BUCKINGHAM PALACE open for tours March 27- May 4, 2015
Feb 13th, 2015, 05:58 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUCKINGHAM PALACE open for tours March 27- May 4, 2015
Visiting London this spring? Buckingham Palace will offer exclusive guided tours "behind the scenes" from Friday, March 27 thru Monday, May 4. I always thought that the Palace was only opened to the public in August.
Sorry I won't be there...
http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/ev...ded-tours-2015
Sorry I won't be there...
http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/ev...ded-tours-2015
Feb 13th, 2015, 09:03 AM
#3
They did this last year too -- Evening champagne tours -- but I think it was for a shorter booking period period
I'm doing it (yeah yeah -- I <i>know</i>
) My last night in London I'll have a bit of champs in the Palace . . . .
I'm doing it (yeah yeah -- I <i>know</i>
) My last night in London I'll have a bit of champs in the Palace . . . .
Feb 13th, 2015, 09:52 AM
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi PATRICK LONDON,
"For the public that would wince at £75 tickets....." OK, but I know that I would go for it if I were in London. Hey, I am not a shopper, not into fine dining, so I like to splurge on experiences like this.
Also, the announcement adds, "Please note the price includes a glass of champagne, a copy of the official guidebook and 20% discount in the Royal Collection Trust Shop on Buckingham Palace Road."
I have been to the adjacent QUEEN'S GALLERY a few times. I always notice that there is always time allowed for shopping in their gift shop.
JANISJ, I figured you would buy in if you were in London at the time. Let us know how it goes...
"For the public that would wince at £75 tickets....." OK, but I know that I would go for it if I were in London. Hey, I am not a shopper, not into fine dining, so I like to splurge on experiences like this.
Also, the announcement adds, "Please note the price includes a glass of champagne, a copy of the official guidebook and 20% discount in the Royal Collection Trust Shop on Buckingham Palace Road."
I have been to the adjacent QUEEN'S GALLERY a few times. I always notice that there is always time allowed for shopping in their gift shop.
JANISJ, I figured you would buy in if you were in London at the time. Let us know how it goes...
Feb 13th, 2015, 09:56 AM
#5
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the Queen is hard up - the reason she reluctantly opened the Palace years ago in August and parts of September was to raise funds to repair fire damage at her Hampton Court Palace (or was it Windsor?) but it made so much moolah she kept it open - when of course she and her consort were on their annual Scottish retreat - probably the lovely royal couple will also be out of palace this time.
And at 75 quid a pop they are not letting the rabble in but only the stiff upper lip types who can afford it.
Power to the people - the Palace to the people not just the filthy rich. Buckingham IMO should be open like most royal palaces in Europe all year and at a reasonable fee folks who pay taxes to support the palace can also see the luxurious interior.
Or may the Queen for a few extra quid will have a bit of champs with the elite who can afford entry.
And at 75 quid a pop they are not letting the rabble in but only the stiff upper lip types who can afford it.
Power to the people - the Palace to the people not just the filthy rich. Buckingham IMO should be open like most royal palaces in Europe all year and at a reasonable fee folks who pay taxes to support the palace can also see the luxurious interior.
Or may the Queen for a few extra quid will have a bit of champs with the elite who can afford entry.
Feb 13th, 2015, 10:01 AM
#7
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,920
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, actually taxes don't support the Palace. There's a set share of income from the Crown Estates to cover all the head of state expenses and maintaining the working buildings: so they have to pay their way.
Feb 13th, 2015, 10:53 AM
#9
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Or may the Queen for a few extra quid will have a bit of champs with the elite who can afford entry."
At 89, she already meets (and deals with graciously) far more people than almost anyone else on earth except greeters at Walmart.
And people mad enough to pay 75 quid to see her house aren't anyone's definition of an elite.
In a decade or so of course, her successor will - as priority number 10,000 on his agenda after he's dealt with the conflicting views of the 15 governments he takes his orders from and the people who elect them - have to sort out this problem of public access to Buck House.
But rightly or wrongly, it's been her private house for most of the past 80 years, and this is no time to change its status. I suspect she looks back on her four years of real independence outside the cage, between her marriage and taking over her dad's job, as the happiest years of her life. Nonetheless, she's imprisoned at the end of The Mall and she's entitled to some privacy while her sentence goes on.
