The Queen cancels Ritz party
As we suggested last week, the Queen has cancelled her Diamond Wedding Anniversary party at The Ritz.
The regal hotel would not confirm Royal Anecdotes’s suspicions that the event “has been quietly dropped” as it never comments on private bookings. Now we know that Her Majesty has put the party to one side because of the growing financial crisis in the British economy and the spectre of a recession, or worse.
The Mail on Sunday reports that the Monarch feels it would be “inappropriate” to hold a lavish celebration with the country on the brink of recession.
Guests would have been served champagne from crystal-studded bottles and dined off tablecloths covered with sparkling jewels, it is said. “Her highlighting of the dire state of the economy will not be welcomed by the Prime Minister [Gordon Brown], who faces daily reminders from his advisers that the electorate has lost the ‘feel-good’ factor and is punishing him for it in the opinion polls.”
A friend of the Royal couple commented, “It is a great shame, but the Queen does not want to be seen to be doing something so elaborate at a time of such economic gloom. [She] decided to cancel the party because of the very real prospect that the country is about to go through a major recession.”
Downing Street is apparently still sore about the mix-up when the accident-prone Gordon Brown sloped off from a photo-opportunity with the Queen and President Sarkozy before the Windsor Castle State banquet for the French party. They blamed Palace officials for sending him the wrong way.
The friend remarked, “With everyone else having money woes at the moment, the Queen decided to cancel. She thought it wouldn’t be a great example for her to set.”
It seems a sensible decision in the circumstances.
[...] Queen cancels her Ritz Diamond Wedding Anniversary Party According to the Daily Mail and otehr sources (below) the Queen has cancelleld a planned Diamond Wedding Anniversary for her and the Duke of Edinburgh at the Ritz Hotel. Apparently Her majesty feels it would be "inappropriate" to hold such an event at a time of ecomonic reccession in the UK. Queen cancels diamond wedding party in wake of economic gloom| News | This is London Queen cancels diamond wedding party in wake of economic gloom | the Daily Mail Royal Anecdotes » The Queen cancels Ritz party [...]
By Queen cancels her Ritz Diamond Wedding Anniversary Party - The Royal Forums on March 30th, 2008 at 12:28 am
How very like the Queen, who has always been the thrifty, practical one in her family. Someone needs to tell the Minister mentioned in the press today who just spent 1.7 million pounds sterling to renovate, refurbish and redecorate his apartments, all at taxpayer expense! What on earth was he thinking?!
By Gigi on March 30th, 2008 at 12:28 am
I wonder what the Queen thinks of the extra cost for the protection of Kate on the slopes?
By Alicia on March 30th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Is the economy in England really that bad that people would begrudge the Queen her anniversary party? Wasn’t the Queen paying for the event herself? Surely the party could have been scaled back a bit – regular bottles of champagne instead of crystal studded ones and linen tablecloths with flowers instead of tables decorated with sparkling jewels. A nice dinner party at The Ritz with family and friends could have been just as celebratory.
In my humble opinion, I think Her Majesty is sending the wrong message. To read the party was cancelled because the country is on the brink of recession and economic gloom will send shivers up the spine of anyone reading the Sunday papers. A sure way to hasten economic recession is to advocate that people not spend money on parties, vacations, dinner at a restaurant, etc. It will cause a domino effect if people stay home and don’t pump money into the economy. Her majesty is certainly entitled to cancel her party, but the reasons given sound very ominous indeed.
By Arthur on March 30th, 2008 at 3:49 am
Arthur, the party was being given, and paid for, by close friends of the Queen, so it was not at public expense. You’re right that cut backs will only enhance the decline in the economy. Many people don’t realize that cutting down at this stage of the cycle is a self-fulfilling ordnance, especially by the rich who can afford not to.
But it’s a matter of perception. The Queen has never been one for conspicuous consumption so probably feels more comfortable cancelling it.
By John on March 30th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Gigi, that was the Speaker, a man most MPs and commentators think is useless and should be sacked. That’s why such a fuss was made of it.
By John on March 30th, 2008 at 7:31 am
I don’t think she would begrudge a future relative police protection in these uncertain times, Alicia.
By John on March 30th, 2008 at 7:38 am
It makes it all the more frustrating that Her Majesty’s staff bungled the original date for the party last November. The party would have been over and done with and the Queen and Prince Philip honored the way they deserved.
By Arthur on March 30th, 2008 at 7:48 am
True, and in any case, the moment had gone. They probably felt it was too late to ratchet up the celebratory mood all over again.
By John on March 30th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Yeah, Arthur’s right about cut-backs tend to make things worse, but there’s a point where we do have to cut back on our spending. Lord knows, here in the USofA, too many people have spent spent spent like there’s no tomorrow and well – now they’re feeling it and we have a horrible credit problem ballooning over our heads.
The economy could not sustain itself the way it has been – and even that was an illusion. The housing market could not continue to rise the way it has – at some point, people will just stop buying as they cannot afford it. This should have happened a long time ago.
