A Queen question for our British cousins. (actually everyone, but them, mostly)

[meatloaf109]

Really more than one but they are all tied together.
I heard on the tube that the Queen gave some sort-of honor to Camilla, and they showed a large gold and white decoration.
1) Is this thing real, I mean, solid gold or something?
2)Does she get to keep it, as in, is there one made everytime the Queen throws one of these around?
And if the above are both affirmative,
3) Who pays for all this stuff?
I am just curious, don't want to start a pro/anti-royals thing.

 

[Njaco]

and don't want to get political or the thread will be closed.

 

[herman1rg]

This may help

BBC News - The Queen makes Camilla a Dame Grand Cross

 

[stona]

I expect the answer to both 1 and 2 is yes.
Assuming that to be the case then you can be certain that we,the British tax payers,ultimately pay for it.
Cheers
Steve

 

[meatloaf109]

and don't want to get political or the thread will be closed.

Absolutely.

 

[meatloaf109]

This may help

BBC News - The Queen makes Camilla a Dame Grand Cross

Thanks.
I find it interesting that the order is named for Queen Victoria; to my limited colonial mind, She presided over a peroid known for it's straight-laced propriety.(Never mind her own personal life.)
To award this to a former mistress, (consort?) however well reguarded now, seems...well, odd!

 

[Lucky13]

Didn't Terry get the same thing, Dame Of The Grand Cat?

*Leaves the room hastily!*

 

[Hop]

1) Is this thing real, I mean, solid gold or something?

According to Wiki:

For Knights and Dames Grand Cross, Commanders, and Lieutenants, the Maltese cross is rendered in white enamel with gold edging, while that for Knights and Dames Commander and Members is in silver.[5] Further, the size of the badge varies by rank, that for the higher classes being larger, and Knights and Dames Grand Cross and Knights and Dames Commander have their crosses surrounded by a star: for the former, an eight-pointed silver star, and for the latter, an eight-pointed silver Maltese cross with silver rays between each arm.

It certainly doesn't look like there's much gold involved.

2)Does she get to keep it, as in, is there one made everytime the Queen throws one of these around?

Yes.

3) Who pays for all this stuff?

At a guess I'd say it varies. Some orders are granted by the monarch personally, most are handed out by the government in the monarch's name. I'm pretty sure the government pays for the awards they grant, the queen probably pays for those that she awards personally.

 

[stona]

Thanks.
I find it interesting that the order is named for Queen Victoria; to my limited colonial mind, She presided over a peroid known for it's straight-laced propriety.(Never mind her own personal life.)
To award this to a former mistress, (consort?) however well reguarded now, seems...well, odd!

Times change! I can see your point though.

Historically Kings often made their mistresses Duchesses. Officially this was for reasons of etiquette,to give them a rank in court which everyone understood. Some courtiers might not have liked it but a Duchess was a Duchess and had to be treated as such,at least publicly.

The Duchess of Cornwall (Camilla) is thus entitled because she is the wife of the Duke of Cornwall (one of Prince Charles' many titles). This was considered the least contentious title that she could adopt when the two were married. She is entitled to be called The Princess of Wales but,probably wisely,decided to forgo that title which her predecessor had made her own. Diana Princess of Wales by the way,not Princess Diana. Only a Princess Royal,that is by blood,not a Princess by marriage is addressed that way. Princess Anne,as a daughter of the Queen is a Princess Royal.

If Prince Charles accedes to the throne the Duchess of Cornwall WILL be Queen Camilla,whatever the pretence was on their marriage. The consorts of English/British Kings have enjoyed that title for a very,very long time.

Cheers
Steve

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I find it interesting that there is a donation box at the Tower Of London to help pay for the Royal Jewels. Needless to say, I did not donate any time that I have visited it. I have no problem donating to museums or what not, but not to "any" royal family.

 

[meatloaf109]

Times change! I can see your point though.

Historically Kings often made their mistresses Duchesses. Officially this was for reasons of etiquette,to give them a rank in court which everyone understood. Some courtiers might not have liked it but a Duchess was a Duchess and had to be treated as such,at least publicly.

The Duchess of Cornwall (Camilla) is thus entitled because she is the wife of the Duke of Cornwall (one of Prince Charles' many titles). This was considered the least contentious title that she could adopt when the two were married. She is entitled to be called The Princess of Wales but,probably wisely,decided to forgo that title which her predecessor had made her own. Diana Princess of Wales by the way,not Princess Diana. Only a Princess Royal,that is by blood,not a Princess by marriage is addressed that way. Princess Anne,as a daughter of the Queen is a Princess Royal.