Charles is too unpredictable to know what his view is going to be - if he ever actually accepts the job. William is almost certain to open the place up more or less full time.
Like most of England's major buildings, though - from the Palace of Westminster to King's, Cambridge - it's always going to be a working monument, subject to frequent closure for tourists on account of it's got a real job to do.
At 89, she already meets (and deals with graciously) far more people than almost anyone else on earth except greeters at Walmart.
And people mad enough to pay 75 quid to see her house aren't anyone's definition of an elite.
In a decade or so of course, her successor will - as priority number 10,000 on his agenda after he's dealt with the conflicting views of the 15 governments he takes his orders from and the people who elect them - have to sort out this problem of public access to Buck House.
But rightly or wrongly, it's been her private house for most of the past 80 years, and this is no time to change its status. I suspect she looks back on her four years of real independence outside the cage, between her marriage and taking over her dad's job, as the happiest years of her life. Nonetheless, she's imprisoned at the end of The Mall and she's entitled to some privacy while her sentence goes on.
Charles is too unpredictable to know what his view is going to be - if he ever actually accepts the job. William is almost certain to open the place up more or less full time.
Like most of England's major buildings, though - from the Palace of Westminster to King's, Cambridge - it's always going to be a working monument, subject to frequent closure for tourists on account of it's got a real job to do.
Feb 13th, 2015, 12:06 PM
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi PAL,
" Power to the people - the Palace to the people not just the filthy rich." Wow, that's the first time I have ever been put in that category!
JANISJ, is the £75 "champagne" tour different from the regular Buckingham Palace tours during the late summer? It was touted as giving a "behind the ropes" experience in the brochure.
" Power to the people - the Palace to the people not just the filthy rich." Wow, that's the first time I have ever been put in that category!
JANISJ, is the £75 "champagne" tour different from the regular Buckingham Palace tours during the late summer? It was touted as giving a "behind the ropes" experience in the brochure.
Feb 13th, 2015, 12:51 PM
#11
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,920
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>Crown Estates which IMO should belong to the people of Britain from which they were confiscated. <<
The Treasury gets something like 70% of the income, and the management of the estate is accountable to Parliament, so they do belong indirectly to us.
The Treasury gets something like 70% of the income, and the management of the estate is accountable to Parliament, so they do belong indirectly to us.
Feb 13th, 2015, 01:40 PM
#12
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PATRICK,
I know that the Crown Estates are vast. The one I noticed was Park Crescent off Euston Road near Regent's Park. The Crescent feature elegant stuccoed terraced houses designed by architect John Nash (1752- 1835).
One house belonged to the PRINCE’S TRUST, a charity founded by Prince Charles in 1976 to help disadvantaged youth with employment, education, and vocational training.
Very nice neighborhood...
I know that the Crown Estates are vast. The one I noticed was Park Crescent off Euston Road near Regent's Park. The Crescent feature elegant stuccoed terraced houses designed by architect John Nash (1752- 1835).
One house belonged to the PRINCE’S TRUST, a charity founded by Prince Charles in 1976 to help disadvantaged youth with employment, education, and vocational training.
Very nice neighborhood...
Feb 14th, 2015, 03:16 AM
#13
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did one of these tours a couple of years ago. It's not much more than the cost of a theatre ticket. You get a guided tour with an art expert in a small group, up close and personal with the art and antiques. It's a very different feel from being herded through with the masses on the audio tour. And there was a lot more than one glass of fizz at the end - had to refuse the final top up in the interests of staying upright.
I have no desire to be part of any elite, but am happy to choose what I spend my hard earned money on.
I have no desire to be part of any elite, but am happy to choose what I spend my hard earned money on.
Feb 14th, 2015, 03:55 AM
#14
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANICECUPOFTEA,
"I have no desire to be part of any elite, but am happy to choose what I spend my hard earned money on." Well said. To each his own, eh?
From what you describe, this "champagne" tour does sound special. Thanks for sharing.
"I have no desire to be part of any elite, but am happy to choose what I spend my hard earned money on." Well said. To each his own, eh?
From what you describe, this "champagne" tour does sound special. Thanks for sharing.
Feb 14th, 2015, 04:13 AM
#15
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Crown Estates which IMO should belong to the people of Britain from which they were confiscated."
There is an organisation called the Crown Estate - a government-managed property development company whose portfolio is based on land monarchs did once own - but it doesn't own Buckingham Palace.
