I was just looking for a reason to post these photos of Queen Elizabeth II from last week. On Thursday, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh went to Westminster Abbey to celebrate the “diamond anniversary” of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, the Duke’s long-running awards scheme to reward outstanding British youths. But really, I wanted to post these photos because I adore a fabulous amethyst brooch, and this is one of the best I’ve ever seen. The Queen’s brooch collection really is second to none. And I love that everything about her outfit seems to be focused on the brooch… and that crazy hat.
So, what else is going on with the Queen? There was this depressing Financial Times op-ed about how there’s a looming crisis awaiting the monarchy, especially if all of the trend lines are being read correctly, which is to say… the dissolution of the European Union, a more reactive and small-r republican vibe within Great Britain, and more. People are still pissed off about the Buckingham Palace renovations, and even within pro-monarchy newspapers, there’s a slightly dissident tone creeping in, something about how the Queen might need to dip into her own money to at least partially pay for the renovations herself. This new piece of news doesn’t help either: apparently, the Queen has spent £1.4 million on food and liquor in one year. Oof.
The Buckingham Palace refurbishment, which will cost British taxpayers £369 million, sparked quite the debate when it was announced last Friday. The refit will be funded out of the Sovereign Grant, an allowance provided to the Queen by the government to support her official duties. This year, she received more than £40 million. The argument that the Queen costs the nation more than she makes it will live as long as the monarchy does. She has a fortune of £340 million. It’s all very complicated.
However the Buckingham Palace refit is paid for, it’s definitely needed. The pipes are leaking and things are falling down. The Queen uses her great London home for some of the more lavish state banquets and entertaining, and a significant proportion of her vast, afforded income is spent on guests. She wines and dines in style.
Last year, the Queen spent £1.4 million on food. The royal kitchen cooked up everything from roast pheasant to delicate canapes. According to Business Insider, the Queen looks after 96,000 guests a year. It’s probably why she splashed out a cool half a million pounds on wine and spirits alone in 2015/16.
The £1.4 million figure really does represent a lot of soft diplomacy, and I’m quite sure that the American State Department and the White House probably spend even more on their banquets, state dinners, receptions, etc. That is exactly what the Queen is supposed to do: be hostess-in-chief, the center of British soft power, the grim face of British diplomacy. But still… maybe it wouldn’t hurt to offer some cheaper wines at some of the lesser dinners?
Photos courtesy of WENN, Instagram.
Do away with the parasites already!
Yup, I agree. I don’t find anything remotely depressing about the thought of doing away with the incredibly outdated institution of monarchy.
I think when dies, the monarchy is going to sink really fast
Sad to say I think you’re right Miss J.
Couldn’t agree more. They are all useless parasites.
Agree. Why is it acceptable to keep this family like pampered poodles?
Okay, they do “charity work.” Wouldn’t it be more efficient to liquidate the monarchy–or 99 per cent of it–and give those vast sums of money directly to good causes?
Apparently they do charity work and receive a handsome “salary” of $450 million a year, according to Time Magazine. Though the official figure they release to the public claims they only cost taxpayers $50 million a year. It’s unbelievable how there is ZERO accountability for their spending and how the lack of transparency is somehow okay. Shouldn’t taxpayers be allowed to see the receipts for where their money is going? Honestly, the royal family sounds like crooks – Queen included. Yes, she’s done a lot for charities, but she’s been “paid” far too handsomely for far too long.
Agreed. I’m not British, so I’d like to ask – do Brits really love the queen? I read a recent article that made her sound pretty questionable regarding how she’s allowed gross misappropriation of funds (e.g., using taxpayer money to finance holidays, etc) and how the Monarchy purposely obscures the money it spends and spends more money with every year when the public sector is getting cuts. The whole thing sounded incredibly shady.
The Queen’s only achivement is her longevity. That’s all. For most people she just was always alive and The Queen. She has done nothing more than living an expensive life following protocol.
Using that logic perhaps all politicians should also be taken off public funds. After all here in the US we are about to spend far more than that so the future first lady and her son don’t have to be inconvenienced by moving to the White House.
yes, exactly. this article gives no perspective. we in canada spend a pretty penny also…and we support the Queen. I’m 63. She has always been my queen and she was my mum’s adored Queen. I’m watching Netflix The Crown at the moment and she has some important and vital duties.
Presidents and First Ladies are in the White House maximum eight years. And only the Cheeto is causing expenses this high because the world has turned upside down.
Meanwhile the Queen, her husband, her adult children, their spouses and her grandchildren all receive a lot of money, most of whom do very little ceremonial work. There is a way for a head of state to be less costly. If the no the American example, then the Irish one, or the French one. It can be done.
What problem does Queenie, have? She merely shows up at events, looking fabulous with her stolen jewels..reset during the years, by taxpayer expense. There is no decision making, whatsoever – and is so obviously a fool for her family.
Good point, Merritt. There are relatively cheap monarchies just as there are very expensive republics. If this monarchy is costing too much, the answer isn’t necessarily to abolish it. A government with big enough balls could get its spending under control.
