to think the Queen should refuse this gift?

[WitchesSpelleas]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54915124

"A committee of MPs and peers has been set up to choose a gift "fit" for the Queen to mark the 70th anniversary of her accession, in 2022.
Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden said it would be a "token of our respect". For her Diamond Jubilee in 2012, the Queen had a stained-glass window created for her in Westminster Hall."

The Queen has everything she could possibly need, and the money to buy anything she could want.

This gift will be funded by donations from MPs - of course, it's up to them how they want to spend their money - but at a time when so many of her subjects are struggling financially due to the impact of Covid19, I think it would be appropriate for the Queen to ask the MPs to make a donation to a UK charity instead of spending the money on a Platinum Jubilee gift.

They should get her one of those jml window cleaner things cos’ they saved my Nan tons of time.

I'm with you, OP. But I like the idea of a Swarovski corgi or a bottle of Blue Nun...

What a miserable post

They don't have corgi yet (actually surprised) but they have a pug😂
www.swarovski.com/en_GB-GB/p-5352888/Roxie-Bag-Charm-Multi-coloured-Stainless-steel/

A large part of the point of the form of constitutional monarchy is that is presents an image of the state as being a unity that exists above political divisions and personal concerns.

It may present an image, but that's all it is - an image. It has no depth or meaning, because we are not unified - we are riven by political, social and ideological divisions.

All kinds of people share the experience of living under Elizabeth II.

But everyone's experience of living during the EIIR reign is different.

I think the stained window is a wonderful idea.

A memorial is something that everyone can see and enjoy. When we look around our lovely cathedrals, what do we get from them? We see the best stonemasons could make and carve with stone; we see the wonderful artistry of the wood carvings, and the skill of glassmakers.
In mediaeval times, these were the outlets for skilled craftsmen to ply their trade. Without collections from people, they would never have been so creative, and trades like stonemasons, woodcarvers, builders, designers, painters, sculptors would never have been kept alive. Much of the work done by skilled craftsmen was carried out in the country houses of the wealthy land owners and nobility, and only servants could see them. The wonderful artistry in churches and cathedrals were there for all to see. It was the only way ordinary folk could see the wonders of artistry.

It still holds good today. Of course the National Trust Houses, and many country homes are open to visitors nowadays, and public buildings have some artistry and paintings. Statues are erected which are visible to all.

What does anyone learn if charities get the money? How lasting are donations to charity? Is it acceptable to have a plaque somewhere on which is written :'We decided we do not want to see the work of men's hands as a memorial'?

I am not saying that charities do not need the money, just that a comparatively small sum spent on a public work of art as a tribute to a worthy person who has spent their life serving others and which could be of interest to everyone, giving hope for future talent, goes a long way to put something in perspective. It is not about money. It is about tribute and a whole lot more than money cannot buy.

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

But it’s not a gift for the queen really. It’s a gift for the nation and a permanent reminder of a very rare event

This.

Its not like they'll club in for a Swarovski corgi shaped keyring that will stay in her bag. It will be something that will be somewhere public/historical to mark the achievement.

That was my take, as well.

@WitchesSpelleas

A large part of the point of the form of constitutional monarchy is that is presents an image of the state as being a unity that exists above political divisions and personal concerns.

It may present an image, but that's all it is - an image. It has no depth or meaning, because we are not unified - we are riven by political, social and ideological divisions.

All kinds of people share the experience of living under Elizabeth II.

But everyone's experience of living during the EIIR reign is different.

Yes, a nation, a community, a family, are composed on individuals who both share experiences and experience them separately. If you eat a meal with a group of people, the community it engenders isn't fake because you didn't all experience the meal in the exact same way.

One of the ways people can access their shared citizenship, their common humanity, even when there are things that separate them, is sharing things together, even though they do not all have the exact same experience of those things. It's a reminder. National symbols and rememberances, and the arts, can both be effective in that regard.

So op she should turn down a gift, if anything like the last, a stained glass window in Westminster hall - a public building open for viewing by all - for free? That kind of selfish gift?

Get real.

Something such as this actually brings in more revenue for the public purse than it will have cost the MPs personal donations. Do you have any concept of the money brought in by tourists, both British resident and foreign visitors (of course not during a pandemic).

I think it is a well thought out gift and I am very left wing and not particularly pro the royal family. Adding some history to Westminster Cathedral and not wasting the tax payers money seem reasonable.

It wasn't Westminster Cathedral - it's all within the Houses of Parliament

For her silver jubilee it was a fountain, for her golden, a sundial and for her diamond a stained glass window in Westminster Hall

It's entirely up to the members to decide what they want to do - especially as they are funding it by donation

I'm just thinking of all the other things we wouldn't have got, if OP's view prevailed - the Diana Fountain, many statues and public art, most war memorials, some museums. (And of course everything which is in London as that's unfair in itself)

Only approved items for personal presents as well, it seems, scaled by income.

