles, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to live there and be a "subject."

But every day the Teabaggers are making that a more and more appealing option.

But every day the Teabaggers are making that a more and more appealing option.

You need a ride to the airport?