Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to wonder who is paying for the celebrations for the Queens Jubilee???

109 replies

ssd · 01/11/2011 18:58

just seen on the news she is having 500 horses flown in from around the world

and thats just for starters

with all the childrens centres closing and the whole country struggling, who the hell pays for this????

the extravagence is mind boggling and we are all expected to be pleased for her

jesus bloody wept

OP posts:
SlackSally · 01/11/2011 20:55

Well, I expect to have worked for over 50 years by the time I retire (am still very young), so can I have a massive party at other people's expense to recognise this fact?

No?

Oh.

Whatmeworry · 01/11/2011 21:08

I reckon these things could be made self funding eg worldwide TV rights pay for them.

EdithWeston · 01/11/2011 21:14

I'm not sure it was at other people's expense.

The Independent reported that HMQ paid for the Golden Jubilee celebrations herself (link didn't open properly, but that's what it's first sentence said).

So she may well be paying herself this time.

Unless/until it is known that she won't be paying again, this all seems a bit premature.

LifeHope11 · 01/11/2011 21:32

MenopausalHaze: yes I do get upset at the 'injustices of life'. Do you think we should exacerbate them or try to rectify them? During a time of hardship for many, should we spend money to alleviate such hardship or should we further lavish it on the immensely privileged (ie the Queen)?

A lot of people are suffering through the cutbacks and I am glad that many of you are still in the position to consider that the benefits being lost are not essential. One example: my DS is disabled and used to have an annual adventure holiday to the Lake District which has now been cancelled due to loss of funding. No it was not strictly 'essential' - he won't starve without it - but he has lost something which was therapeutic and one of the few sources of pleasure and fun in his life. As I say, just one example, repeated up and down the country at present.

So no I will NOT be celebrating the jubilee & am not inclined to be proud of a country which has its priorities so wrong. cantspel: nobody says there should not be a celebration only that it should not be an extravagant one. And I am sure the Queen 'works hard' but the country is full of people working infinitely harder for infinitely less reward. Personally I would rather celebrate them.

JLK2 · 01/11/2011 23:05

Millions of people will be celebrating the jubilee though.

The problem with cases of hardship is that there are millions of them, and the more you spend on them, the greater the demand for more spending.

The money spent on the jubilee celebrations will result in more enjoyment per pound spent than an awful lot of the public spending that has been cut did. And it also provides PR and promotes Britain as a unique country, in a world that is rapidly becoming homogenised.

Towndon · 01/11/2011 23:07

You sack the Queen, you get a president instead - and guess what? There's lots of pomp and circumstance just the same.

JLK2 · 01/11/2011 23:10

And the president is a slimeball politician who has greased enough palms to get the job, rather than a woman raised to do it from the moment she was born.

QuintessentialShadow · 01/11/2011 23:14

If her royal highness the queen had any sense and any decency she would realize that it is silly to show off her lack of empathy to the nation in this way.

I am sure this will be regarded pretty tasteless, internationally. Like the grandiose wedding.

JLK2 · 01/11/2011 23:16

I am sure this will be regarded pretty tasteless, internationally. Like the grandiose wedding.
By who? Who regarded the wedding as tasteless?

JustRedbin · 01/11/2011 23:19

I did - I had to dress up on the first night of a cruise just to celebrate it. At least P&O gave us free champers!

troisgarcons · 01/11/2011 23:20

Frankly - HRH may have a thousand parties and I'd foot the bill. She's worked all her life - and she didnt retire at 65 either.

QuintessentialShadow · 01/11/2011 23:20

Not the wedding perhaps, but the spending.

JustRedbin · 01/11/2011 23:22

LifeHope11 _ How are you going to be digging into your pockets? How much exactly do you expect to pay?

LifeHope11 · 02/11/2011 00:18

JustRedbin: I have no idea exactly how much I will personally have to pay. I don't think that is relevant...any big expenditure could be justified on the basis that 'it only costs each individual taxpayer a few pence/pounds so it isn't significant'.

What matters to me is not what it is costing me personally but the message that this extravagance - at a time of hardship, belt-tightening and 'we are all in this together' - gives out. I agree with QuintessentialShadow that this extravaganza will be tasteless and vulgar and if the Queen had any sense she would not go along with this and insist on it being scaled down.

troisgarcons - I am glad you are willing to foot the bill but I and many of those posting here are not. I think we should have a choice in the matter.

JLK2: 'The problem with cases of hardship is that there are millions of them, and the more you spend on them, the great the demand for more spending' -oh so we should just give up then and instead lavish the money on the wealthiest and most privileged in the country? There are too many millions suffering hardship, so let them rot.