I hope we don’t see something on the order of a world-wide depression, but I fear that may well be the case before too long. Tighten your belts folks, because we are in for a rough, rough ride.
By On the Outside on March 30th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
John: Then why just protection on the slopes for Middleton, why not 24/7. But then maybe she has it and its just not public news.
If I recall, Diana did not receive protection until she was engaged.
Then again, maybe the Queen is not aware of the expense. Gigi,
I agree with your comment 100%.
By Alicia on March 30th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
The POW website has the following event listed for William for the 31st.
“Prince William, Patron of TUSK and Centrepoint, will meet participants of ‘Cycle of Life’ and host a send-off for their bicycle ride across Africa, Clarence House, London.”
I’m a little confused that this will take place during the week when he’s supposed to be training. Does that mean tha he’s not with the RAF anymore but is back in London even though his passing out is sheduled for April 11?
By Isana on March 30th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“I wonder what the Queen thinks of the extra cost for the protection of Kate on the slopes?”
It’s so nice to see another Alicia on the board.
I don’t believe the Queen worries about this cost. First, Prince Charles is probably covering the cost with Duchy of Cornwall revenues, not the Queen. Second, as John said, in these uncertain times, it is absolutely necessary.
I wonder if there have been any instances, unpublicized of course, of Kate having a scary encounter – either with the press or with one of those sadly unhinged girls that post so much vile about Kate on the boards.
The cost of bodyguards is nothing compared to the emotional and PR cost of something terrible happening to Kate.
By Alicia on March 30th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I was under the impression that the protection that was given to Kate on the ski slopes was one of PW’s guards, not someone new.
I have not seen anything about Kate since they are back in London. I supposed we won’t see her until PW’s passing out. I hope she is present for that.
By Grandma828 on March 31st, 2008 at 12:52 am
Isana, training is until april 1, graduation april 11. I’m sure that this programmed event has to be covered and most likely he also covered what was expected from him with the RAF.
By Me on March 31st, 2008 at 1:17 am
Well, the nice part about this is that we have an interim opportunity to see Prince William and Kate at the same event prior to the May wedding of Peter and Autumn!
This is good news indeed!
By Gigi on March 31st, 2008 at 1:42 am
Alicia (one of two), it’s getting a little confusing that two Alicia’s are commenting here, with different views. I can tell the difference from the email addresses and IPs, but other readers can’t. Can I suggest you call yourself Alicia2 just to differentiate between you?
By John on March 31st, 2008 at 10:53 am
I think it is sad that HM and PP cancelled a party they so richly deserve. However once again HM is being seen on par with the rest of the country and again sets a wonderful example for all.
By Trudie on March 31st, 2008 at 1:01 pm
The Queen always likes to share her people’s pain, Trudie, as far as she’s able to when she has to lavishly entertain foreign leaders like the Sarkozys.
By John on March 31st, 2008 at 1:10 pm
John, the German media has referred to an article in “Saturday Star”: It suggests that an engagement between PH and Chelsy might be imminent, as the prince has been seen twice together in deep conversation with Chelsy’s father, both seeming in very serious moods.
It appears, that since Harry’s return from the military engagement, he and Chelsy have been inseparable, and now they are making “nails with heads”.
So afterall, we might be seeing Chelsy still at the Autum /Peter wedding, wearing a ring?!:-))
By Gena on March 31st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Well, that is unfortunate, John, as I was happily looking forward to a number of Royal Engagements in the near future. Whatever ails the Daily Star, anyway, if they can’t get anything right?
By Gigi on March 31st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Gigi, that doesn’t mean that the Harry engagement story is necessarily wrong. No paper can be wrong all of the time — even the Star.
There was a story months ago that they were engaged unofficially, but that petered out after a while. Who knows? I’ll wait till the obese lady sings.
By John on March 31st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Another item to be contended with is that, until Harry is 25, the Queen must give him permission to marry. I remember hearing that last summer the Queen said “no,” but I don’t think that report was in one of the more reputable news sources. It could also be that the Queen wouldn’t support that engagement until Harry had finished his stint abroad with the military.
I think Harry’s heart is completely taken with Chelsy; it would not be good to deny him a committed relationship with the love of his life.
By Evelyn on March 31st, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Evelyn, the Queen will remember the Townsend affair of her younger sister Margaret. She virtually put an end to it and Margaret went off the rails.
By John on March 31st, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Very true, John. It was very sad and, indeed, tragic, that the Townsend Affair, as it was called then, was so mishandled. It was not the fault of the Queen, who was a young woman, newly crowned and coping with the daunting tasks of being the Monarch. I have always believed that she was given poor advice and further that undue pressure was brought to bear by a person near her who had a personal agenda. At any rate, Princess Margaret was a tragic figure for the rest of her life, moving through an unhappy marriage and then on to a series of lowbrow romances that provided distasteful fodder for the gutter press. She and Lord Snowden did, however, have two very beautiful children. The message, however, remains, that grave consequences often result from the forceable separation of two people committed to each other and deeply in love. I sincerely doubt that the Queen, who is very wise as well as kind, will make the same mistake twice.