Formal dinners? I’m guessing. Does this include budget for staff food if they have some kind of canteen in her palaces?
It says it’s 1.4 for food and another half million for booze, so almost 2 million. I assume that does not include staff, but could be wrong.
Hmmmm… she hosts 96,000 people a year? Do your math. 1.5 million to cover just those guests is pretty cheap.
Yeah, I was thinking that it didn’t seem that outrageous.
$15 per person according to calculator. That’s a nice cocktail and popcorn where I come from.
Oh wait, taking into account that we are talking about pounds not dollars, a little over $20. Two nice cocktails.
Well it isn’t including the alcohol. The excerpt lists that as a separate half million, so it’s closer to 2 million pounds. While I still don’t think that is an obscene number, I think there is a false comparison to what that would buy in other countries (assuming America mostly on this site), since the pound is worth more than the dollar. Also, because of the way they worded it (food separate from alcohol), I’m not sure if it includes the staff prices. It certainly doesn’t top the per plate spending of some countries, but why are the British public paying for fancy dinners for the rich British people who are invited to these parties?
I don’t think rich people are the only ones who are invited to dine at Buckingham Palace. Plus, most aren’t the Queen’s private guests; they’re there for state occasions. And of course the dinners are “fancy” — serving a basic, inexpensive meal to guests at Buckingham Palace would kind of defeat the purpose of a dinner at Buckingham Palace.
True!!
Yep, I think $15 a person is pretty darn cheap.
Yeah, based on how many she hosts,thats not outrageous
I don’t see what’s so bad about the amount either. If this was her own personal food bill that’s another matter but this is cheap for the amount of people. Maybe cut down on the number of people and dinners but there are a lot of other ways that the monarchy could cut down on expenses.
Especially considering that estimates on US state dinners are around $250K a dinner, or over $1k/guest. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-much-do-state-dinners-cost-and-are-they-worth-the-expense/2014/02/11/3059317a-9352-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da_story.html
If this is the budget for formal entertaining, state dinners and diplomatic receptions, it’s not outrageous at all. That’s part of the cost of doing diplomacy.
Idk about state dinners etc, but the US President and their family has to pay for their own food, groceries, dry cleaning, toiletries, etc. It’s taken out of the President’s salary
I’m confused. If she hosts 96,000 people a year, that is 1,846 per week or 264 per day. Does she host a dinner for 264 every night?
That was my question too. They must have a multitude of guest houses. They also have garden parties where hundreds show up, which would up the numbers.
A lot of that is from her Garden Parties. That’s several thousand people at once, done several times a year.
Steerpike, she hosts a lot of garden parties that have big guestlists (thousands of people.) Lots of ‘ordinary’ British citizens will get invitations to garden parties: they’re the most democratic of the Buck House entertainments, and often recognize specific groups like military spouses, community volunteers, Duchess Kate’s OBGYN team… (ok a little bit of snark, but they are actually a pretty great concept.) Garden parties will serve mostly fancy tea and cakes; I’m not sure if they also include alcohol?
Averaging out the ‘smaller’ state dinners with say 200 people with the endless receptions and then the huge garden parties, the numbers are actually pretty good for food and wine service.
It’s hard to support the Queen on this one because she and Charles have successfully argued to be exempt from the FoI which would give greater transparency to how public funds are apportioned. Does money allocated to state functions come from the sovereign grant, or do other government agencies fund these wholly or partially? Some 8.3 million pounds of ‘costs’ are met by government departments and the Crown Estates in addition to the 40 million pounds Sovereign Grant (Source: Republic.org.uk). Plus almost another 300 million pounds from other public sources to keep them going, amounting to 334 million pounds per year. The Queen has, for decades, had money allocated for the upkeep and repair of Buckingham Palace but has diverted these funds to personal affairs. Check out Treasury reports from 2012 acknowledging the dreadful use of money. The public has already paid for these repairs over the years (though never done) and is being hit up again. WTF. Apart from the ongoing real-life soap opera entertainment the royals provide, they are a millstone around Brits’ collective necks.
I agree vis a vis transparency. I have no problem with a £1.5m bill for diplomatic receptions and dinners not coming from the Sovereign Grant but rather from the Foreign Office. But we must have transparent accounting.
Sixer, agree. Transparency is good.
I’m going to amend your post one teensy bit, addie. I don’t know how anyone could support the Queen on this one! She’s had the money to pay for it and it’s been diverted to other uses. I absolutely think she should not get more because she mismanaged what was allocated for it. It makes my blood boil that she’s being rewarded for misusing money like this.
I think she should get Andrew and William on stepladders and in the crawl space rewiring and plumbing because I’d bet money that’s where some of it went (we know some of it went to William; speculating on Andrew!).
Agree lol! I’m loving the visual of Andrew and William on stepladders.
I find Buckingham Palace to be architecturally uninteresting, but I think it is an absolute crime that the Queen has allowed it to fall into such disrepair. The building should be cared for as the historically important landmark that it is.
