View Full Version : Noblesse (does not) oblige
Humerous Vegetable
15-Oct-10, 12:05
It seems that this old bat, who is a billionaire, will not fork out for her staff's Christmas jolly. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101014/lf_nm_life/us_queen_4 The article states that she uses "her own money" for this 2-yearly event, which is actually money taken over the years from this country's taxpayers. As a taxpayer of many years standing, I would not mind these poor footmen and maids getting a Xmas perk, if only to make up for having to dance with Philip.
neilsermk1
15-Oct-10, 12:46
I'm with you on that one
What a mean little post. Quite unnecessary to refer like that to a woman who works far harder still than most people half her age. From the moment her father reluctantly became King she has spent her life serving her country with no privacy or freedom to decide her own future. Not many people would choose to do the same job from their early 20s until they day they die. Now in her mid-80s no doubt she would love the opportunity to retire and take life easy, but that’s not an option.
If this was taxpayers’ money (and it seems it is not) and she had decided to hold the party as usual, no doubt you would have been demanding to know why she was spending £50,000 on a party at a time when most people are having to tighten their belts.
From the moment her father reluctantly became King she has spent her life serving her country with no privacy or freedom to decide her own future. Not many people would choose to do the same job from their early 20s until they day they die. Now in her mid-80s no doubt she would love the opportunity to retire and take life easy, but that’s not an option.
She could always abdicate, no-one is forcing her to do the job.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me (from the link)
"it would be inappropriate to celebrate as ordinary Britons feel the pinch from tough economic times."
"would be unseemly as Britons cope with deep public spending cuts to bring down a record peacetime budget deficit"
.
"The queen is acutely aware of the difficult economic circumstances facing the country," a palace spokeswoman said on Thursday...
I'm with Her Majesty on this one. Fair play to her.
I'm with Her Majesty on this one. Fair play to her.
No, no, no!!!
If she is doing well (money wise) why shoudnt she treat her staff to a Xmas "Do".
She is using her staff as an example (The rest of the UK is suffering and so will you)!
If I was working for someone who wasnt affected by the cuts I would expect the usual Xmas (Hogmanay) knees up !!!
Shame on you "Ma'am for depriving these people who wait on you hand and foot!!!
C3....:roll::roll:
I'm sure the £50,000 spent would be looked upon with horror by those who are unemployed and are struggling to survive in today's economic climate "look at those lucky gits, using the tax payers money 'actually money taken over the years from this country's taxpayers*" they'd cry.
'The Sun newspaper claimed the party would have been held on 13 December and would have cost around £50,000".
*#1
I'm completely with Humerous Vegetable on this - Very well said !!!!!
yet, no one has mentioned the many charities she supports, or good will things she does, or even the many many things her family has done over the years.
now tell me.. how many of you, during a war.. with a HUGE target on your back refuse to run and hide where its safe and stay in the war zone to help out your fellow people?
the elected officials high tail it out of here at the first sign of trouble.
but that family proudly stands up with the common man and has headed off into war more than once.
they dont have the luxery of gurning like all the rest of us do.
they cant sit back and moan and groan about the state of the economy,
how the crime rate is,
how they just cant be bothered to go off to this event or that.
im sure there have been many times the whole family wished they could have a 9-5 job and just get on with it like the rest of us.
how would you like to be told who your friends can be?
whom you can marry or not.
what you can wear, where you can go..
and God forbid you just take a step outside .. you are them mobbed by the paparazzi so they can get photos that the comman man.. ie you.. can grab and read.. and moan about more.
so in essence.. we make thier lives hell.. while they try to get by without causing a national incident..
an extreme thought.. but just felt like putting the shoe on the other foot for once..
yippie im a royalist!!!! my mom will be so proud!
"Prince Philip waltzing with a maid"
Hmmm, not heard it called that before!
Dog-eared
15-Oct-10, 21:34
Why doesn't the Queen carry on with it. She can afford it.
