“I hope it rains for the entire weekend.”
January 15, 2016 10:19 AM Subscribe
Hmm.. so the charities can sell 40% of their tickets to raise funds for their charity. Seems reasonable , she's charging them but giving them an opportunity to recoup their expense. The ability to purchase a ticket gives an opportunity for wealthy people to sit at the table with a charity and potentially agree to donate funds. It seems like everyone has the possibility to benefit from this.
posted by FallowKing at 10:35 AM on January 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by FallowKing at 10:35 AM on January 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's only a PR disaster if significantly more people than a single reporter at the Independent are bitching about the situation. The article does not contain any evidence that anyone is complaining besides the reporter herself. So this is either extremely lazy reporting, or nobody thinks that this is a big deal.
posted by sour cream at 10:36 AM on January 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by sour cream at 10:36 AM on January 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
I doubt Rosie Millard could care less about the charities. This is such a lazy article written in such a horrible snidey tone that I have never felt more protective of Brenda.
posted by billiebee at 10:38 AM on January 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by billiebee at 10:38 AM on January 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Appears there is a royal wedding version of Chumbawamba's Farewell to the Crown. btw.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:41 AM on January 15, 2016
posted by jeffburdges at 10:41 AM on January 15, 2016
It's not a PR nightmare, even if the author wants it to be.
posted by Docrailgun at 10:46 AM on January 15, 2016
posted by Docrailgun at 10:46 AM on January 15, 2016
After It’s a Royal Knockout, for Pete’s sake.
Man, I loved It's a Royal Knockout.
posted by Lucinda at 10:49 AM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Man, I loved It's a Royal Knockout.
posted by Lucinda at 10:49 AM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
prize bull octorok: "I don't care how much they cost, beheadings are no way to celebrate a monarch's birthday in this day and age"
Bravo! :)
posted by Splunge at 10:52 AM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bravo! :)
posted by Splunge at 10:52 AM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's OK, I didn't want to go anyway.
£150 to see Queen Betty? Pass. £150 to see Scott Thompson as Queen Betty, abso-fucking-lutely.
posted by Capt. Renault at 10:55 AM on January 15, 2016 [20 favorites]
£150 to see Queen Betty? Pass. £150 to see Scott Thompson as Queen Betty, abso-fucking-lutely.
posted by Capt. Renault at 10:55 AM on January 15, 2016 [20 favorites]
Actually I'd love it if Britain turned patriotism into a senseless avoidable financial burden. lol
posted by jeffburdges at 11:11 AM on January 15, 2016
posted by jeffburdges at 11:11 AM on January 15, 2016
I don't care how much they cost, beheadings are no way to celebrate a monarch's birthday in this day and age
Exile is the usual way nowadays.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:16 AM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Exile is the usual way nowadays.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:16 AM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dang. If I were a charity, I'd give all my tickets tickets in exchange for a high donation, and just "hire" those purchasing for the duration -- that way 100% of people at my table would be members of the charity, impossible to prove otherwise.
posted by Blackanvil at 11:35 AM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Blackanvil at 11:35 AM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, uh. Getting to be in the same room as one of our Presidential candidates is going to cost you quire a bit more than 150GBP.
Oh, how the tables have turned.
posted by schmod at 11:47 AM on January 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
Oh, how the tables have turned.
posted by schmod at 11:47 AM on January 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yeah, uh. Getting to be in the same room as one of our Presidential candidates is going to cost you quire a bit more than 150GBP.
It's not like she has to raise funds for an election campaign
posted by frogfather at 11:56 AM on January 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's not like she has to raise funds for an election campaign
posted by frogfather at 11:56 AM on January 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
This is such a lazy article written in such a horrible snidey tone that I have never felt more protective of Brenda.
Actually the article was packed with information, and the tone was entirely reasonable in expressing the feelings of many a disgruntled 'subject' of a monarch who really has no need to charge anything for a crappy lunch (which is provided by Marks and Spencer anyway and will be covered in their logo). The whole thing is also an ad for the sickening royal tourist industry as well, as pointed out.
posted by colie at 12:00 PM on January 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
Actually the article was packed with information, and the tone was entirely reasonable in expressing the feelings of many a disgruntled 'subject' of a monarch who really has no need to charge anything for a crappy lunch (which is provided by Marks and Spencer anyway and will be covered in their logo). The whole thing is also an ad for the sickening royal tourist industry as well, as pointed out.
posted by colie at 12:00 PM on January 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
It's only a PR disaster if significantly more people than a single reporter at the Independent are bitching about the situation. The article does not contain any evidence that anyone is complaining besides the reporter herself.
The article is apparently 3 hours old.
posted by colie at 12:01 PM on January 15, 2016
The article is apparently 3 hours old.
posted by colie at 12:01 PM on January 15, 2016
the article was packed with information
Yes breathtaking information like the Royal Family has quite a lot of money. It's hard to "tell" what she calls "information" since she uses so many "fucking" quotes that everything echoes "allegedly". And what's with all! the! exclamation! marks!
posted by billiebee at 12:05 PM on January 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yes breathtaking information like the Royal Family has quite a lot of money. It's hard to "tell" what she calls "information" since she uses so many "fucking" quotes that everything echoes "allegedly". And what's with all! the! exclamation! marks!
posted by billiebee at 12:05 PM on January 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
If you're OK with charities paying the queen as part of this hideous event, I don't know what to say to you. It stinks to high heaven and the article is right to say so, exclamation marks or not.
posted by colie at 12:08 PM on January 15, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by colie at 12:08 PM on January 15, 2016 [13 favorites]
But someone complained! On Twitter! Surely that counts as newsworthy!
Seriously, though, this is the kind of declassé behaviour we've come to expect from British royalty since the Hanoverian Settlement. No sense of class or drama. Just imagine how the late Stuarts would've handled this one.
posted by Sonny Jim at 12:09 PM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Seriously, though, this is the kind of declassé behaviour we've come to expect from British royalty since the Hanoverian Settlement. No sense of class or drama. Just imagine how the late Stuarts would've handled this one.
posted by Sonny Jim at 12:09 PM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Charities often pay to attend functions where there will be networking and (at least local) publicity opportunities. I don't really care if people want to pay, I doubt anyone's being forced to, my opinions on the monarchy are...ambivalent, but it's still a terribly written article imho.
posted by billiebee at 12:12 PM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by billiebee at 12:12 PM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
She can't even shell out for the Fortnum's hampers? Why not just throw some petrol station cheese and pickle sandwiches in a 50 gallon drum and let everyone fight over them like wolves.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:22 PM on January 15, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 12:22 PM on January 15, 2016 [20 favorites]
I'd sooner monarchist idiots pay for it than taxes, though I sort of suspect it's both.
posted by Artw at 12:42 PM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 12:42 PM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
To be fair, the charities aren't paying the Queen, they're paying the organiser of the event.
The fact that he's her grandson is just one of life's merry coincidences.
posted by reynir at 12:45 PM on January 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
The fact that he's her grandson is just one of life's merry coincidences.
posted by reynir at 12:45 PM on January 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm wondering (a) who owns The Mall -- is it the Crown, or the City of London? And if the latter: what are they charging Peter Phillips to rent it for the weekend?
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 12:46 PM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 12:46 PM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm just like - are people new to the concept of monarchy? Charging people for Royal favor is kind of how they got to be royal in the first place.
posted by corb at 12:57 PM on January 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by corb at 12:57 PM on January 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
How does the price of this compare to dinner and theater tickets in the West End or New York? By those prices it actually sounds like a pretty good deal.
posted by humanfont at 1:01 PM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by humanfont at 1:01 PM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
If you're OK with charities paying the queen as part of this hideous event, I don't know what to say to you.
Are they required to go to this event? As in, Will it be "Orf wif er 'ead!" If they don't attend?
If not, then obviously any charity that attends is doing so because they feel it will give them an advantage that's worth the expense. And as such, I don't see why it's any of our concern.
posted by happyroach at 1:12 PM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Are they required to go to this event? As in, Will it be "Orf wif er 'ead!" If they don't attend?
If not, then obviously any charity that attends is doing so because they feel it will give them an advantage that's worth the expense. And as such, I don't see why it's any of our concern.
posted by happyroach at 1:12 PM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just imagine how the late Stuarts would've handled this one.
Or the Tudors, even. A good royal progress, now...
posted by thomas j wise at 1:28 PM on January 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Or the Tudors, even. A good royal progress, now...
posted by thomas j wise at 1:28 PM on January 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Are they required to go to this event?
