Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip Current Events 13: October - November 2006

[Avalon]

Welcome to Part 13 of the Current Events of The Queen
and the Duke of Edinburgh.

it starts on October 23

Part 12, covering July - October 2006 can be found here

[Skydragon]

Queen Elizabeth II's London home to be lit at night

Queen Elizabeth II's London home, Buckingham Palace, is to be illuminated at night for the rest of her reign, royal officials have said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061023...t_061023141439

Queen's London home to be lit at night

Queen Elizabeth II's London home, Buckingham Palace, is to be illuminated at night for the rest of her reign, royal officials say.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...0/s1771755.htm

[sara1981]

Prince Philip in visit to Iraq
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006490109,00.html

[fanletizia]

Britain's Queen Elizabeth II smiles during a visit to the Smith Centre, a new part of the Science Museum in London, which she officially opened in London, 24 October 2006. The Smith Centre, which aims to promote Britain's scientific heritage, its current relevance and to also encourage private sector support for the Science Museum, is a charitable foundation of the Smith family. AFP PHOTO/Fiona Hanson/WPA POOL

from anp



More from getty

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Queen Elizabeth II's London home to be lit at night

Queen Elizabeth II's London home, Buckingham Palace, is to be illuminated at night for the rest of her reign, royal officials have said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061023...t_061023141439

Queen's London home to be lit at night

Queen Elizabeth II's London home, Buckingham Palace, is to be illuminated at night for the rest of her reign, royal officials say.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...0/s1771755.htm

Oh, brilliant. I wonder if people who live on the front side of the palace will ever be able to sleep again. Haven't these royal officials heard of global warming?

[selrahc4]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Oh, brilliant. I wonder if people who live on the front side of the palace will ever be able to sleep again.

From the article at the first link: "The Queen is said to have agreed to the scheme after receiving reassurances that it would not disturb staff whose bedrooms are at the front of the palace."

I suppose they can always change the lights if this proves not to be true.

[Zonk]

Elspeth..thats the first thing I thought of as well.

While I am sure the "grey men" thought of the staff who live in the front of the palace, and the effect it might give off from the street (I am sure it will look very nice). I thought they were trying to cut expenses. Won't the extra lights cause the electricity bill to go up? Not trying to be funny or anything.

[Amy]

Originally Posted by Zonk

Elspeth..thats the first thing I thought of as well.

While I am sure the "grey men" thought of the staff who live in the front of the palace, and the effect it might give off from the street (I am sure it will look very nice). I thought they were trying to cut expenses. Won't the extra lights cause the electricity bill to go up? Not trying to be funny or anything.

I think it all depends if the Queen has solar panels or not. I think i read somwehere that she has some at Windsor so it is quite possible that there are some at Buckingham Palace as well.

[Skydragon]

Prince Charles and the Queen were today under renewed pressure to open up their accounts to public scrutiny.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...419669,00.html

I put this on this thread because it also concerns the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Zonk

While I am sure the "grey men" thought of the staff who live in the front of the palace, and the effect it might give off from the street (I am sure it will look very nice). I thought they were trying to cut expenses. Won't the extra lights cause the electricity bill to go up? Not trying to be funny or anything.

They don't worry about the cost, it is the British taxpayer who will pay for this light polution! As for the energy crisis, it seems the men in grey suits are happy to leave that to Charles and the rest of us to worry about.
I don't think the Queen has heard of global warming either, after all Blair has been reassuring us all for years that it is not happening!

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by selrahc4

From the article at the first link: "The Queen is said to have agreed to the scheme after receiving reassurances that it would not disturb staff whose bedrooms are at the front of the palace."

I suppose they can always change the lights if this proves not to be true.

One thing first: the new LED technology needs next to no energy and the LEDs are working for ages without having to be replaced because they don't break.