It's a PR stunt.
Britain, sadly, is still in the Victorian age.
Damned if she does and damned if she doesnt!
Hope they still get their christmas "gifts" though!
I'm sure the £50,000 spent would be looked upon with horror by those who are unemployed and are struggling to survive in today's economic climate "look at those lucky gits, using the tax payers money 'actually money taken over the years from this country's taxpayers*" they'd cry.
'The Sun newspaper claimed the party would have been held on 13 December and would have cost around £50,000".
*#1
Must be true then.
Must be true then.
'Must be true then' 'cos the Sun said so?
I've done very deep and investigative enquiries and discovered that the well-known and honest-as-the-day-is-long personality David Ike say's it's true:
http://davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=139484
Even the Commies are reporting on it:
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/96409
So have faith my boy, it's fact (honest) ;)
John Little
16-Oct-10, 19:56
Let's nail the 'taxpayer's money thing.
When George 1 came over from Germany, keeping the Stuart heir from claiming his throne, the Whig Prime minister drew into the conditions an agreement that all revenues from crown lands would go to the government. In return the government would decide an amount that the monarch could have every year, which was to be paid from tax; to be called the 'civil list'
The government did rather well out of it.
The convention since then is that every monarch signs the revenues from crown lands over in the same way.
If the taxpayers wish to abrogate this agreement then I do not suppose the Queen would mind. I understand that she would do rather well from it....
If she wants to set an example of being abstemious in these times, then perhaps she is merely exercising her function.
No-one criticised her grandfather from swearing off alcohol for the duration of the first world war...
Perhaps she thinks the straitened times demand a response.....
John Little
17-Oct-10, 07:23
And another thing. I don't expect my boss to pay for my Christmas party. If I want to whoop and holler, stuff my face with far too much food, have rowdy games, make an idiot of myself and vomit all over the furniture, then I pay for it myself.
If I want to make an idiot of myself dancing on tables, attempting to grope the boss's Pa, throw mince-pies round or impress everyone with my virtuoso air-guitar, do I expect my boss to like the fact that I am doing it on his property?
Aren't the days of Lady Bountiful graciously deigning to provide her underlings with a feast rather passe?
I'm an adult - I do my own parties
Humerous Vegetable
17-Oct-10, 10:42
Where do you think the crown estate originated? Why do they own 55% of the UK's foreshore? Are we supposed to be grateful that they deign to return a small proportion of the money they earn from centuries of land-grabbing of national assets?
And, if you were earning minimum wage for what must be an horrendous job, maybe you would be glad that your employer (the taxpayer) would throw a party for you every 2 years.
John Little
17-Oct-10, 10:47
Where did the crown estates originate? Right of conquest I think.
Trouble is that if you go down that road then you end up asking where any property rights at all come from. And that is a very dangerous path to tread.
If the Queen does not have title to the crown estates, then the fundamental idea of owning property at all comes into question.
If I did not want to be a footman then I would not be one.
What do they earn anyway? And do they get any perks like rent, food, pension etc?
Where did the crown estates originate? Right of conquest I think.
Trouble is that if you go down that road then you end up asking where any property rights at all come from. And that is a very dangerous path to tread.
If the Queen does not have title to the crown estates, then the fundamental idea of owning property at all comes into question.
If I did not want to be a footman then I would not be one.
What do they earn anyway? And do they get any perks like rent, food, pension etc?
In 2003 a footman's salary was £11,881, reduced to £9,338 after living costs. fair bit more now? ;)
John Little
17-Oct-10, 12:17
I dunno B.
But I wonder if they live in? Food included? Heating, lighting, council tax etc.
If you have to pay all that it's not munificent.
But if you don't then maybe it ain't all bad. That's 7 years ago.
But when thinking of careers, Footman was not the first thing that came into my head.
Nobody is forced.
As far as I know :eek:
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.