The main royal palaces (Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Holyroodhouse, St. James’s Palace, Kensington Palace, Hampton Court, the Tower of London, the Banqueting House at Whitehall, and Kew Palace/Queen Charlotte’s Cottage) are owned by a not-for-profit trust, ultimately for the benefit of the nation, and the royal family cannot sell any of them: any divestment or addition to the real estate they occupy benefits, or is a cost to, only the government.
The Crown Estate owns a number of tasty slugs of urban land (like Regents St and the stuff round Regents Park latedaytraveller likes) as well as some peculiarly horrible retail parks around Britain and an extraordinary amount of odd historical accretions. Profits all return to the government, and it's managed by property or retail professionals. It started life as one of the emasculations Parliament imposed on monarchs between 1688 and 1760, which meant that - in Britain - by 1770 the monarch was in effect a powerless public servant with no grand estates. The deal was that the State got the monarch's estates (and a wodge of legal entitlements, as well as a wodge of administrative responsibilities for things like managing war memorials), and paid him or her a salary.
The gross grant given to the monarch to do her job (and pay for staff and expenses) is set currently at 15% of the Crown Estate's net profit, though that's subject to review.
There's also a common use in English to describe other government property (like army bases) as "Crown land." That's just the way the language works: it's got nothing to do with what the Queen actually owns.
(Incidentally: the monarch wasn't impotent in the colonies, where he retained the right to over-ride laws passed by colonial assemblies. A fascinating book published last year - <i>The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding </i> - shows how the US President was given rights - which he still has - to meddle in legislation that Britain stripped its king of a century earlier, which is why most Americans are so ill-informed about the role of the Head of State in real democracies like Canada, Britain and the Netherlands. In the British Empire, the monarch lost that right pretty much about the time we extended the illegality of slavery from Britain to the rest of the monarch's realms)
There's a ridiculous cliche about the Queen being "one of the world's richest women". According to Murdoch's Sunday Times (Murdoch, notoriously, is no fan of the monarchy) she ranks as Britain's 39th richest woman - just ahead of the woman who owns the UK TV rights to The Apprentice
There is an organisation called the Crown Estate - a government-managed property development company whose portfolio is based on land monarchs did once own - but it doesn't own Buckingham Palace.
The main royal palaces (Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Holyroodhouse, St. James’s Palace, Kensington Palace, Hampton Court, the Tower of London, the Banqueting House at Whitehall, and Kew Palace/Queen Charlotte’s Cottage) are owned by a not-for-profit trust, ultimately for the benefit of the nation, and the royal family cannot sell any of them: any divestment or addition to the real estate they occupy benefits, or is a cost to, only the government.
The Crown Estate owns a number of tasty slugs of urban land (like Regents St and the stuff round Regents Park latedaytraveller likes) as well as some peculiarly horrible retail parks around Britain and an extraordinary amount of odd historical accretions. Profits all return to the government, and it's managed by property or retail professionals. It started life as one of the emasculations Parliament imposed on monarchs between 1688 and 1760, which meant that - in Britain - by 1770 the monarch was in effect a powerless public servant with no grand estates. The deal was that the State got the monarch's estates (and a wodge of legal entitlements, as well as a wodge of administrative responsibilities for things like managing war memorials), and paid him or her a salary.
The gross grant given to the monarch to do her job (and pay for staff and expenses) is set currently at 15% of the Crown Estate's net profit, though that's subject to review.
There's also a common use in English to describe other government property (like army bases) as "Crown land." That's just the way the language works: it's got nothing to do with what the Queen actually owns.
(Incidentally: the monarch wasn't impotent in the colonies, where he retained the right to over-ride laws passed by colonial assemblies. A fascinating book published last year - <i>The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding </i> - shows how the US President was given rights - which he still has - to meddle in legislation that Britain stripped its king of a century earlier, which is why most Americans are so ill-informed about the role of the Head of State in real democracies like Canada, Britain and the Netherlands. In the British Empire, the monarch lost that right pretty much about the time we extended the illegality of slavery from Britain to the rest of the monarch's realms)
There's a ridiculous cliche about the Queen being "one of the world's richest women". According to Murdoch's Sunday Times (Murdoch, notoriously, is no fan of the monarchy) she ranks as Britain's 39th richest woman - just ahead of the woman who owns the UK TV rights to The Apprentice
Feb 14th, 2015, 06:21 AM
#16
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
latedaytraveler and others (except one) the filthy rich thing was a hyperbole - nothing person and I may fork out that money on some such event if it interested me at all which it don't - my point was that this is about the only royal palace in Europe that does not allow regular visits and at an affordable price.