By Gigi on March 31st, 2008 at 4:49 pm
My dear John, invite this overweight lady to our RA teas and I guarantee you, she’ll gain girth and sing!
By Gigi on March 31st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
John and Gigi, I think you are both trying to be too politically correct. Let the “fat” lady sing. She doesn’t mind, it’s her only claim to fame.
By Arthur on March 31st, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Arthur, come on, I could have written the avoir dupois- challenged lady. Now that would be PC.
By John on March 31st, 2008 at 7:16 pm
John, there was an article with photos of PH, Chelsy and her parents all toether shopping in Cape Town in the Daily Mail last week. They all looked prety happy togeher, this is nothing definite of course-they were reported to be looking for an obese South African diva!
By Royalist on March 31st, 2008 at 7:25 pm
LOL! The material point is that we are waiting for the dear lady to sing, and apparently she is more likedly to burst into song if she partakes of a few high-calorie delectibles from the Royal Anecdotes Gala Tea menu.
Let us keep our eyes on the prize. 
After all, a rose by any other name…
By Gigi on March 31st, 2008 at 7:25 pm
John
Could you imagine if there were indeed 3 engagements this summer?? I think the press would go wild. Although as you mentioned before there is the little matter of the Robert M association could many ruffled feathers be soothed if he is removed from power with the latest Zim election results?
By Jackie Mccoy on March 31st, 2008 at 7:40 pm
dont think the RF are going to let 3 engagements move foward at the same time…my thought is that its pretty well thought out/planned in advance in regards to announcements of this nature..
thoughts
By coni on March 31st, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Thoughts…. I see PH, looking back to the snub of Chelsy regarding the wedding in May. A man who has faced danger and death in a war, may take steps to show his point, even if he cannot officially announce an engagement. With these pictures in South Africa maybe he has made clear his own idea of showing that he is able to break out from the official court releases, perhaps he is tired of the bla bla bla, he has proved before that he can stand his point (e.g. regarding his request to serve in perilous war zones).
By Gena on March 31st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Touche, John.
Gigi, I would gladly sing the praises of the calorie laden treats you serve at Royal Anecdotes’ Teas. I believe a calorie deprived person is an unhappy person and I am never unhappy.
By Arthur on March 31st, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Many thanks for the kind words, Arthur! I agree with you wholeheartedly and I also feel that had God, in His infinite wisdom, wished us to be calorie deprived, He would not have given us the gift of sugar, chocolate and all the lovely things that combine to create the miracle that is champagne!
I also have never been calorie deprived nor unhappy! 
By Gigi on March 31st, 2008 at 10:00 pm
imagine the bubbly that will flow here at the next royal celebration…
By coni on March 31st, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Today (I know it’s April 1st and April fools day) but its also the 90th anniversary of the formation of the RAF and events are planned to celebrate the occasion including a Red Arrows fly past over Buckingham Palace. I wonder if PW as a serving oficer will be involved in the shin dig. Maybe there is a calorie uncontrolled lady in the RAF School of Music..
By Royalist on April 1st, 2008 at 8:13 am
LOL Well said, Royalist! I do believe that we all need to drink a toast to celebrate the 90th Anniversary of the Royal Air Force, that gallant band of airborne brothers without whose daring and sacrifice Britain would have been defeated by the evil enemy during WWII. Arthur, if you will be so kind as to pour the champagne, I hope that John will favor us with a toast to the RAF! May God bless all the brave men and women, living and dead, who have served in any capactiy in the Royal Air Force!
By Gigi on April 1st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Perhaps it is fortuitous that Prince William and Kate Middleton are not getting married this year. With a recession on the horizon and the Queen tightening her belt, some of the pomp and ceremony of a Royal wedding might have been scaled back. After waiting this long for William and Kate to tie the knot, I want to see a Royal wedding with all the bells and whistles.
I also recently read that Queen Elizabeth was considering another vacation cruise on the Hebridean Princess, similiar to the 80th birthday cruise two years ago. I wonder if that will still happen under the current economic conditions. Maybe Gordon Brown can turn the economy around before August.
By Arthur on April 2nd, 2008 at 11:01 pm
I understand all you say, Arthur, but recession or no, I feel sure that when Prince William marries, the Queen will pull out all the stops and the grandeur, pomp, circumstance and splendor will be unsurpassed. After all, he is second in line to the throne. Post-war austerity was at it’s grim height when Princess Elizabeth wed Prince Philip, but the King and Queen Elizabeth all but killed the fatted calf for that wedding, as they should have.
By Gigi on April 3rd, 2008 at 2:14 am
I agree Gigi I think when PW & Kate do get married it will be quite a grand affair. I’m very excited as I am sure we all are!
By Jackie Mccoy on April 3rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm