The Queen/ DoE : news & photo's

[ralf103]

As I understand it, letters from children especially are usually always replied to by a Lady in Waiting - admittedly possibly typed up by a secretary or using a preset pro forma especially for key big events but the main line of response directed by the lady in waiting. Certainly when the children at our school wrote to HM they received a response personalised to what work had been done and examples sent and signed by a lady in waiting. I understood that the correspondence office was to do with those who write to HM asking about x y z to do with government, legal, hardship matters etc and their main role is to redirect the issue to the relevant government department, charity, military office.

A 2018 job advert for a correspondence officer notes

Every day you will respond to letters sent by the public regarding political, social or community matters, drafting bespoke responses to answer varying and often unique queries

I think the Correspondence office does all the “business” letters as such while the Ladies in Waiting focus on “warm wishes” especially from children and maybe the elderly.

https://theroyalhousehold...respondence-Officer/en-GB

[getafix]

The ladies-in-waiting aren't 'faceless bureaucrats'. They are quite visible and accompany The Queen on visits etc. They will be the ones who arrive in the car with her (and in 2012 one of her ladies-in-waiting drove in the car with her to St Paul's Cathedral - hardly 'faceless').

The letters used to be handwritten (I have at least half a dozen of those) although these days, and for events like the Jubilee, they are printed with a handwritten extra note at the bottom ... not just a signature of one of the ladies-in-waiting.

People like the late Lady Farnham, who died very late last year, was most certainly not a bureaucrat. These are 'ladies' and often the wives of Dukes or Marquises or Earls. They usually are 'on duty' for a two week period. The CC used to even record when they were changed but since the death of the Queen Mother the Queen stopped noting that.

https://www.news.com.au/e...907ebca30bea576a1b598cecd

LC, I never said nor wrote that LiW were faceless bureaucrats, rather I wrote that the note might (most probably) be written by a faceless bureaucrats.

a vast difference of point. please don't twist my post.

G

[luvcharles]

The kids is cute but I am not sure if they are reading too much into that. I work in a secondary school and I am always writing a letter to the Queen when we cover the topic "writing a formal letter". Every time we get a lovely personal letter back - from one of the ladies-in-waiting. 

....written by a faceless bureacrat somewhere

G

As you highlighted the phrase from one of the ladies-in-waiting. and then wrote ....written by a faceless bureacrat somewhere you are clearly indicating that the ladies-in-waiting are faceless bureaucrats. Otherwise why highlight that phrase at all? That is why you highlight something in a quote - to make that point the one that your post follows on.

Certainly that is how I have been taught to read replies in posts/emails etc in all my computer courses and what I teach when teaching kids how to reply to such posts - anything you highlight immediately is the focus of the next phrase or sentence.

[CyrilSebastian]

What are the plans for the Queen's Platinum Jubilee?     
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02wDpAeb-9M

[nyetochka]

https://www.dailymail.co....rew-military-honours.html

Most of the commentators are praising Queen's stamina and strenght of character. Few mention that she should've stripped Andrew of his titles before.

Seriously, why are people so reluctant of criticizing the Queen? I understand that she's an old lady, but why do people treat every uncomfortable question about her reign as some sort of heresy.

I have noticed that many Americans like her. Is it because she stays as a symbol of the glory of the Empire ? Is it because they equate her reign with ''good neighborhood'', and ''good schools'' and ''good manners''?

Don't you find it odd that people are always reminded that we should venerate a woman who has kept her opinions for herself all her life ( as a constitutional monarch, she was obliged to do so)?

[Maria]

Don't you find it odd that people are always reminded that we should venerate a woman who has kept her opinions for herself all her life ( as a constitutional monarch, she was obliged to do so)?

Personally I prefer it when the queen of my country keeps her personal opinions to herself. She’s supposed to be representing everyone, not one political segment.

[anneboleyn]

I have noticed that many Americans like her. Is it because she stays as a symbol of the glory of the Empire ? Is it because they equate her reign with ''good neighborhood'', and ''good schools'' and ''good manners''?

I honestly think it's a nostalgia thing. For majority of people, she is the only monarch of England they remember, and she's become a bit of a 'cute old granny' with corgis. To the average person, she seems quite harmless. 

[Miss Marple]

It was a difficult situation for her - she had feelings as a mother and had to act like a monarch. I am sure she was initially convinced that it was not "that bad" - we don't know what Andrew told her (he was convinced himself it was not "that bad" or he had convinced himself). I am sure he came clean with her - usually it is innocent until proven guilty but Andrew must expect now to be found guilty.

I am glad that Philipp went before that. It must be very hard for the Queen as a mother - but she has acted now. I am sure more steps are going to follow.

