A royal reception feast for 600: langoustines, quail eggs and rhubarb tartlets

[cornishcarlos]

4 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Meanwhile in Africa... 

 

Dictators drain the countries coffers to zero ?

That's Mugabe off to 7-11 to buy bread.. I know he's gone now but he's not the only one out there...

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by cornishcarlos

[Happyman58]

It's ok guys. When Donny Trump takes Air Force 1 on an overseas trip it is filled with advisors and hangers-on, In fact, the whole bloody plane is full. How much does that cost?

[coulson]

17 hours ago, Bundooman said:

You would never dare to say that about Thailand - would you!

For entirely different reasons.

[simoh1490]

16 hours ago, Oxx said:

 

And all of those like you are fools.  Why on earth should one be proud of individuals who have unimaginable wealth and privilege simply because of to whom they are born?

 

Telling people to shut up simply because they haven't bought the Royalist Kool-aid simply shows the moral and intellectual weakness of your stance.

If you insist on looking at the issue solely in financial terms you'll probably be able to maintain your high moral position on this, although I'm not entirely certain that a FULL cost-benefit analysis of the royal household and all their activities wouldn't show much greater financial benefit that most imagine. The intangible benefits, however, the sense of history, pomp and tradition are what appeals to most people, many think any associated costs for an occasion such as this are justified in the context of the bigger picture. And given the business and tourism revenue, the event almost certainly produced, to criticise the spending on the meal is simply mean-spirited.

[lanista]

The original family name of the Royals was Saxe Coburg ( German)..... i think?

Edward V111 was a big fan of Hitler as were many aristocrats some of whom hung swastikas outside their swish London pads.

 

I would love some fresh vanilla ice cream with cake & brandy sauce. yummy

Must be great being a royal along with their aristocratic banker friends.

There should be a royal pregnancy on the way soon so another banquet on the cards.

[Oxx]

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

The intangible benefits, however, the sense of history, pomp and tradition are what appeals to most people

 

Other countries have a sense of history, pomp and tradition and manage to do so perfectly well without a monarch.

[simoh1490]

1 minute ago, Oxx said:

 

Other countries have a sense of history, pomp and tradition and manage to do so perfectly well without a monarch.

I imagine that in those countries there's no question about who pays for these things, it's the people every time.

[Oxx]

2 minutes ago, lanista said:

The original family name of the Royals was Saxe Coburg ( German)..... i think?

 

In full, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.  Funny thing is, the Germans in 1917 started bombing London using the Gotha G.IV aircraft.  The family name just had to go.

[Oxx]

1 minute ago, simoh1490 said:

I imagine that in those countries there's no question about who pays for these things, it's the people every time.

 

Still, it's a net saving.  If the country owned all the estates of the monarchy, and if there were no monarch and associates to be kept in a life of ridiculously pampered luxury, we'd all be better off (well, apart from the royal family).

 

I bet fully opening Buckingham Palace as a tourist attraction would get the money rolling in, too.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, Oxx said:

 

Other countries have a sense of history, pomp and tradition and manage to do so perfectly well without a monarch.

Given that she is the head of my country, which means we don't have to pay out for yet another swamp creature to exploit us ( a president ), I'm happy that Britain and the Commonwealth still has a monarch.

It's not as though she actually has any power to stuff us up like actual politicians do.

[simoh1490]

1 minute ago, Oxx said:

 

Still, it's a net saving.  If the country owned all the estates of the monarchy, and if there were no monarch and associates to be kept in a life of ridiculously pampered luxury, we'd all be better off (well, apart from the royal family).

 

I bet fully opening Buckingham Palace as a tourist attraction would get the money rolling in, too.

Once again, you are solely focussed on the financial aspects rather than the larger picture which includes a series of intangibles, I don't believe for one moment that the justification for the royal family can be calculated in monetary terms alone.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Oxx said:

 

Still, it's a net saving.  If the country owned all the estates of the monarchy, and if there were no monarch and associates to be kept in a life of ridiculously pampered luxury, we'd all be better off (well, apart from the royal family).

 

I bet fully opening Buckingham Palace as a tourist attraction would get the money rolling in, too.

What do you prefer, a swamp creature president that costs large to elect every few years, or a head of state that has no power?

Having said that though, the Irish have it right with an elected President that has no power.

[simoh1490]

Let's have a vote, Trump or the Queen...........Liz wins by 68 million to 4.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

Once again, you are solely focussed on the financial aspects rather than the larger picture which includes a series of intangibles, I don't believe for one moment that the justification for the royal family can be calculated in monetary terms alone.

True, but there is much to be said for reducing the numbers paid for by the taxpayer to the monarch and first heir.

[simoh1490]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

True, but there is much to be said for reducing the numbers paid for by the taxpayer to the monarch and first heir.

Maybe so but that's a different discussion, I think.

[cornishcarlos]

Funny but I didn't read one story in the U.K news about the public being unhappy about the wedding !!

Nothing but love and excitement coming for most..

 

Grumpy bored expats with no real roots on the other hand 

[Oxx]

16 minutes ago, cornishcarlos said:

Funny but I didn't read one story in the U.K news about the public being unhappy about the wedding !!

 

You're just reading the press that affirms your preconceptions.  Personally I rather like this piece from a few days ago:

 

"Who needs marriage anyway?
"Like the royal family, wedding ceremonies reflect backward and patriarchal power dynamics that should be consigned to history"

 

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/who-needs-marriage-anyway

 

Then there's also the issue that the British press glosses over the fact that there are people bored rigid with the wedding.  From Australia:

 

"Royal wedding: Why some people are sick of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle"

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-18/royal-wedding-and-why-youre-over-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle/9771070

[overherebc]

How much longer will the news channels keep this going?

Every news channels is still dedicating the first 50% of air time to it.

[cornishcarlos]

13 minutes ago, Oxx said:

Then there's also the issue that the British press glosses over the fact that there are people bored rigid with the wedding.  From Australia:

 

"Royal wedding: Why some people are sick of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle"

 

 

From Australia !!

[nausea]

Yeah, my father was invited to one of these officer dos. My sister was dating an officer at the time. Quail eggs and what have you. He said afterwards he was starving; no real food you could actually eat. Ha!

[chippendale]

20 hours ago, Bundooman said:

That's right. Sneer at anything you are envious of. Some of us are British and proud of our Royal family. Why don't you just shut up and keep your nose out of something you obviously have no knowledge of. I personally, find your petty sneering remarks repugnant and insulting. You would never dare to say that about Thailand - would you!

The British royals are ever so grateful for the fawning loyalty of their obedient, simple-minded lackeys.

[cornishcarlos]

What's the big deal about quail eggs anyway ! I have them in the local market, all the time... 20 baht for about 10 of them ?

[simoh1490]

3 minutes ago, cornishcarlos said:

What's the big deal about quail eggs anyway ! I have them in the local market, all the time... 20 baht for about 10 of them ?

Sizzler has them for all you can eat on their salad bar, 179 baht !

[Aj Mick]

22 hours ago, GaryAdriaenssens said:

WOW! must have been a wonderful time there, feasting on the back of the UK taxpayers while the rest of the world lives their daily normal life..... disgusting

The wedding itself

When it comes to the direct wedding costs, the royal family will foot the bill, as it did when William and Kate married. 

"The royal family will pay for the core aspects of the wedding, such as the church service, the associated music, flowers, decorations, and the reception," Kensington Palace said in a statement. 

Queen Elizabeth is hosting an afternoon reception and Prince Charles -- Harry's father -- is hosting an evening reception. 

The family will keep costs down by hosting the ceremony and receptions in and around Windsor Castle. The locations form part of the monarchy's numerous royal residences, which means there won't be any rental fees.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/pf/royal-wedding-cost-who-pays-queen-prince-charles/index.html

[Kadilo]

2 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

Let's have a vote, Trump or the Queen...........Liz wins by 68 million to 4.

That's like saying do you want HIV or full blown AIDS

[Kadilo]

1 hour ago, overherebc said:

How much longer will the news channels keep this going?

Every news channels is still dedicating the first 50% of air time to it.

Oh That's what they mean about getting the Royalties in. 

[Kadilo]

24 minutes ago, Aj Mick said:

The wedding itself

When it comes to the direct wedding costs, the royal family will foot the bill, as it did when William and Kate married. 

"The royal family will pay for the core aspects of the wedding, such as the church service, the associated music, flowers, decorations, and the reception," Kensington Palace said in a statement. 

Queen Elizabeth is hosting an afternoon reception and Prince Charles -- Harry's father -- is hosting an evening reception. 

The family will keep costs down by hosting the ceremony and receptions in and around Windsor Castle. The locations form part of the monarchy's numerous royal residences, which means there won't be any rental fees.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/pf/royal-wedding-cost-who-pays-queen-prince-charles/index.html

Gowd bless em. What a lovely gesture, paying for their own wedding. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by Kadilo