If the gates of the palace are open to the rabble it should IMO be affordable for common folk, few of whom could fork over such a stipend. Thus it seems like an unseemly money grab by the Palace.
If the gates of the palace are open to the rabble it should IMO be affordable for common folk, few of whom could fork over such a stipend. Thus it seems like an unseemly money grab by the Palace.
Feb 14th, 2015, 07:38 AM
#17
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLANNER, thank you for the exposition on royal estates and properties. Also:
" A fascinating book published last year - The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding - shows how the US President was given rights - which he still has - to meddle in legislation that Britain stripped its king of a century earlier..."
I will be reading it. This Eric Nelson may be the US's version of Niall Ferguson - youthful, sharp, and media savvy. Here's a clip about the book.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.p...=9780674735347
" A fascinating book published last year - The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding - shows how the US President was given rights - which he still has - to meddle in legislation that Britain stripped its king of a century earlier..."
I will be reading it. This Eric Nelson may be the US's version of Niall Ferguson - youthful, sharp, and media savvy. Here's a clip about the book.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.p...=9780674735347
Feb 14th, 2015, 08:57 AM
#18
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
George Herbert Walker Bush is said to have more English royal blood than QE 2 - thru both sides of his poppy and mommy - just think George W Bush could well be King of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Berwick-on-Tweed! And that my friends would have certainly brought down the whole monarchy baloney - George the VIII would have his 'ed cut off' for sure.
Feb 14th, 2015, 09:12 AM
#19
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PALENQ,
"... my point was that this is about the only royal palace [Buckingham ]in Europe that does not allow regular visits and at an affordable price." I hear you.
But on the other hand, London offers FREE entry to so many great museums - NATIONAL GALLERY, PORTRAIT GALLERY, TATE MODERN, & TATE BRITAIN to name a few.
"... my point was that this is about the only royal palace [Buckingham ]in Europe that does not allow regular visits and at an affordable price." I hear you.
But on the other hand, London offers FREE entry to so many great museums - NATIONAL GALLERY, PORTRAIT GALLERY, TATE MODERN, & TATE BRITAIN to name a few.
Feb 14th, 2015, 10:47 AM
#20
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If the gates of the palace are open to the rabble it should IMO be affordable for common folk"
I'm coming up to the 50th anniversary of the first occasion I pestered an English voter on his or her doorstep to vote for my candidate. In the half century since I can't say I've heard a single British citizen - even those who'd see the royal family all impaled over the gates to the Tower of London - express the slightest concern about public access to the royal palaces.
Buck House is a boring building, there are dozens just the same all over the country, its (impressive) art and book collection is regularly loaned out, and Her Maj's stamp collection can be inspected, stamp by boring stamp, at the British Library.
I've no idea (or interest) whether the Grand Ducal Palace in Luxembourg is easier to visit than Buck House. But, like 60 million other Britons, I'm perfectly happy to wait till Elizabeth's passed away before having the same access to her pad I have to the palatial (and far costlier to visit) eyesore down the road from my house.
In the meantime: if there are suckers daft enough to pay 75 quid to see her place, it'd be criminal not to grab their cash and use it for something useful.
I'm coming up to the 50th anniversary of the first occasion I pestered an English voter on his or her doorstep to vote for my candidate. In the half century since I can't say I've heard a single British citizen - even those who'd see the royal family all impaled over the gates to the Tower of London - express the slightest concern about public access to the royal palaces.
Buck House is a boring building, there are dozens just the same all over the country, its (impressive) art and book collection is regularly loaned out, and Her Maj's stamp collection can be inspected, stamp by boring stamp, at the British Library.
I've no idea (or interest) whether the Grand Ducal Palace in Luxembourg is easier to visit than Buck House. But, like 60 million other Britons, I'm perfectly happy to wait till Elizabeth's passed away before having the same access to her pad I have to the palatial (and far costlier to visit) eyesore down the road from my house.
In the meantime: if there are suckers daft enough to pay 75 quid to see her place, it'd be criminal not to grab their cash and use it for something useful.