Secondly the articles say it's for the sake of the tourist industry which makes sense as coach trips through the illuminated town are very popular and of course Buckingham Palace should be illuminated like Big Ben or Marble Arch.
I'm just back from a jaunt to Berlin. Had the chance to see Sting perform renaissance music with only a very small, hand-selected audience so I went, but was disgusted about the venue. Poor Sting! He didn't deserve this. (Nor did I... ) - but, back to Berlin - they do a very impressive and modern illumination event at the moment. There with more than 100 sights illuminated by artists using the most creative and impressive light. It was great. And I learned that these two weeks of special illuminations attract an enormous amount of visitors - even from overseas! So there seem to be a sense in doing it, no?

Plus in London they want to switch off the lights at Buckingham Palace at 11 pm which is a suitable time even for an early riser in the Royal Household. Does Greenpeace talk about bakers who cannot afford flats in the dark corners of London but live next to a street lamp? Will anyone ask the town to switch of the street lights next so that Londoners may sleep quietly without disturbances?

That's ridiculous and well they know it! Especially as the LEDs are costly when first installed but won't be that energy consuming in their daily use.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

One thing first: the new LED technology needs next to no energy and the LEDs are working for ages without having to be replaced because they don't break.

The whole of the UK is being asked to cut down on it's energy consumption, so this sets a very poor example. The tourist industry whilst being important to some, is not important to the whole of London or indeed the UK.

[BeatrixFan]

I find it rather tacky although I think the energy consumption claims coming from environment groups are a bit O.T.T. These are a few lightbulbs that are on for about 5 minutes. I do more damage with my Wella.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

The whole of the UK is being asked to cut down on it's energy consumption, so this sets a very poor example. The tourist industry whilst being important to some, is not important to the whole of London or indeed the UK.

Over here we try our best to save energy because it's costly (that's the direct approach) or because it's better for the environment. That's an important point, to be sure.

But - and now comes a long but - things are much more complicated when you look closer. The point is not that Her Majesty is looking for a way to spend more money on her energy bill. Which would be a bad idea, especially as she is not the one to pay for it. She allows for a measure which makes London more attractive. It's the same approach as with this upcoming skating ring at Sandringham - there all concerned were pro, noone mentioned the costs of artificially created ice, the problems of the used water and and and. Or let's talk about a christmas fair in London: how much energy there is spend to earn money from Londoners and tourists...

For me, the illumination of Buckingham Palace is one measure in a row to make London more attractive. Nobody talks about the cost of the illumination of the hotels and houses along Park Lane. Or of the street lights in Mayfair or Belgravia. Why is it so noteworthy that one more building (and one of the most attractive) is illuminated when half of central London is floating in light at night? If Greenpeace is so set on the "example" of the queen as the souverain, they should in a similar way ask the government (and the churches, come to think of it) to turn out their nightly lights and then walk around London at night feeling taken back in time... thugs inclusive.

A, and why organizing concerts of Haendel's "Music for the Royal fireworks" anymore including fireworks? Or organize cultural events at all? If you start at the illumination of BP and you think the whole idea through, you end up with London of the 40ties. Dark and obfuscated, but not because of approaching German bombers.... IMHO

[fanletizia]

Queen Elizabeth ll looks into a model of the head of Albert Einstein during a reception at Buckingham Palace to mark the importance of British Science on October 24, 2006 in London, England

from getty

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Over here we try our best to save energy because it's costly (that's the direct approach) or because it's better for the environment. That's an important point, to be sure.

You raise some very good points Jo. I still think it will set the republicans off with their 'one rule for the royals and another for ordinary people' and I do think it sets a very poor example to the rest of the country. I don't see that it brings in as much revenue as the christmas lights or adds to the safety of the people who live in London.
Now you mention it, perhaps it is time to look at cutting down on the lights in churches, shops and Belgravia.

[Skydragon]

Let there be light: Buckingham Palace flicks with switch

As dusk enveloped Britain, flick went a switch deep in the gubbins of Buckingham Palace. In that instant, 59 vast bulbs transformed the exterior of the Queen’s London residence into something more like a high-security warehouse, bathed in glaring light.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...=1766&ito=1490

My goodness, I couldn't have put it better myself. I can't believe that I am agreeing with anything written in the Mail!