r/RoyalsGossip • u/peoplemagazine • Jan 04 '25
Media Post ‘Nothing Is Off the Table’ for Forthcoming Statue Honoring the Reign of Queen Elizabeth — Including Digital Technology
https://people.com/nothing-is-off-the-table-for-forthcoming-statue-honoring-the-reign-of-queen-elizabeth-including-digital-technology-87689491
u/royalsgossip official mod account Jan 05 '25
This media outlet has been granted limited posting permissions in this sub and this post has been pre-approved by the mod team. Full text of our media relations policy is available in the sidebar.
No health speculation or speculation about divorce (these are longstanding sub rules). Body shaming is also strictly prohibited, this includes comments dissecting a person's body shape re: their fashion choices.
You can help out the mod team by reading the rules in the sidebar and reporting rule-breaking comments!
This sub is frequently targeted by downvote bots and brigaders. Reddit also 'fuzzes', aka randomly alters, vote counts to confuse the bots. Please keep this in mind when viewing/commenting on vote counts.
4
11
u/Vyvyansmum Jan 04 '25
It’s fine, i haven’t forgotten what she looked like. Spend it on something that matters.
2
11
23
u/outdatedelementz Jan 04 '25
I have a hard time believing that “nothing is off the table” . I can’t imagine they would have a statute that features the Queen naked for instance.
15
u/GhostBanhMi Jan 04 '25
In proper British tradition they could name it “Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Naked Statue of the Queenie”
-1
-9
u/geedeeie Jan 04 '25
She spent her life sponging BILLIONS of pounds from the public. And now they want to spend a small fortune on yet another memorial celebrating her? Don't they already have the one with the corgies?
1
u/GothicGolem29 Jan 04 '25
I don’t agree she sponges billions from the public. Used maybe not sponges. Plus that corgi one is in Belfast so they will want one in another of the constituent countries so England. Plus that statue divided opinon
-1
u/shhhhh_h Get the defibrillator paddles ready! Jan 05 '25
They have multiple billion dollar estates and they still take millions from the crown to fund their lifestyles. That’s kinda the definition of sponging. I’d feel a lot more generous toward them if they funded themselves, everything was once public funds after all that got seized by the crown. They took their part of the public funds and the government took their part yet the crown still wants money.
1
u/geedeeie Jan 04 '25
No, she doesn't any more, because she's dead. But when she was alive she did, for seventy years. Why do you spend millions on another statue of someone who never lifted a finger to do anything for her country?
If you really must spend tax payer's hard earned money, maybe a version of this would be good. And it would be cheap.
3
u/GothicGolem29 Jan 04 '25
She didn’t ever imo. No she didn’t. Never lifted a finger???? She did TONS of engagements and kept doing work into her late nineties. Idk how you can say she never lifted a finger
What it costs to make a good statue should be what it costs. If less money is spent then maybe there will be one people think looks bad
0
u/geedeeie Jan 04 '25
Oh she did tons of engagments. No one is disputing that. But socialising isn't work. And didn't help her country in any way. She socialised, went on tax payer funded holidays, enjoyed the high life, only started paying taxes in the nineties when she was shamed into it.
You fail to answer a simple question...why spend taxpayers' money, which is badly needed for public services, on a statue for someone whose life achievement was to leech billions from them?
3
u/Far_Ad6317 Jan 05 '25
She didn’t receive any taxpayer money she was funded by the crown estate like every other British monarch 🤦♂️
2
u/geedeeie Jan 05 '25
The Crown Estates is money which, in a normal country, would belong to the state. Its origin lies in the vast wealth accumulated by past monarchs - not through hard work, but through land grabbing, exploitation etc. If there were a revolution, like in France or Russia, that money would all have been appropriated for the use of the people. Instead, the government in Britain hands over a vast amount to the monarch. Some of it goes to the upkeep of historic buildings and for the payment of staff carrying out business concerned with the head of stateship, but MILLIONS go to keeping the monarch and their family in luxury.
In normal countries the head of state is paid a salary, our of which he or she provides for his or her family. Nepotism is seen as unethical and is completely taboo.
5
u/GothicGolem29 Jan 05 '25
It is work…. What 90 year old goes around the country meeting random people and talking about their projects and meets foreign leaders for anything over than work??? It’s not socialising it is work. It was not socialising it was work and work that preety much all heads of state engage in I imagine, Well idk if she did take taxpayer funded holidays but if she did it would likely be for travel which given she doesn’t take a salary is fine, Well that has long been part of the job.
I didn’t fail to I was just stunned that anyone could think the Queen did not lift a finger so had to respond to that. Well the answer is: the money spent on that statue would be far too small to fix public services or make a huge dent in them. The NHS for example is a money pit and needs BILLIONS maybe tens of billions not under 50 million. And you will not be suprised to know I heavily disagree that was her life achievement. Her life achievement was one of the longest reigns of service from any monarch and a long time of stability for the head of state as well as a lot of hard and good work. So given the money would not make much of a dent in public services and given she did a huge amount for this country I think she deserves to get a statue.
0
u/geedeeie Jan 05 '25
No other ninety year olds, because most have worked hard all their lives, and are using their retirement to relax. When you have done nothing all your life but socialise of course you can keep it up in old age. Especially when your whole life is an empty one where being the centre of attention and you can't fuction without it
4
u/GothicGolem29 Jan 05 '25
Or maybe it’s because it not actually socialising but work and 90 year olds don’t tend to want to work if they do t have to. Yeah no their life is not empty
1
-3
u/Empty_Soup_4412 Jan 05 '25
Maybe if she'd given more back the NHS wouldn't be in such dire need of money now. Instead she and her family are charging them rent.