Bluhare, I totally agree! Further, the Queen’s mishandling of money allocated to repairs should be exposed very publicly and what she has diverted privately over the years be replenished from her own funds. I like the idea of her family mucking in as labourers but only under strict instructions. I wouldn’t trust them with the electrics. What happened to the diverted funds? I’d like to know.
@addie
A couple of kitchens, KP/ Amner renovations and tennis court relocation for the Cambridges comes to mind as well as living expenses for all the Yorks. The Queen should be called out and made to foot the bill for the Buckingham Palace renos. Her mismanagement should be brought to light although I doubt it will be since the British press never says anything negative about HM.
I agree with Megan,
Buck Palace is not architecturally interesting but it has historical and symbolic value and IMO QEII has been criminally negligent with its upkeep! What I don’t understand is why a third party (without self-interest) aren’t given the authority to oversee the restoration and manage the money when the Queen’s household has demonstrated gross mismanagement.
All the money is in the duchy estates, that Charles wants. Who are the money managers of these crimes? (And Tom-foolery)
I like the Queen, but looking at how I’m making do with 20 EUR per month for food which is just 240 EUR a year, and I’m eating just fine, with tasty wines and hosting parties for dear friends at all… maybe, just maybe, the royal family could do with less splurging. I do think that it’s actually pretty cheap considering just how many people the Queen hosts, but still.
Thats approx 22 usd.. what are you eating and were are you getting your food? 20.00$ here will get you a quart of milk, bread and a hunk of cheese and I doubt I could make that last week.
Well, I live in Eastern Europe. We’re a pretty agricultural country too so you can get a kilo of carrots and taters just for 60 cents if you keep an eye on discounts. Meat is expensive – chicken and pork are cheaper than beef, but still expensive, so switch them for mass produced sausages or just go vegetarian. Interestingly enough, milk and dairy is also expensive.
flour and cooking oil are your friends. It’s easy to whip up a dumpling soup with carrots and taters and a dash of oil. A meal totalling at maybe 1-2 euros will last you two days if you live alone. I’ve heard that food in the US is expensive, and I spent a few summers in Belgium and mother of god, the food prices for organic produce… but ultimately it does come down to discounts and knowing where the cheap crap is. Good food is getting more expensive even in my country. And if you’re a working person with intensive working hours, you’re sh-t out of luck, because the cheapness of our foodstuffs comes out of expansive prep time. I live well below national poverty line. But it makes you real craft, and I’m lucky, my grandparents send me homegrow cabbages, taters and other vegetables and berries.
I really hate peeling potatoes and boiling rutabagas. SLOW. Thus….. i do think that the British queen could set an example. You can eat deliciously provided that you’re good at seasoning your crap with herbs and salt. Cheap but yummy food, and go crazy with wine, though honestly? These days if you know where to look at you can get an Alsatian wine with 5-10 bucks that tastes heaps better than their hundred bucks counterparts.
Sorry, got carried away. I’m very enthusiastic about eating as cheaply as possible while not compromising my palate. i’m just lucky that I live in a country where fresh organic produce is a staple, not a luxury.
Growing your own vegetables (and having the time to prepare them) certainly reduces your food bill. For me, it’s not so much that I’m broke. More that if I’ve gone to the bother of growing it, I’m certainly not going to waste it. Last week, I had an avalanche of cabbages and a gazillion leeks. We ended up with a load of very cheap stir fries and soups for dinner just to make sure we used all the cabbages. The steaks in the freezer didn’t get a look in!
Same, Sixer. If I’m going through the effort of planting and growing my garden, I’m not wasting anything. I tried the tire trick with my potatoes this year. Plant in a tire, and as the potato grows, add another tire and more dirt. I managed to stack five tires and my plant was over six feet tall. I also got over 50 pounds of potatoes out of the tires, which is like a year’s supply for me.
I have early potatoes in all sorts of things like that! You get out of the habit of thinking what shall I have for dinner tonight? And into the habit of thinking this is what I have, what can I make from it? Result: you buy less.
@Shijel where exactly do you live if you don’t mind my asking?
I don’t grow my own veggies, but I have a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) membership. You pay on e upfront fee, and every week you get a bushel of more veggies than you will know what to do with. It’s something of a game to figure out how to use it all.
All that said, I wouldn’t expect the Queen to serve shchi at a state function. Imagine all the state farts….
I don’t really object to this particular bill because, as you say, it’s a diplomatic cost really.
We have a similar ruckus about the House of Commons wine cellar and its subsidised bar every year or so. I probably disapprove more of that, because it’s politicos treating themselves rather than the UK treating foreign dignitaries and domestic worthies.
Buck House renovations shenanigans has not gone down well in Sixerville, which is located in an area of the UK more likely to be royalist than republican. Mucho muttering and even some outright hostility. If they don’t approve in Sixerville, the BRF should probably not do it.
Ditto.
Agree.
On a more superficial tone, those little raspberry/custard tarts made me hungry 😀
Thritto.
And on an even more superficial note, I want one of those lemon tartlet thingys.
Raspberry thingy for me. Raspberries are food for the gods.
That’s only an average of $14.50 per person! Not bad actually.
That seems like good value for money to me. Mind you, the thought of hosting 96 people per year makes me tired. Can’t imagine 96000 (is there an extra 0 or two?!).
I doubt it. I think she has huge amounts of people at each garden party she hosts in the summer.
It’s quite a small ill considering the number of people per year plus doesn’t the champers come from the Windsor estates? I know chuck serves wine from the duchy brand when he hosts.
I love that crazy hat!
I’m with you Alix, that titfer is to die for. She is one stylish, and well saved Queen, is old Betty Windsor.
I must say the pictures of those baked fancies are making my mouth water, and @Sixer, you are quite right, raspberries are the fruit of the Gods! I could spend this wet Sunday afternoon being fed cakes off a silver tray, and endless cups of rosie lee…..luxury! Where are my footmen?
96000 guests for 1.4 million equals 14.5 pounds per person. That’s AMAZING for a dinner.
The royals do not need to ‘host’ this much. They need to be present at functions and pay the theater that is being a royal, that’s it.
100K people a year? She is not even a representative of the government that signs treaties and laws.
The palace needs to be repaired, because it is a historical artifact and a part of the age-old British heritage… that the current generations & Labour Party are so eager to wipe clean and destroy. And its cost is nothing to Britain next to the welfare costs they have to pay up.
You have this entirely back-to-front.
The BRF does a good proportion of the schmoozing of foreign visitors. It also does a good proportion of the rewarding of charity workers and other ordinary people doing good service for their country via the garden parties and similar. These are entirely reasonable expenses outside the the upkeep of the BRF itself which should be paid for by central government.
The Sovereign Grant is explicit in its inclusion of upkeep of royal residences as part of the BRF’s responsibilities. That ER has redirected much of it to other places – eg unnecessary remodellings at KP, extra helicopter – is not the problem of central government. If the Royal Household is incapable of managing its budget then Buckingham Palace should be transferred to Historic Royal Palaces and fully opened to the public. ER can live in, and continue to maintain, KP.
And actually, ER is not a ‘representative’ of the government: she IS the government. The head of state. The PM and all other ministers, ambassadors, etc do their work in her name, as HER representatives.
Is she mostly a figurehead? Sure. Is the concept of royalty outdated, and should the BRF be eliminated? That’s a question for the UK to debate. But until they change it, that’s how the game is played.
She has nothing to do with the government whatsoever. She is not a representative of the government. She is a representative of the country.
We have a parliamentary system here. The executive is drawn from parliament. The head of state in a parliamentary cabinet system has nothing to do with the government. We even have an annual parliamentary ritual that emphasises this (the Queen’s Speech).
The symbolic representation of the UK in legal terms is called the Crown. The Crown is not ER. ER is not the Crown. The Crown is the UK: the nation, its people.
I realise these terms are confusing to non-Brits. But we have a separation of powers here and they involve the executive, the parliament and the judiciary. ER has nothing whatsoever to do with any of them.
Sixer, my question, is with all that she is not – why do the taxpayers keep her and her family, in unimaginable wealth – while suffering poverty within?
Also, why is there a society of “class”? I read an article that Sting didn’t feel comfortable in Britain, because of his money; that he felt that he no longer belonged to “a class”.
It is very hard for me to believe in the unbelievable – class. I know that it is a real concept that organizes the way that people think – I have a problem with the value, of that.
I don’t get what the big fuss is all about. Isn’t the queen supposed to be fabulous? What is she supposed to economize?
I’m quite loving The Crown on Netflix, but it’s making me realize just how different the monarchy was even 50 years ago. There was a lot more respect for the office then. Now, after decades of scandals and financial accounting, I really doubt it will last much longer.
I noticed that too. The Queen didn’t have a say so really in many things which I guess is still the case today, but she and the rest of the family seemed to have a lot more respect and “power” or what appeared to be power. I’m American so I’m not really invested, but it’ll be interesting to see what happens with the monarchy after she passes away.
Off topic but isn’t it sad that Kate still hasn’t received the royal order yet?
Not sad at all. It is perhaps the wisest – and most shade-throwing – decision the Queen has made. She will not come out and call Kate lazy and overprivileged, but she refuses to reward her for doing less than the bare minimum.
What about when Charles is king? Why is The Queen loaning her personal jewelry then?
The Queen’s jewelry is on loan, because Kate has so little else to recommend her.
Personal jewellery is keeping peace from Granny in Law to not particularly liked granddaughter in law.
The order would be a sign of approval from the head of ‘The Firm’ to a mid level member of staff.
What i get from this is that the Queen “feeds” her guests cheaper food than her dogs. If i remember well they get only super expensive fresh meat every day. Some newspaper had the weekly costs for their food and it was shocking.
Statistics without context mean nothing
What’s weird to me is how much royal tourism contributes to the british economy yet everyone just hates her. Do y’all like even further rich/poor margins?
Official tourism studies and statistics prove that the royals bring no net benefit to UK tourism. It is the pro-monarchy group that spins the PR lies about their economic benefit.