It all seems rather joyless.

I'm just thinking of all the other things we wouldn't have got, if OP's view prevailed - the Diana Fountain, many statues and public art, most war memorials, some museums. (And of course everything which is in London as that's unfair in itself)

And the new Mary Wollstonecraft statue - although it’s debatable how much of an asset that is.

Republican to my bones......I think it’s a great idea!

WitchesSpelleas - do you honestly think ANYTHING exists with an artist designing it and workers labouring to build it?

unless they are gifting words then EVERYTHING requires artists and labourers (and labouring isnt 'just' construction, you could labour in a factory or a studio or anywhere else its 'the act of creating something through manual work while being paid')

*I'm just thinking of all the other things we wouldn't have got, if OP's view prevailed - the Diana Fountain, many statues and public art, most war memorials, some museums. (And of course everything which is in London as that's unfair in itself).

The majority of things you mention weren't gifts to a reigning monarch - and let's not forget, at the moment we can only speculate that what's being bought for the Queen will also benefit the populace.

Diana would have been better forgotten than memorialised - she was a selfish, extravagant woman who died because she couldn't be bothered to put her seatbelt on. However, I thought even amongst her fans, the Diana Fountain was generally regarded as an expensive mistake.

@PerseverancePays

Maybe a plaque to remind the nation of how much of her wealth is derived from slavery?

Very little, it's mostly land.

Very little, it's mostly land.

As the monarchy and its associated wealth and property are hereditary, you can't separate the Queen's inheritance of land and property from her ancestors' involvement in slavery - and her ancestors invested heavily in the slave trade.

www.nmrn.org.uk/research/slavery

But we shouldn't be surprised that a woman who owns 24 houses while many the people she reigns over are homeless apparently has no qualms about holding onto land and wealth obtained through investment in the slave trade.

But we shouldn't be surprised that a woman who owns 24 houses while many the people she reigns over are homeless apparently has no qualms about holding onto land and wealth obtained through investment in the slave trade.

Most of these residences are not the private property of Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Mountbatten-Windsor. With a few exceptions, these properties belong to The Crown or the Duchy of Cornwall, and ultimately to the nation. She couldn't sell them to fund food banks (or whatever it is you think every penny of public money should be spent on) even if she wanted. She and her heir are merely custodians.

She couldn't sell them to fund food banks

No, but they could be used as accommodation for the vulnerable rather than sitting empty most of the time.

@WitchesSpelleas

She couldn't sell them to fund food banks

No, but they could be used as accommodation for the vulnerable rather than sitting empty most of the time.

Oh give over trotting out these tired non-arguments.

Most crown properties are country estates. What use would they be as accommodation for the homeless? How many homeless shelters are there in the middle of the countryside?

Most crown properties are country estates. What use would they be as accommodation for the homeless? How many homeless shelters are there in the middle of the countryside?

They're large enough to be turned into more than just accommodation - for example, accommodation could be combined with vocational training facilities (including things that kept the centre running, such as catering, cleaning etc.) or basic life-skills training for vulnerable people who lacked this. The Queen has more than enough wealth to fund such a venture.

So much could be done, and yet these estates lie empty most of the year - not even offering the limited value of being open to visitors.

@WitchesSpelleas

Most crown properties are country estates. What use would they be as accommodation for the homeless? How many homeless shelters are there in the middle of the countryside?

They're large enough to be turned into more than just accommodation - for example, accommodation could be combined with vocational training facilities (including things that kept the centre running, such as catering, cleaning etc.) or basic life-skills training for vulnerable people who lacked this. The Queen has more than enough wealth to fund such a venture.

So much could be done, and yet these estates lie empty most of the year - not even offering the limited value of being open to visitors.

The cost of turning a stately home into a 'training facility' - including bringing people out from the cities into the middle of the countryside - would far outstrip any benefits. Plus, these are historical properties which are part of the nation's heritage and need to be preserved as such for future generations. The queen, as custodian of these properties on behalf of the British people, would not be allowed to implement this daft scheme even if she wanted to.

The cost of turning a stately home into a 'training facility' - including bringing people out from the cities into the middle of the countryside - would far outstrip any benefits.

It could be paid for from the immense wealth the Royals have, which is benefiting no one but the Royals at present.

Plus, these are historical properties which are part of the nation's heritage and need to be preserved as such for future generations.

You might have a point if these properties were open to the public but the majority are not. They are being preserved for future generations of the Royal Family only.

It could be paid for from the immense wealth the Royals have, which is benefiting no one but the Royals at present.

It's still an utterly stupid idea.

You might have a point if these properties were open to the public but the majority are not. They are being preserved for future generations of the Royal Family only.

Take it up with the government then. I get that you think historical and artistic treasures are of no value, but others disagree.