[luvcharles]

Andrew won't be found 'guilty' as he isn't facing a criminal trial. He will be ordered to pay some level of compensation. That will be interesting as his only known source of income is his naval pension and 50% of that goes to Sarah as part of her divorce settlement. He has never had any other income but his naval pay and naval pension. He was given an allowance by The Queen. If he has invested that properly it could all be protected in a family trust so Virginia may find that she doesn't get such a big pay-day. Only Charles is independently wealthy from The Queen. The rest get an allowance from her, not a salary.

[Hester]

https://www.dailymail.co....rew-military-honours.html

Most of the commentators are praising Queen's stamina and strenght of character. Few mention that she should've stripped Andrew of his titles before.

Seriously, why are people so reluctant of criticizing the Queen? I understand that she's an old lady, but why do people treat every uncomfortable question about her reign as some sort of heresy.

I have noticed that many Americans like her. Is it because she stays as a symbol of the glory of the Empire ? Is it because they equate her reign with ''good neighborhood'', and ''good schools'' and ''good manners''?

Don't you find it odd that people are always reminded that we should venerate a woman who has kept her opinions for herself all her life ( as a constitutional monarch, she was obliged to do so)?

In the UK the justice system is “innocent until proven guilty” or, in a civil case, “balance of probabilities”. The scales just tipped against Andrew enough to mean there is very little doubt.

[luvcharles]

I don't think the balance has moved at all. The case is still to be heard. She will have to prove her case not him defend it. And she will have to answer to his lawyers for all the inconsistencies she has said in the various interviews she has given - each one making more and more claims, and for each one she was paid a sizeable sum. His lawyers will go after her and challenge every inconsistency and also ask her about how much she was paid for those stories. There are reasons why many of these cases end up being settled and it is often the plaintiff who seeks the settlement to avoid having to be cross-examined under oath.

[Countess of Cows]

I don't care what they say, Betty will pay anything and do anything for her pervy son.  They will lie about it, but no doubt in my mind when it comes to lawyers, payouts and hush money she'll pay out the nose  and cover it up.  He has no money, he can't sell the Royal lodge, the chalet sale won't cover lawyers much less keep him in style he's accustomed, no way she is still not bankrolling him.  It's all a smoke screen, she won't cut him loose, just no way.  They are doing PR trying to make it go away.

I lost some respect for her long ago during Diana days, then when she promoted the pervert after all the scandal came out I lost it all.  She is not a favorite of mine.  

[Cordelia Fitzgerald]

I don't care what they say, Betty will pay anything and do anything for her pervy son.  They will lie about it, but no doubt in my mind when it comes to lawyers, payouts and hush money she'll pay out the nose  and cover it up.  He has no money, he can't sell the Royal lodge, the chalet sale won't cover lawyers much less keep him in style he's accustomed, no way she is still not bankrolling him.  It's all a smoke screen, she won't cut him loose, just no way.  They are doing PR trying to make it go away.

I lost some respect for her long ago during Diana days, then when she promoted the pervert after all the scandal came out I lost it all.  She is not a favorite of mine.  

I agree with all of this. She does not look admirable and tough for finally stripping his patronages.  This is too little too late.

Has it been officially confirmed that he can't use HRH, or are we still relying on "Royal sources" for that?

Any word on his membership in the Knights of the Garter - is that for life?

[luvcharles]

Knight of the Garter is usually only stripped from a traitor or a foreign ruler whose country goes to war with Britain e.g. the Kaiser and Emperor Hirohito.

The Queen has only ever given Andrew an allowance - no salary and that is important in a court of law where the normal practice is to only award damages up to the person's ability to pay. All Andrew's income is is his navy pension.

Many families, like the royals, have 'inalienable family trusts' meaning that they don't get a payment as such but they send their bills to the trustee who pays the bills. If Andrew has such a trust paying his bills and his only income is actually only his navy pension Victoria won't be getting very much at all ... if anything, even if she wins. Andrew may look 'rich' to the outsider but the reality may be very different and he may actually not have much at all, in his own right.

His home can't be sold as he doesn't own it. The money from the Swiss Chalet will have to first of all be returned to the trust fund/s from which the money was originally taken. Even his cars are probably not in is name but leased via the royal lease arrangements rather than in person.

Virginia has said she wants her day in court. It may be quite costly if the royals have made their financial arrangements properly to protect the wealth of the entire family but not having any individual actually have money in their own name.

[Maria]

There are now two threads about Andrew - one for news on him and Sarah and for the case against him which is a difficult topic to moderate so please stop writing about it everywhere especially in threads not about Andrew. TIA.