She's the patron of these charities. Does that imply some sort of goodwill between the parties? Isn't that why the article got written? If I put on a coffee morning in aid of Cancer Research at my house, do I charge guests in order to cover my costs? I do not.
posted by colie at 1:39 PM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
She's the patron of these charities. Does that imply some sort of goodwill between the parties? Isn't that why the article got written? If I put on a coffee morning in aid of Cancer Research at my house, do I charge guests in order to cover my costs? I do not.
posted by colie at 1:39 PM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
who owns The Mall -- is it the Crown, or the City of London?
I would guess either. I can't see the Crown ponying up to maintain it and the City of London starts on the other side of Covent Garden. City of Westminster? A borough?
posted by biffa at 1:47 PM on January 15, 2016
I would guess either. I can't see the Crown ponying up to maintain it and the City of London starts on the other side of Covent Garden. City of Westminster? A borough?
posted by biffa at 1:47 PM on January 15, 2016
Just imagine how the late Stuarts would've handled this one.
In Stuart times you could, actually, pay to watch the royal family eat. I've struggled to find a good image, but in this painting the people at the back behind the balustrade have likely bought tickets, while King Charles I and Queen Henrietta Maria eat with their family at the table. (Indeed, Charles first saw Henrietta Maria while watching her dine with the French royal family, while he was supposedly incognito as a member of the public. This was part of the crazy Spanish Match roadtrip, so who knows how much of it is true.)
posted by Emma May Smith at 1:47 PM on January 15, 2016 [12 favorites]
In Stuart times you could, actually, pay to watch the royal family eat. I've struggled to find a good image, but in this painting the people at the back behind the balustrade have likely bought tickets, while King Charles I and Queen Henrietta Maria eat with their family at the table. (Indeed, Charles first saw Henrietta Maria while watching her dine with the French royal family, while he was supposedly incognito as a member of the public. This was part of the crazy Spanish Match roadtrip, so who knows how much of it is true.)
posted by Emma May Smith at 1:47 PM on January 15, 2016 [12 favorites]
Charities being the target of this does add a rather shitty tone to the thing, I hope none of them sign up for it. And the way for them to recoup their money by reselling 40% of the tickets makes it start sounding like a weird dodge.
posted by Artw at 1:55 PM on January 15, 2016
posted by Artw at 1:55 PM on January 15, 2016
This is the country where multiple media outlets once reported on Liz and Phil catching a lift to the wrong floor and having to get back in to go to the right one. The UK press definition of a "PR disaster" is as shaky as their definition of "newsworthy".
posted by rory at 1:58 PM on January 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by rory at 1:58 PM on January 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Considering the costs for catering, security, AV, staff and other expenses £150 a head is probably pretty close to at cost for the event.
posted by humanfont at 4:58 PM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by humanfont at 4:58 PM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
£150 does seem a bit bargain basement to see the Queen. I mean, I've paid that to see drag queens. To be fair, they are probably infinitely more entertaining than HRM, no matter how lovely she may be, the dear old thing.
The relatively inexpensive fund raiser reminded of an old Animaniacs cartoon. (Windsor Hassle starts at about the 2 minute mark. Bonus John Cleese!)
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 6:42 PM on January 15, 2016
The relatively inexpensive fund raiser reminded of an old Animaniacs cartoon. (Windsor Hassle starts at about the 2 minute mark. Bonus John Cleese!)
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 6:42 PM on January 15, 2016
Just imagine how the late Stuarts would've handled this one.
Any of the following: Treason. Bibles. Getting Beheaded. Actresses & Spaniels! Defeat and Exile. Strategic Marriage. Snacks & Drinks. Defeat. Total Defeat.
But I guess we'll see how this guy plans his party in eight years.
posted by thivaia at 7:09 PM on January 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I believe the Mall is operated by Royal Parks, in conjunction with Transport for London. It was Royal Parks that had to have a striking change of leadership in order for the East-West Cycle Superhighway to actually go past the roundabout in front of buck house in any safe form.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 2:11 AM on January 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 2:11 AM on January 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
with a hefty slice of the money going to a company run by her own family to arrange the event. yay corruption.
posted by andrewcooke at 2:56 AM on January 16, 2016
posted by andrewcooke at 2:56 AM on January 16, 2016
I don't care how much they cost, beheadings are no way to celebrate a monarch's birthday in this day and age
That's just like, your opinion, man.
posted by Madame Defarge at 4:26 PM on January 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's just like, your opinion, man.
posted by Madame Defarge at 4:26 PM on January 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older Stuck on Eden | Fable Friday: Venus and the kitty cat Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:30 AM on January 15, 2016 [54 favorites]