Far be it to me to dispute official tourism studies, but as an American, I think the BRF does add a bit of allure and glamour to The U.K. Without the BRF, If I wanted to see a nice royal castle, I’d go to Versailles, and KP would be near the bottom of my list. But because of the “chance” to see Kate and the kiddies or Harry (even if that chance is literally zero) or at least where they live, I would pick KP. It’s like peeking behind the curtain. But then again, I’m not paying for it, and I like silly things. So essentially, the BRF does hold tourism value for me, at least.
How many people worldwide watched Kate and Wills’ wedding?
Many more people are invested than will let on. It’s a fantasy, and many people find that exciting and alluring, especially in the rough world we live in these days.
@Lex apparently it was 500M even though they media said it was 2.5 billion
@notasugerhere….I can’t really make an informed comment on the statistics you quote since I’m not familiar with them. As an American I find the royals interesting in an historical way since we don’t have them. A few years ago, I ended a 3 week European vacation with 3 days in London. Hubby and I rushed around the city to see St James, Westminster, Tower of London and the Crown Jewels, and the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace. Amongst other things. But the reason we were so interested in those locations were because of their connection to the BRF. Sure, we would have been beyond thrilled to actually see the Queen but we were jazzed to see all of those places. I suspect much of the tourism has to do with the same reasons we had for choosing our spots to see. Just a thought.
That’s not bad and it’s for diplomacy. I mean they have to be hosts at some point.
It’s the BP renovations that doesn’t make sense…not because the building isn’t old. It’s because there’s already an annual and stipulated maintenance fund for it.
I think the cuts should be at lower level non working royals-most obviously Willnot and Kannot. The price of their renovations, helicopter rides and other unnecessary luxuries cost way more.
FYI, Margaret Rhodes, the Queen’s 1st cousin and best friend, has passed away at 91.
Thats sad – wasn’t she one of the senior ladies in waiting?
Just on an off note, the Queen’s cousin and closest friend since childhood, Margaret Rhodes just passed away. We will probably see the Queen at a funeral, something she normally doesn’t attend. Margaret lived in a grace and favor home at Windsor and the Queen would pop in after services.
I wonder if the UK will ever get rid of the British monarchy because let’s be honest, the young royals don’t behave like royals.
I’m American, so I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I totally get the anger about the mismanagement of funds. The food bill, however, is money well spent. That’s soft diplomacy and evidence of HM doing her job.
Whats not fair is that William and Kate have the largest apt at Kensington and barely there. What if Harry wants to live at Kensington and bring up his own family? I hope he gets Apt 8 and 9 or Clarence house once The Queen passes.
Hope I’m not threadjacking, but has anyone seen the story about how Beatrice slashed Ed Sheeran’s face with a sword when pretending to knight James Blunt at a party? It’s like mad libs with minor UK celebs (yeah, I said it, Sheeran).
So she’s mocking royal traditions.
I saw it! I don’t care one way or the other about bland little Ed Sheeran but I loathe and detest James Blunt with every fibre of my being. I have to admit, I was more wishing Beatrice had done her slasher act on him rather than not doing it at all. Oops!
Yeah, I don’t particularly like any of them. Blunt can be very funny on twitter though. But it’s just such a typical drunk posho thing to do – I’m surprised neither William nor Harry were involved.
James Blunt makes me stabby!
It would have been marvellous if Normal Bill had been at it. A commiseration prize for 2016 being such utter crap.
I don’t know much about either of them. What’s to hate about Blunt?
her mother got in trouble for something similar back in the day (knighting a dog)
Imagine having a sword on hand for that! The rich ARE different!
Brits, help me. Buckingham Palace does not belong to the Queen, correct? It belongs to the crown, which naturally changes hands, so does it not belong to England? So why is it such a big deal that taxpayers pay for its upkeep? Just as here in America taxpayers pay for the upkeep of the White House. While I understand it’s slightly different in that our presidents aren’t related, it’s still similar in that both residences are historical monuments and museums, with guided tours and the like. I guess I just don’t get the outrage?
I may be very wrong, but I do think that public access to the place it fairly limited. It isn’t like Versailles, which is all tourists all the time.
There are two points – first, the Queen has been meant to have been funding ongoing repairs to BP out of previous Civil List and now sovereign grant payments. She has used the money for other things (like W&K’s renovations at KP, a place where they rarely stay).
Second, the last time a royal palace required significant repairs (Windsor Castle in 1992, following a major fire) the government of the day negotiated Major concessions (see what I did there) like the Queen paying tax and agreeing to open up BP to the public (and even now it is only open to the public in August and September). This time, they’re getting a lot more money and we the public are getting nothing.
In 1992 John Major was Prime Minister and he had his feet on the ground and doesn’t come from these inbred upper-class aristo circles with private (paid for) schools (like Eaton) and such, Major had no academic title, just O-levels which means he had no university access certificate and then some correspondance courses. He worked himself up and had some smarts, too.
@Bitchy 100% agreed. Major was (and is) a proper Conservative, in the best sense of the word.