If Prince Charles accedes to the throne the Duchess of Cornwall WILL be Queen Camilla,whatever the pretence was on their marriage. The consorts of English/British Kings have enjoyed that title for a very,very long time.

Cheers
Steve

Interesting, so a divorced woman can become Queen now.
I wonder what Edward and Mrs. Simpson would say? I have long thought that one of the reasons she was hated so much was the fact that she was unable to produce an heir.
(The whole twice divorced American who alledgely learned her skills in a cat house thing, aside.)

 

[meatloaf109]

I find it interesting that there is a donation box at the Tower Of London to help pay for the Royal Jewels. Needless to say, I did not donate any time that I have visited it. I have no problem donating to museums or what not, but not to "any" royal family.

I would have found it strange if you had!

 

[gumbyk]

I find it interesting that there is a donation box at the Tower Of London to help pay for the Royal Jewels. Needless to say, I did not donate any time that I have visited it. I have no problem donating to museums or what not, but not to "any" royal family.

Adler, From what I remember, the Crown Jewels are not owned by the Royal family, they are owned by the state and held in trust, as are most of the estates. The family are by no means poor, but most of the displayed wealth is in fact owned by the state.

 

[Readie]

Thanks.
I find it interesting that the order is named for Queen Victoria; to my limited colonial mind, She presided over a peroid known for it's straight-laced propriety.(Never mind her own personal life.)
To award this to a former mistress, (consort?) however well reguarded now, seems...well, odd!

ML..Camilla is not that loved or well regarded here. Diana was the 'people's princess' and the events that unfolded leading to her mysterious death have led to all sorts of theories.
What we do know is that the 'Rottweiler' aka Camilla Barker Bowles was always in the background.....

John

 

[oldcrowcv63]

ML..Camilla is not that loved or well regarded here. Diana was the 'people's princess' and the events that unfolded leading to her mysterious death have led to all sorts of theories.
What we do know is that the 'Rottweiler' aka Camilla Barker Bowles was always in the background..... John

Now, here is the basis for a conspiracy I can buy into. Which only proves one person's conspiracy-basis is just another's tragedy.

Step away from the thread, Old Crow, and do it slowly with both hands in the air....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Adler, From what I remember, the Crown Jewels are not owned by the Royal family, they are owned by the state and held in trust, as are most of the estates. The family are by no means poor, but most of the displayed wealth is in fact owned by the state.

Even less reason to help pay for them.

 

[buffnut453]

Why so? The Tower of London and the Crown Jewels receive huge numbers of visitors from outside the UK every year. Why should all the cost of maintaining those displays fall on the UK taxpayer? Should we apply your principle to the $15 "parking fee" to visit the NASM's Udvar Hazy Center?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Like I said, I have no problem paying for museums and what not, I just don't believe in "donating" money to pay for something the govt. should be taking care of anyhow. I don't believe the UK taxpayer should be paying for it either, but rather the Queen and her family themselves. The taxpayer probably already pay too much anyhow.

Comparing parking fees to this, is like comparing apples and oranges. I would have no problem paying a parking fee at the Tower of London. Besides people pay entrance fees at the Tower of London (which they should). I sure as hell am not going to donate though, to help keep crown jewels in pristine condition. That should fall on the monarchy themselves in my opinion.

 

[buffnut453]

But the jewels aren't owned by the Royal Family. They're symbols of State. The Government (courtesy of the UK taxpayer) does fund a great deal of the upkeep but they're such a popular attraction, and so bluddy expensive to secure and insure, that I think it only fair that foreign visitors should also contribute to their maintenance.

My analogy wasn't to parking fees, or entrance fees, in general but to the specific cost of getting into the Udvar Hazy Center. All the other Smithsonian facilities are free to enter so why the parking fee at Dulles?Essentially it is an entrance fee. The aircraft therein are owned by the US nation and the facilities are maintained by the US nation (ie by US taxpayers...like me) so I think the analogy with the Crown Jewels is actually quite a propos. However, I digress...

 

[Readie]

Come on chaps..

Are you visiting to join in the Queens diamond jubilee celebrations in June?

Its a once in a life time opportunity

John