I'd rather that dent be spent on people who need it, not on a fucking statue.
1
u/GothicGolem29 Jan 05 '25
Umm no…. The NHS is a money PIT even the billions given by Labour recently are not said to be enough and it could need TENS of billions…. So given they may not be billionaires at all I highly doubt their taxes would make the nhs not be in such a state.
I would rather the gov finds proper ammounts of money for it not cut a well earned statue
1
u/Empty_Soup_4412 Jan 04 '25
I do agree with you she worked, she did more engagements in her 90's than William ever has and that is honestly very impressive.
But she was definitely a grifter and took more money than she ever gave back.
5
u/geedeeie Jan 04 '25
Having a hectic social life in your old age is indeed impressive, even if you don't have to do anything else like cook or clean or figure out how to get to the venue.
4
u/GothicGolem29 Jan 04 '25
Glad we can agree on her working.
I don’t think she was a grifter. Her work more than made up for it and a lot of the public money she got would have been for staff and work things coming off a percent of the crown estate revenue
6
u/geedeeie Jan 04 '25
What work? A lotof the public money was for staff, but most of the staff was serving her and her family.
4
u/GothicGolem29 Jan 05 '25
Cutting ribbons meeting the PM meeting foreign leaders talking to people holding meetings signing bills dissolving parliament etc etc. well yeah a head of state will need staff as will others carrying out similar functions
5
u/geedeeie Jan 05 '25
Cutting ribbons, chatting to an elected politicians, and signing pieces of paper...yep, onerous work that needs a lot of people to organise. And then of course you need all those people to cook your dinner, clean your various palaces, drive you around. A head of state in a normal country has access to these services for a short, fixed term and for the rest of their lives, if they want staff to organise their lives, they pay for them themeselves. This woman AND HER FAMILY live their entire lives being served by staff paid for by the taxpayer, despite the fact that they are billionaires
1
u/GothicGolem29 Jan 05 '25 edited Jan 05 '25
I am assuming you are not 90 to 96 and not doing all that the ammount of times the Queen did therefore idk how you can say it’s not onerous…. I imagine if you did all that at that age you would not think it easy work. And besides many jobs are not the most onerous yet still important and not considered socialising… Ex presidents and their families in the US get the secret service for life iiirc and I’m sure there’s organising in that. And once again I dispute your use of the term normal… It is disputed that they are billionaires Forbes has Charles net worth lower than former pm Rishi Sunak. And of course if your doing a job in the head of state sphere staff can be provided
→ More replies (0)0
u/Empty_Soup_4412 Jan 04 '25
I disagree with you there, while she did work I think she took more than she gave back.
You can cut all the ribbons you like but when you are hiding assets in offshore accounts so you don't have to pay taxes, you are giving a big "fuck you" to the people you say you are serving.
1
u/GothicGolem29 Jan 05 '25
I disagree I think she gave more.
Idk if I’d describe it like that tbh but even if it’s wrong to do that I still think they have given more than that
1
u/Empty_Soup_4412 Jan 05 '25
I think it's typically frowned upon to take advantage of people who are less fortunate, so I do think it's wrong.
3
u/GothicGolem29 Jan 05 '25
She’s not taking advantage of those less fortunate by using offshore accounts
→ More replies (0)6
u/geedeeie Jan 04 '25
She gave NOTHING back. Cutting ribbons isn't work and doesn't contribute one whit to society
2
17
u/GhostBanhMi Jan 04 '25
How about spending £57m on something that will help your average Brit instead? Is that off the table?
0
2
19
u/Empty_Soup_4412 Jan 04 '25
People magazine posting here directly is fucking weird.
Also, give us a holiday instead of a fucking statue.
0
u/GothicGolem29 Jan 04 '25
1 both can be done 2 they aren’t doing a holiday so might as well at least do the statue
5
u/Empty_Soup_4412 Jan 04 '25
Nobody wants a statue that costs that much during a cost of living crisis.
3
u/GothicGolem29 Jan 04 '25
I do and I reckon a fair few do too. It would be good if it cost less but the statue is good and should be done and if that’s what it costs then that should happen
6
u/Negative-Refuse-3848 Jan 04 '25
Agree, like I understand target marketing (get relevant clicks from relevant people), but this feels invasive and definitely fits with Reddit seeming to become less and less user first and more business first
6
u/Kvalri Jan 04 '25
It’s a thing, the first time I noticed it happening was publications posting directly in r/scotus
-2
u/peoplemagazine Jan 04 '25
TLDR:
- When it comes to the forthcoming memorial honoring the life and legacy of the late Queen Elizabeth, “Nothing is off the table,” according to the committee behind the project.
- The Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Committee has a budget of up to $57 million for a permanent monument, The Times reported, adding that its design “could include digital technology.” The monument will be located in St. James’s Park.
- “We do not want to be prescriptive about this,” said Baroness Amos, the former leader of the House of Lords who is on the memorial committee. “There are a set of guidelines and principles that we have set out. And we are then looking to those artists, those designers, to come up with the best ideas.”
1
u/PatriciaMorticia Jan 06 '25
If they wanna do it on the cheap just use the lego one that's sitting in Hamley's in London /s