She has been handed the equivalent of $10 million a year for the past 60 years, specifically for upkeep and renovations on the palace. Hence the outrage at asking for over half a billion dollars (Can) for repairs. It was also suggested a few years ago to her that she open the palace for tourism longer than normal, so taxpayers could recoup their losses. She refused.
OT: What’s the difference between a castle and a palace?
Primary use of the building lending itself to building style?
Castles were primarily built for defence purposes whereas Palaces are grand homes for very important personages eg Monarchs, religious leaders eg bishops or cardinals.
Castles have defensive fortifications like towers, thick walls, battlements, towers and a moat.
A Palace is generally built as a show home on a grand scale to impress everyone.
What LAK said.
Castles were built as defensible fortifications. That’s why most of them in the UK are Norman, dating from William the Conqueror to about Edward I – they were all about the Normans taking control of their new territories.
Palaces are just posh pads.
Palaces and Castles:
As has been written by LAK and Sixer Palaces are showhouses and places for politics. Castles have military purposes.
But there are also mixtures. Apparently some aristos found it too expensive to build a new palace so they simply upped their castles a bit.
And yes, especially big castles have living quarters, libraries, galleries, ball rooms and guest quarters that are more palace-like.
It’s several issues.
Obviously, all monuments reach a point where total refurbishment is required. However, there has to be some maintenance between brand new and total refurbishment which prolongs the life of monument or puts off total refurbishment indefinitely.
EtA: Tina’s second point is especially pertinent because the last time the govt agreed to repair a Palace, they forced her to give concessions such as opening up the Palaces to the public to contribute to the final bill and general maintenance bill plus they forced her to start paying income tax which she had never paid.
However, it has been found that there has been no maintenance of Buck House since 1949 despite the Queen being given an annual grant to maintain/repair the palace ( and other royal buildings) for 60yrs. We know she’s diverted some of those funds to personal use eg the recent £6-8M refurbishment of William and Kate’s homes.
If we assume that £6M (the lowest estimate of the WK refurbishment) is the annual grant she receives for building repairs, she’s received £6M x 67years = £402M since 1949 – even if you subtract the rate of inflation, it still gives you a substantial sum.
Instead of being called to account for this mis-directed funding, she’s being given an additional £360 to refurbish Buckingham Palace.
Meanwhile, she’s still going to receive the annual buildings repair/maintenance grant to mis-direct.
THIS!!!!
Brilliant points!!!
Let’s hope the ol’ Windsor and Wales clan are forced to become more transparent. Seriously. Queen gets around Pounds 40 mio a year and doesn’t do proper accounting, apparently.
Did you know that if you fraud more than 1 mio in taxes you go to jail inevitably in most countries? No probation and no suspense.
The Queen does apparently really bargain on her diplomatic immunity, doesn’t she? I wonder who will have to sacrifice his own criminal record and take the punishment that should go down over some royal head.
Nikayna – just for some extra info over and above what the others have posted. We have another organisation tasked with preserving ex-Royal properties called Historic Royal Palaces. These are places such as Hampton Court, where royals no longer live or carry out duties. They have managed to remain profitable AND maintain the properties via entrance fees, charitable appeals and donors.
I take it that for the two months it is open to the public she is in Scotland? I bet if they would open it up during the peak tourist season (mid-May to early September) they would more than double what they make now.
Yep.
The Palace of Holyrood House (her official residence in Scotland) is open to the public most of the year. The only time its closed is the 2 weeks TQ is in residence during the summer.
Its one of the tourist attractions in Edinburgh (after the Castle), primarily as people want to see the spot where Rizzo (Queen Mary’s assistance and alleged lover) was murdered by her husband Lord Darnley.
Same for Windsor – its open to the public most of the year even when TQ stays there. BP is the only one that’s not, primarily as its her work residence and is where the court is based.
@DU (aka B): there is no real reason why BP could not be opened to the public year-round, as Windsor Castle is. The State Rooms are rarely in use, except on Garden Party days and reception days. The number of days in the year when the State Rooms would need to be closed to the public for such events is fewer than 30. We aren’t in Victorian times, there is no “court” as such.
@ Tina
I very much agree. But I don’t think the Royals have understood that yet. They just don’t get that there is no “court” any more.
That’s when the most is open. The palace is open during the summer. I’ve gone twice because they always have a new exhibition. It closes in mid-Sept. There are a few areas like the Queen’s Gallery open all year. The summer opening started back in 1993 to help the post Fire Windsor Castles repairs and continued because it is so popular. There’s no reason it couldn’t be year round–the exhibits too. This year had the Queen’s wedding and coronation gowns which I’m sure caused a bump. There are all kinds of goodies (art, dinner services, jewels, Faberge, gowns, etc) which could be put on display–and not just in BP–to raise funds. That also includes souvenirs, guides, catalogs etc related to the exhibit. Hell even raise the price of souvenirs in the shop by .25-1.00.
She is the head of state so the amount doesn’t ping my outrage meter – maybe it should. Diplomats needs to be wooed, citizens need to be soothed. It has gone on forever, and I actually think the royals – and by that I mean only the *working portion of the family* – are better cut out for it than elected officials. The rest can sod off and find employment.
