British Royal Family Current Events 5: July 2011-March 2013


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Look I am glad the Queen said it too because I thought the whole display looked creepy. The Queen as someone has already put it so beautifully is a "cool customer" and so if she thought that then it's okay with me. The whole display appears to be in honour of someone who has died instead of a newly married young woman .... the Queen called it in one. I wonder if she has a view on who will win the world cup in September.
 
I think the Queen- joking or not- was correct in her assessment of the display. I'm sure it's too late for it to be changed, but perhaps the museum will put more light or make it look 'livelier'. As a lot of people have mentioned, it does look as it's honouring someone who has passed away- with the headlessness and dark lighting (from the photos I've seen).
 
I decided I've lurked long enough and wanted to jump in and join the discussion with my initial post. The display is very eerie and the gown looks lost in the vastness of the room. It looks like an homage to Miss Havisham in "Great Expectations." I also find the lighting very odd on the bodice of the gown; it throws shadows on the bustline in a not very flattering way. Perhaps a small spotlight at the base might dispel these shadows. Maybe the curator will take the Queen's resounding opinion to heart and modify the display.

Thank you to all members who have made this forum such a scintillating site. Your lively discussions and great expertise are the cause for much of my time spent here.
 
Can I give you a little background information please? Buckingham Palace is, in places, in a poor state of repair, and as I understand it, the money from opening the Palace is intended to help defray the cost of some of this work, rather than as a top-up to the 'Royal Purse' if you see what I mean....... In fact, your humble Diarist actually attended an Investiture when part of the masonry fell off and injured a guest....
 
Who is responsible for the care of the palace? Do the funds come from the royals or the public..or both?

MM
 
IIRC, the money for the 'public' residences of the monarch and the BRF [BP, Windsor, KP, SJP etc] comes directly from the taxpayer in the form of 'Grant-in-Aid' as it is known and not out of the Civil List payment made to the Queen. The problem though, as I understand it, that the sums paid have been cut back over the years in an attempt to save money, which means that routine and planned expenditure on maintenance has often been scaled back... After the fire at Windsor Castle in 1992, BP was opened to paying visitors [it had never been opened before] and parts of Windsor Castle previously free or off-limits were also opened. The originally intention was two-fold: one, to provide the necessary funds to restore the fire-damaged Windsor without calling on money directly from the taxpayer and secondly to allow people, albeit for a price, to see something more of the Palaces. Members here might well remember that at that time [the famous 'annus horribilis'], there was a general feeling that the RF was becoming remote and there were also complaints about the cost of the monarchy. IMVHO, I think that the period was unfortunate, because people were still getting over the death of Diana, which some people perceived as having been handled insensitively by the monarch, and also a general disenchantment with the activities of Sarah, Duchess of York, whose particular antics at the time were being used [fairly or unfairly] as a sort of 'stick with which to beat the monarch' After Windsor was repaired, the charges still remained in force and I understand the money is used to help maintain the Royal Palaces.

Balmoral and Sandringham are the Monarch's own properties and their care and repair is a matter for the Queen's own purse.

I am sure that more experienced members of TRF will be able to better supplement this information.

Alex
 
Last edited:
IIRC, the money for the 'public' residences of the monarch and the BRF [BP, Windsor, KP, SJP etc] comes directly from the taxpayer in the form of 'Grant-in-Aid' as it is known and not out of the Civil List payment made to the Queen. The problem though, as I understand it, that the sums paid have been cut back over the years in an attempt to save money, which means that routine and planned expenditure on maintenance has often been scaled back... After the fire at Windsor Castle in 2002, BP was opened to paying visitors [it had never been opened before] and parts of Windsor Castle previously free or off-limits were also opened. The originally intention was two-fold: one, to provide the necessary funds to restore the fire-damaged Windsor without calling on money directly from the taxpayer and secondly to allow people, albeit for a price, to see something more of the Palaces. Members here might well remember that at that time [the famous 'annus horribilis'], there was a general feeling that the RF was becoming remote and there were also complaints about the cost of the monarchy. IMVHO, I think that the period was unfortunate, because people were still getting over the death of Diana, which some people perceived as having been handled insensitively by the monarch, and also a general disenchantment with the activities of Sarah, Duchess of York, whose particular antics at the time were being used [fairly or unfairly] as a sort of 'stick with which to beat the monarch' After Windsor was repaired, the charges still remained in force and I understand the money is used to help maintain the Royal Palaces.

Balmoral and Sandringham are the Monarch's own properties and their care and repair is a matter for the Queen's own purse.

I am sure that more experienced members of TRF will be able to better supplement this information.

Alex

Thank you so much for the information.

I wasn't aware that there were two fires at Windsor Castle. I've only read/heard about the one in 1992.
 