I have nothing against the Queen personally but am against the monarchy on principle because it underpins the inequality and unearned privilege in this country and because I believe in democracy. If we had the right to elect our head of state we may end up with a 'slime ball politician' but the difference is that we can vote him/her out.

JLK2 · 02/11/2011 01:05

You believe in democracy. What do you think would be the result of a referendum on the monarchy if there was one held today?

If you are against inequality and unearned privilege, why would you want a slimeball politician as head of state? What would be the point? It would cost as much, or more, they would be significantly less popular than the Queen, and it would make us no different to most of the other countries in the world.

Bearskinwoolies · 02/11/2011 03:43

I think that the Queen should take back the crown estates (which belong to her and her family) and the income, instead of handing it over to the government and taking in exchange the Civil List. If she did this, her income would soar and the country would be a few billion pounds a year worse off. She would then be able to pay for all her celebrations that others begrudge her.

LoveBeingAWitch · 02/11/2011 05:23

Op you seem very angry. It's not the queens faultyour children's centre has closed. I agree that they can be an amazing resource.

EdithWeston · 02/11/2011 06:33

The celebrations are significantly smaller than for the Golden Jubilee (which in turn were smaller than the Silver). The cost of the Monarchy has also been going down in the last few years, and the Queen has been using the Royal reserves to fund shortfalls (not taking more from the tax payer).

So she has scaled back - some people are just never satisfied. Especially when, despite being queried on this thread, they have no answer to how much this is costing, nor who is paying (given that the Queen paid for the Golden one's).

A referendum would be lost - it couldn't be carried in Australia even when the monarchy's popularity was at low ebb.

The Civil List was the quid pro quo for giving up the proceeds of the Crown estate. It would cost the taxpayer an additional £100m a year if this was reversed.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 02/11/2011 06:42

YANBU to wonder but YABU to be so negative. As a kid in 1977... and if you wanted a definition of an utterly miserable place to live that was the UK in 1977... some of my best memories are of the street party that we threw to celebrate the Silver Jubilee. I think there were some bigger events in London but the street party we held in our part of Manchester was all our own work. When times are tough, sometimes a bit of a frivolous knees-up is exactly what the doctor ordered.

LifeHope11 · 02/11/2011 07:20

JLK2: if you are so sure that monarchists would win a referendu why can we not have one and get to choose who are head of state is? I suspect that the republican share of the vote (even if not a majority) would be so high that it could no longer be ignored. Yes I don't doubt that monarchists would win a referendum tomorrow...we are so flooded with pro-monarchy propaganda and sycophancy in this country after all. If we were to have a proper open and unbiased debate (so much about the monarchy is kept secret from us or ignored - if we knew the whole truth about them we would be horrified) things would change.

How do you know an elected head of state would be a slime ball? Do you think that British people are too thick to elect anyone better? And as I say, he/she could be voted out. But either you believe in democracy or you don't. This IS our country after all.

Bearskinwoolies: please do not believe the myth about the Crown Estates belonging to the Queen, they do not. They belong to the Crown, ie the state, ie all of us. If we were to be a republic tomorrow they would revert to the state.

LoveBeingaWitch: yes OP does seem angry. There is such a thing as justifiied anger after all.

EdithWeston · 02/11/2011 07:27

The Queen is the current manifestation of the Crown. I think most of the stuff she "owns" is simply looked after by her for the Nation. Until the invention of the Civil List, the revenues were retained by the Crown, not passed to Her Majesty's government. Dead easy to reverse that, and necessary as it was an intrinsic part of the Civil List arrangement. I'd prefer to keep the additional revenue to the Government, but can understand (and sometimes) admire those who stick to their principles, even when they are costly.

Referendum: cost really. When the answer is such a foregone conclusion it's a waste of time, money and effort.

TheBrideofFrankenstein · 02/11/2011 07:29

Chill out everyone. Queenie's 60th bash will be the money spinner of the year. These royal extravaganzas always are.

Sirzy · 02/11/2011 07:32

She has been queen for 60 years, don't countless charity events and put in countless hours of work to right it should be celebrated!

Big celebrations and fun events are exactly what this countries needs. To many people try to look for negatives in everything!

crumpet · 02/11/2011 07:37

Frankly I think that most "republicans" (and I am not saying that this includes anyone on this thread) spout trite rubbish without any historical knowledge or a real understanding of how a republic would operate.

sue52 · 02/11/2011 08:50

With Dave suggesting Londoners work at home during the Olympics as transport will be difficult, I'm not sure small employers can afford to have yet more time off for staff with the jubilee celebrations.