Where I scratch my heads is the accounting of it all. Much like the government here in the US, there is an outstanding lack of transparency on exactly how all this is funded and funneled.
My thoughts precisely.
lol you’re nicer than I am. Diplomat wooing and citizen soothing can be done without supporting the lavish lifestyle of this family, IMO.
Trudeau is spending thirty eight million and perhaps more refurbishing his new digs. It’s not open to the public.
Why, what kind of shape is 24 Sussex Drive in? Also, the part not used for PM accommodations is open to the public year round.
The White House barely is. I lived in DC for five years and got an “extended” congressional Chief of Staff tour. Meh. Not much to see, and it looked tacky as all get out. Circa ’95.
24 Sussex Drive has not been touched in decades and Harper was holding off any renovations because he didn’t want to look bad. It was the commission and not Trudeau who decided to renovate it because there are issues of asbestos and other things and he has young kids who would be living there.
This is entirely different from BP because it is a house not just for Trudeau but for all future Canadian prime ministers. He won’t be in office until he dies, unlike the Queen.
There is some controversy about the cost of hydro while the house is vacant, but that has more to do with the province, which has bungled the energy portfolio, than Trudeau himself.
24 Sussex hasn’t had any major renovation since before Trudeau’s dad moved in. Margaret Trudeau hated that house back in the days and Ben Mulroney joked about how crappy the house was when his father was in office. Harper didn’t want to do any work even if it was urgent and now the place is in such a dire state that it’d be easier to just blow the whole thing and rebuild (which can’t be done due to its historical value). So yeah, I won’t complain about the renovations
Is anyone watching the Crown on Netflix? I’ve been binge watching over Thanksgiving Break. I’ve always heard talk about whatever it is her sister did and now I think I know what everyone is referring to. It’s a well put together show. That’s all I wanted to add to this conversation.
these shows just act as promotion for the monarchy.
However, it is very pretty to watch.
Haven’t watched it, wouldn’t but…it misrepresents the role of the queen in the breakup of the engagement of princess Margaret to Group Captain Peter Townsend. The myth that it wasn’t allowed because he was divorced is perpetuated. In fact, the queen was prepared to let her marry, retain her funding, and retain her title. but she would have had to give up her place in the line of succession. She wouldn’t so the engagement ended. I say this not to defend the queen – no time for them – but to highlight what an extraordinary system it is when someone chooses remaining in a queue over the man they supposedly loved. Margaret went on to lead a fairly dissolute and useless life of course, retaining some public sympathy for her “broken heart”, and never missing an opportunity to remind people of her importance as a princess.
I couldn’t get past the first episode because there were so many inaccuracies in that one episode alone that i couldn’t suspend disbelief. Nothing i’ve heard about it has convinced me to try again because they bring up inaccurately represented plot points as fact.
I’m saddened to read comments from people who are watching it whilst thinking it’s accurate or even close to accurate when there are so many glaring inaccuracies and or myths being perpetuated.
I’m not saying people shouldn’t enjoy it, but they should take it as entertainment very loosely based on a few real events NOT docu-drama.
I actually didn’t feel bad for Margaret while watching those episodes. She was greedy and clearly didn’t love him enough to sacrifice her place in the succession, even though Charles was born already and she was already 4th in line after Anne.
I know nothing of whether this is accurate or not. If anything, it’s making me want to find a good book or two that is historically accurate to compare. Any suggestions?
@M.A.F., one wonders why you are here if you give no credibility to any of the regular commenters. I can promise you that I do not know Sixer, LAK, BritAfrica or annetommy (on this side of the pond) or notasugarhere, nic919, bluhare or LadyD (on the other side, & apologies to anyone I’ve missed) IRL at all. But I know that they are credible commenters, who back up their statements with evidence and speak knowledgeably.
Want to know the truth about George VI and Edward VIII? Read Princes at War, by Deborah Cadbury. Want to know the truth about Princess Margaret? Read the bios by Theo Aronson, Christopher Warwick or Tim Heald. The Queen Mum? William Shawcross or Hugo Vickers. Want to know the truth about anyone living? Wait until they’re dead.
See ref to the National Archive.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38032464
This might be unpopular opinion, not that it matters because people in power will never do away with living extravagantly, but no one working for taxpayers should be allowed such excess, whether it is the Queen of England or the President of the United States. At least the Queen is part of an archaic system that should be eliminated, but it is historically expected for “royalty” to live lavishly. The president, governors, and other politicians in America are supposed to be public servants. With all the perks that come with these positions (free housing, free trips, and power) these people should not be even allowed to host dinners that go into the five figure range per head.
If you are independently wealthy like Beyonce, and can afford a $100k bottle of liquor to waste in a music video, go for it even though that’s still incredibly disgusting given that there are people starving in this world. But for someone whose lifestyle is dependent on taxpayers, there has to be financial limits put into place.