The question if the Faberge pieces are still being made :rolleyes: how about getting some information beforehand or think logically for once.
http://www.hellomagazine.com/imagen...display/0-21-993/kate-middleton-dress2--a.jpg

I'm confused, who should have gotten more information beforehand, Catherine when she asked if the Faberge pieces where still made or the Queen when she responded 'oh no, too expensive...' and was corrected by an attendant who said, 'actually, ma'am, they are still made...' to which the Queen responded 'copies, then...'
And I don't see how either comment suggested an inability to think logically. The BBC video captured the Faberge conversation - wish they would have shown some of the pieces that the Queen and Duchess where viewing, beautiful, I'm sure.
Anyone know what the Queen was describing in this video:
Queen and Duchess view wedding dress
it appears she's talking about an incident where something fell off.
 
Thank you so much for the information.

I wasn't aware that there were two fires at Windsor Castle. I've only read/heard about the one in 1992.

Sorry Daria_S, you are right, it was my sloppy typing. The 2002 Fire was at BP, when initially posting, I had added a phrase about the 2002 BP fire, then deleted it, except the date. Which made it look like there were two fires at Windsor.

Alex
 
Sorry Daria_S, you are right, it was my sloppy typing. The 2002 Fire was at BP, when initially posting, I had added a phrase about the 2002 BP fire, then deleted it, except the date. Which made it look like there were two fires at Windsor.

Alex

Thank you so much for the clarification.
 
I saw on french television yesterday evening a report from channel 2 (France is becoming obsess with the BRF more than the monaco's one, it's strange).

The video is very clear. Here is nearly the conversation. Kate begins. "It's surrealist to see the dress without the head". The queen answers back laughing, "You mean it's horrid'. And then they laughed together.
Kate was not nervous at all in presence of the Queen. The camera follows both when they enter the ball room, and Kate was relaxed, but not too much. She exactly knows her place, and have great dignity, she walks just a small step behind the queen, but a very small step. She spoke with the curator too and explained something - inaudible - to the Queen, the queen was listening quite attentivly kate.
 
Perhaps it is somewhere in this thread, is the cost of the wedding dress a public figure?
 
I was watching the BBC clip and had to chuckle because almost after the Queen gave her opinion of the display, she folded her arms and looked first at the male curator and then at the female curator. The poor lady gave what appeared to be a nervous smile and bobbed a fast curtsey, perhaps thinking that HM might take her displeasure out on her! Also, another poster had remarked that Catherine was saying something about purple but it was unclear. I think she said that the dress looks fine and with the purple there as well.
 
Last edited:
I'm confused, who should have gotten more information beforehand, Catherine when she asked if the Faberge pieces where still made or the Queen when she responded 'oh no, too expensive...' and was corrected by an attendant who said, 'actually, ma'am, they are still made...' to which the Queen responded 'copies, then...'
And I don't see how either comment suggested an inability to think logically. The BBC video captured the Faberge conversation - wish they would have shown some of the pieces that the Queen and Duchess where viewing, beautiful, I'm sure.
Anyone know what the Queen was describing in this video:
Queen and Duchess view wedding dress
it appears she's talking about an incident where something fell off.

Could the Queen have been talking about her own wedding day when her pearl necklace broke? I remember the story that this happened and it had to be quickly repaired. She was talking about a catch, which she didn't notice, and how the whole thing went "bluh," gesturing with her hands as if the necklace fell off. That's the only thing I could think of.
 
Interestingly enough, I checked around for images from the last time the queen's wedding dress was displayed at Buckingham Palace as well as the traveling exhibition with Diana's wedding dress. The queen's dress was also displayed on a headless mannequin, but the tiara appeared to be in a separate display. Diana's dress is displayed on a mannequin with a faceless head, upon which the Spencer Tiara is displayed. (There is a second headless mannequin in the display with a bridesmaid's dress, but there is no matching headpiece floating above it so it doesn't seem as creepy.)

So I can imagine that when the Queen saw this headless mannequin wearing a tiara, it did look a bit unusual compared to previous displays from the royal collection. And I'm glad she spoke her mind to the curators.
 
I saw on french television yesterday evening a report from channel 2 (France is becoming obsess with the BRF more than the monaco's one, it's strange).

The video is very clear. Here is nearly the conversation. Kate begins. "It's surrealist to see the dress without the head". The queen answers back laughing, "You mean it's horrid'. And then they laughed together.
Kate was not nervous at all in presence of the Queen. The camera follows both when they enter the ball room, and Kate was relaxed, but not too much. She exactly knows her place, and have great dignity, she walks just a small step behind the queen, but a very small step. She spoke with the curator too and explained something - inaudible - to the Queen, the queen was listening quite attentivly kate.
Exactly I saw nothing awkward about their conversation I love the part where Kate asks the Queen if they're still being made and the Queen goes oh no and the guy goes yes and the Queen chimes in and goes NO and then he goes well they are in replicas it was just a classic moment. She looked at him like my god man I'm the Queen and have lived here since forever you'd think I'd know better then you :lol:
 
Exactly I saw nothing awkward about their conversation I love the part where Kate asks the Queen if they're still being made and the Queen goes oh no and the guy goes yes and the Queen chimes in and goes NO and then he goes well they are in replicas it was just a classic moment. She looked at him like my god man I'm the Queen and have lived here since forever you'd think I'd know better then you :lol:

I would also wonder why anyone would put out a replica of something when the original is available? In this case, the curator (or whoever this guy was) should have just trusted his monarch's assessment/answer. It's her collection after all. I don't think anything is being made by Faberge, unless of course his children/grandchildren inherited his talent and set up some sort of business.
 
