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.

@WitchesSpelleas
A stained glass window in London won't bring much joy to a family in Newcastle who are relying on food banks to survive.

Neither will you bring much joy to a poor family in Newcastle either but here you are spreading your misery around for free and unpaid all over the internet anyway.

Your further comments on subsequent thread pages also highlight how shortsighted of a thinker you are as well and lacking of critical thinking skills. Not everyone has to do what you think is best.

You also don't seem to have an understanding on how this impacts histories of countries and archaeological artifacts. Just because you can't see it in London doesn't mean other people won't be able to see it and that it won't enter into the historical record.

Her jubilee is bigger than just "getting a gift from MPs". Multiple people have tried to explain it to you but you're not getting it. At this point I'm not sure if you're doing it deliberately or not.

It's none of your business now is it! It's not your money ! I have great respect for our Queen and she is the only person I will ever kneel for. God bless the Queen x

@WitchesSpelleas

But if this 'gift' - which is more of a token of commemoration than what most of us understand as a 'gift' - were not to be bought, would that money be distributed to those in need of 47p for a tin of beans instead? I doubt it.

We could try, though. Donate it to a food bank charity. Donate it to Shelter. Let's not just say 'oh, well, we might as well add a further needless adornment to the already beautiful architecture of [wherever] and let people starve because they're going to anyway.'

Is that your attitude to all public works of art (assuming that is the form this 'gift' will take)?

Should no money ever be spent on, say, a statue or a museum when it could be spent on food banks instead?

I don't know why you keep bringing poor families into your thread, OP.

There are over 100,000 charities in the UK , they're not all connected to those who don't have much money . If a particular charity was to be chosen there would be never ending arguments about why was that one picked.

A gift for HM would be a mark of respect and something for the nation. Nobody has to actually travel to London to see it either.

@SentientAndCognisant

It is a pretty amazing achievement. No it’s not it’s indicative of her Living standards,wealth and immediate access to high quality health and support if reqd

My parents who had none of those things lived to 97 and 99, the thing they shared with the Queen (on her mother’s side) are good genes

Not everyone has to do what you think is best.

This is a forum, not a statute of law. I'm expressing my opinion.

here you are spreading your misery around for free and unpaid all over the internet anyway.

You're not obliged to read the thread if it's making you miserable.

I have been in the position of having to scrabble for change down the sofa. A long time ago now but I remember it well.

It is such a rare event and she has served us well. She deserves it to be marked in such a beautiful way.

I took her shilling back in the day. She would be welcome to it back and the cost of my beans. And when I was my most skint, she would have still been welcome to it.

2022 is still over 1 year away. Anything can happen between now and then. I get that if they are going to celebrate the rare occasion of a platinum jubilee that they may need to start planning now, because it will be a big celebration. However, it might be wiser to wait a bit closer to 2022 before announcing anything. Given that her Majesty is 94 years old, albeit in good health as far as we are told, there is no guarantee that she will even have the platinum jubilee (hopefully she does, but trying to be a bit realistic and cautiously optimistic).

This will be interesting though. It could be tempting fate...who knows?

@nicky7654
So weird to kneel to be willing to kneel to anyone, let alone for a total stranger!

Is that your attitude to all public works of art (assuming that is the form this 'gift' will take)?

At the moment, frankly, yes. Spending public money on art when the country is in the state it's in, is like putting up Ralph Lauren wallpaper in your living room while your roof is falling on your head.

@VinylDetective that’s the equivalent of saying I know someone who smoked 90 fags a day,drunk as a lord and still lived to 93. Then Mrs NoBadHabits never smoked, never drank, dropped dead at 48

Lifestyle,genes,socioeconomics and a bit of luck
Being poor knocks 10-15 off easily. Health inequalities are well documented

A window in Westminster Cathedral is basically a piece of public art. It is a gift to the nation to commemorate the Queen. Her diamond jubilee is a great excuse for commissioning a new piece of art.

@WitchesSpelleas

Is that your attitude to all public works of art (assuming that is the form this 'gift' will take)?

At the moment, frankly, yes. Spending public money on art when the country is in the state it's in, is like putting up Ralph Lauren wallpaper in your living room while your roof is falling on your head.

But if MPs want to spend this money out of their own pockets (yes I know their salaries are paid by the taxpayer) then that's up to them, isn't it?

[quote SentientAndCognisant]@VinylDetective that’s the equivalent of saying I know someone who smoked 90 fags a day,drunk as a lord and still lived to 93. Then Mrs NoBadHabits never smoked, never drank, dropped dead at 48

Lifestyle,genes,socioeconomics and a bit of luck
Being poor knocks 10-15 off easily. Health inequalities are well documented[/quote]
No it isn’t. It’s as valid as attributing one woman’s longevity to her wealth. Of course health inequalities are well documented but they don’t apply to everyone.

But if MPs want to spend this money out of their own pockets (yes I know their salaries are paid by the taxpayer) then that's up to them, isn't it?

It is, which is why I framed the AIBU that the Queen should have the grace to refuse the gift and redirect the funds to her subjects.

That aside, the MPs have formed a committee in the house to determine the gift, so even if you ignore where their salaries come from, they're organising the gift in publicly funded time using the publicly funded facilities of parliament.

No health phenomenon applies to absolutely everyone. You’re being v silly

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.

Aww I just searched for one and it doesn't exist.

I quite like a bit of the Queen because it reminds me of my Gran and Mum who both liked her and all that sailed.

If Holbien hadn't gone on that journey to paint every eligible princess after Jane Seymour died we wouldn't have such rich interpretation of the society of the day, nor such art.

[quote SentientAndCognisant]@VinylDetective that’s the equivalent of saying I know someone who smoked 90 fags a day,drunk as a lord and still lived to 93. Then Mrs NoBadHabits never smoked, never drank, dropped dead at 48

Lifestyle,genes,socioeconomics and a bit of luck
Being poor knocks 10-15 off easily. Health inequalities are well documented[/quote]
Just googled. Average life expectancy for a woman in the UK is 81.16 years.

Yes, her Majesty isn't you're average person, but she's still bound by the laws of nature.

I don't have an opinion on the gift one way or another. I just think the talk of one and announcing it publicly is a bit premature given the uncertainty of it actually happening.

The only thing I can think this announcement serves to do is help as a sort of advertisement of Britain, with Brexit looming they may just want to be highlighting the UK's unique tourist asset. It's also a nice distraction from the covid misery. Speculation.

@WitchesSpelleas

But if MPs want to spend this money out of their own pockets (yes I know their salaries are paid by the taxpayer) then that's up to them, isn't it?

It is, which is why I framed the AIBU that the Queen should have the grace to refuse the gift and redirect the funds to her subjects.

That aside, the MPs have formed a committee in the house to determine the gift, so even if you ignore where their salaries come from, they're organising the gift in publicly funded time using the publicly funded facilities of parliament.

Don't be daft.

Firstly, the queen does not have 'subjects'. British nationals are -with rare exceptions - citizens not subjects.

Secondly, refusing a gift does not show good grace, especially as the 'gift' will likely be something which can be enjoyed by the public.

Thirdly, do you really think this is going to take a significant amount of MPs' time? Do you always monitor MPs' activities so closely?

@Officebox What’s your point?rich woman exceeds average life expectancy.
Hardly groundbreaking that a pampered rich old dear is in her 90s

[quote SentientAndCognisant]@Officebox What’s your point?rich woman exceeds average life expectancy.
Hardly groundbreaking that a pampered rich old dear is in her 90s[/quote]
That 2022 is still over a year away and it's too premature to start announcing plans for a platinum jubilee, because that stats suggest there are uncertainties.

The purpose of the announcement probably has nothing to do with her majesty and more to do with advertising Britain (royal family considered as a tourist magnet) abroad. Speculation.

@WitchesSpelleas

What? You really would tell people how to spend their own money?

In this case we are talking about elected representatives whose salaries are paid from the public purse, who are debating this gift as a committee in the house - 'in work time' if you like - so I'm perfectly entitled to have an opinion.

This isn't Boris having a few MP pals round to dinner and while passing the port saying 'How about we chip in for a gift for old Queenie?'. This is MPs setting up a committee to buy the gift officially.

Employers or tax payers in this case has the right to dictate how an employee spends their salary. Them having meetings about ot is no different than an office getting together to plan a going away party or organizing drinks after work etc...You are being unreasonable

YABU

The Queen doesn't get to keep any of the sometimes incredible gifts she gets as head of state. They're pretty much all donated to some cause or another.

And now, MPs are talking about paying for a gift out of their own money (MPs aren't the only ones earning from public purse so that's a moot point unless NHS staff, council staff, DVLA staff etc are also now banned from spending their wages on nice things for others) that will be a "monument" to the Queen. That's not a gift for her. It's a gift to her subjects.

Frankly she's the longest reigning Monarch Britain has ever had, and her reputation isn't anywhere near as bad as her predecessors (except her dad...he didn't really have time to get into much trouble).

Let MPs but their gift. Let us have a bank holiday and may she rule to outlast Charlie boy!

Firstly, the queen does not have 'subjects'. British nationals are -with rare exceptions - citizens not subjects.

I take your point about the correct legal status of British nationals, but it doesn't change the point I'm making.

Secondly, refusing a gift does not show good grace, especially as the 'gift' will likely be something which can be enjoyed by the public

We don't know what the gift is yet, of course, but it seems highly unlikely the enjoyment it could bring would be worth more than basic necessities would be worth to the impoverished.

Thirdly, do you really think this is going to take a significant amount of MPs' time? Do you always monitor MPs' activities so closely?

It's significant enough for them to have formed a committee, so yes, I do think it will take up time that could be better used on something else. I don't monitor MPs' every move, but I do note when they seem to be wasting time.

As long as it’s genuinely funded by MP’s and not classed as an ‘expense’ of some kind then let them. I agree the money could be put to better use though