I agree with this. But the president makes, what $400,000 a year? And yes, a lot of money goes into the Secret Service (particularly with Trump now) upkeep of the WH, etc. But a president also governs, make decisions and has responsibilities other than ceremonial. “Royalty” does none of that. They are deferred to and allowed to live an extremely lavish life just because they are the descendants of someone who claimed power. They did nothing to earn it, they didn’t have to campaign and win votes and perform duties and listen to constituents’ complaints.
kibbles – we have similar issues with politician expenses also. In fact, there was a massive scandal over it a few years back!
kibbles, she is, unfortunately in my view, the queen of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as of Commonwealth countries: not just of England.
Is Prince Harry now becoming irrelevant since he is 5th in line and George and Charlotte are here?
NUMBERS:
Pounds 1,4 mio divided on 96000 guests is about Pounds 14,58 per guest.
Note: if you go to a restaurant then the price of the food on your plate is about 30% of the price for the place (or even less).
In other words the Queen dined each of her 96000 guests for about Pounds 45.
Also to be considered: most of her guests did probably just get tea and cookies / sandwiches. so yes, the dinners are overpriced.
I just wonder why she had 96000 guests. That seems a lot.
I thought that that is a laregly inflated number, see:
96 000 / 365 = 263 guests per day. !!!!
I don’t think that “soft diplomacy” required her to have that many guests. I don’t think that regular big state dinners with 500 or 1000 guests are really necessary for diplomacy especially if you consider that the Queen is more a representative head of state. She should scale it down.
As already noted several times, this includes garden parties. There are about half a dozen garden parties held each year. Each of those has… has… goes off to search… about 8,000 guests, most of whom are ordinary people involved in charity work, or veterans, or similar.
You may need to revise your calculations.
Garden parties just get the pretty cakes as pictured above.
@Sixer, don’t forget the crustless cucumber sarnies! A must for one’s garden party.
@ Sixer
Had a bad day? 😉
The garden parties of the Queen make just about 30.000 guests. That is roughly about 1/3 of those 96.000 guests.
See:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjivvaXoczQAhXB1xQKHTAaDXUQFggdMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.royal.uk%2Fgarden-parties&usg=AFQjCNFF1BLDQg3js9nHH1vgpMFxJC-81g
Also the Queen does take extensive holidays. That in turn would increase the number of guests per day ratio again.
Nevertheless I think that these numbers show sufficiently that there is no point in “hosting” 96.000 guests. The Queen will not manage to talk to even a tenth of them and most of that is meaningless smalltalk. And paying Pounds 40 mio a year to the Royals and huge bills for protection and wining an dining only for the Queen to make meaningless smalltalk is way to expensive.
The National Trust accounts to the penny what funds are spent restoring and keeping old homes open to the public. They should be responsible for handling the money for Buckingham Palace. It is crime that the money given to the Crown was misdirected for all these years. They used it for their own rich lifestyles.
The Queen doesnt seem to be able to say no to any of her family.
Any money given for Buck House repairs should be monitored to the penny monthly. Better yet, it should go to the National Trust instead to handle it.
Agreed. Since the Queen has demonstrated decade in, decade out that she has misappropriated funds (aka embezzlement) intended for ongoing building repairs then this new money should never, ever be put in her hands. Best to have it managed by the National Trust. Otherwise, we’ll see another helicopter for the Cambridge’s exclusive use, money diverted to Andrew and his princesses, more upgrades to Bucklebury Manor and on it goes. A bit here, a bit there. And the renovations won’t be done or the full amount won’t be used. The UK public should demand the money – THEIR MONEY – be managed independently.
BYOB from here on out.
All this said, as much as I am anti-royalist, right now I kind of want to write ER a letter saying “Taaaakkkkke uuuuuuusssss baaaaaaaaacccckkkkk! Pleeeeeeeeaaaaasssssseee!!”
If I were ever invited to a royal garden party I’d hopefully 1. See Harry. 2. See Sixer. 3. Drink Champagne. 4. Take pictures of all of the above and report back. 🙂
Only a dumbed down public could find this mental midget interesting.
Sounds like something Trump (Clockjerk Orange) would say. Haha!
British citizens received bad news Friday as they are asked to tighten their collective belts. Brexit and slowed growth seen as a turn back to the 1940s era of growth, plus paying outrageous taxes. So there will be backlash against the royals for their seemingly flippant need for dough.
What does this have to do with Trump?
Personally i find that amount of money being spent on entertaining guests to be obscene. I understand that hosting diplomats etc is part of her role but things do not need to be so expensive. House plonk put into a fancy decanter will taste much the same as expensive stuff to the average person especially if they have had a few. Also, I thought a lot of the meat and vegetables at these events came from the crown lands so they are not having to order in from their local supermarket.
As for the Buck house repairs I think she should be funding these herself after squandering previous grants on helicopters, Anmer, KP etc.
I love the idea that someone else mentioned of the royals doing the repairs themselves. Since Kate is such a homemaker maybe she could start fixing up a few things. Lol
I love the costuming on The Crown. Some of the dresses the queen wears are so flattering to a woman’s body.
My fathers cousin was the private press photographer for Princess Margaret. He said she smoked like a steam engine and was an entitled bitch.