The problem though, as I understand it, that the sums paid have been cut back over the years in an attempt to save money, which means that routine and planned expenditure on maintenance has often been scaled back...

Alex, thank you very much for this information. :flowers: I'm glad you were not hurt during the Investiture ceremony, though I'm sure you would have accepted any injury as an honour.... LOL. No, earnestly, I have a question. I once read that the Prime Minister has a country seat, Chequers? How well repaired is this building? And how much does "the taxpayer" - via "the government" - spent on this upkeeping?
 
I saw on french television yesterday evening a report from channel 2 (France is becoming obsess with the BRF more than the monaco's one, it's strange).

The video is very clear. Here is nearly the conversation. Kate begins. "It's surrealist to see the dress without the head". The queen answers back laughing, "You mean it's horrid'. And then they laughed together.
Kate was not nervous at all in presence of the Queen. The camera follows both when they enter the ball room, and Kate was relaxed, but not too much. She exactly knows her place, and have great dignity, she walks just a small step behind the queen, but a very small step. She spoke with the curator too and explained something - inaudible - to the Queen, the queen was listening quite attentivly kate.
Thanks! I wasn't quite sure what Kate said in the beginning of the conversation.

I would also wonder why anyone would put out a replica of something when the original is available? In this case, the curator (or whoever this guy was) should have just trusted his monarch's assessment/answer. It's her collection after all. I don't think anything is being made by Faberge, unless of course his children/grandchildren inherited his talent and set up some sort of business.
Faberge items are still being produced by the family. His great-grandaughters design some of the pieces. They make some beautiful Faberge egg pendants.

FABERGÉ. Welcome to the World of Fabergé.

As for putting out replicas, the original pieces are rare and and way too expensive to buy (recently one of the eggs sold for 9.5 million US dollars). So if you love Faberge pieces and don't have millions lying around, the replicas allow you to buy them for cheap.
 
Last edited:
You're welcome. :)
 
The question if the Faberge pieces are still being made :rolleyes: how about getting some information beforehand or think logically for once.
The organizers must be stunned and wont have slept well after HM's blunt remarks :p
Sorry it looks like straight out of a horror movie.
http://www.hellomagazine.com/imagen...display/0-21-993/kate-middleton-dress2--a.jpg

Surely the point of viewing an museum exhibition is to learn more about whatever is being exhibited. If you've got all the information before you go, what's the point in going?
 
Surely the point of viewing an museum exhibition is to learn more about whatever is being exhibited. If you've got all the information before you go, what's the point in going?

Err, that's right of course, but one would expect that a person who studied history of arts would know that the original Fabergé eggs aren't produced anymore. :whistling: I mean, it doesn't really need a study to know that either way. Quite a faux pas, IMO. :neutral:
 
Err, that's right of course, but one would expect that a person who studied history of arts would know that the original Fabergé eggs aren't produced anymore. :whistling: I mean, it doesn't really need a study to know that either way. Quite a faux pas, IMO. :neutral:

It's not exactly unheard of for modern day companies to reignite long lost brands and products which were much loved. For example, there are still companies who make iconic E Type Jaguars even though Jaguar themselves have not made them for decades.

This is the case for lots of particularly high end desirables. In fact I'm surprised given the explosion of billionaires in Russia that a 'new Faberge' has not yet been created.
 
Err, that's right of course, but one would expect that a person who studied history of arts would know that the original Fabergé eggs aren't produced anymore. :whistling: I mean, it doesn't really need a study to know that either way. Quite a faux pas, IMO. :neutral:

It would have been a worse faux pas for her to try and flaunt her knowledge. I suspect she was trying to make conversation when she asked that question.
 
I think £250,000 for a unique, bespoke wedding gown by a designer of the calibre of Sarah Burton and her team is entirely possible.

To start with Sarah Burton probably has a team of several people who work with her to firstly sketch and edit the design to get it to something the bride is happy with, over several consultations. The you have the many seamstresses and all those involved in the actual cutting and making of the dress itself, not to forget the shoes and the veil. Then you have the inevitable alterations which would have had to be made.

How may man hours would have been dedicated to this dress? Over 1,000? Several people working all day, everyday for weeks on end, you could run into thousands plural. Now charge out those hours, some of which for the 'cheaper' members of the team - the seamstresses which still would have been considerable and then factor in how much even an hour of Sarah Burton's time must cost. She could probably charge thousands of pounds for a single one on one consultation.

At the end of all that you can reach £250,000 very, very easily.


I did not think of that way... your right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom