Queen buys new plane and gym
Not to be outdone by the Brown government’s refusal to foot the bill for essential Palace maintenance, the Queen has used her personal funds to purchase a new aircraft for her own use and that of her Family.
Although a more Monarchy-friendly administration is due to take power in a year or so, many of us had hoped the Queen would become more proactive in her own interests. This is now beginning to take shape.
It’s also been announced that a new gym is being built in Buckingham Palace for the 450 staff who work there.
It will be fitted out with top-of-the-range equipment and a personal trainer. The facility will be situated in the Royal Mews and funded by the Royal Lifestyle Committee with generous help from HM herself.
A Royal source commented, “Research into the issue was conducted by the Lifestyle Committee recently and they discovered that all the top FTSE 100 companies provided gyms for their employees.”
The source added, “The Queen prides herself on being a top-class employer and with more than 450 staff on her books needs to offer them the kind of perks they would find at other large companies. The Queen is probably the best proponent of a healthy lifestyle you can find and she is confident that the gym will be well used — although probably not by herself.”
It’s good to see the Monarchy fashioning itself as a modern employer and adopting the best business practices.
The fact that taxpayer funds are not being used highlights the distressed state of the public finances.
John, does the Royal Family have a private aircraft now? Is the new one just a replacement/upgrade? Or an additional plane?
I know there have been several reports of various members using commercial airlines, and also of some taking a private plane. Can you shed more light on this?
By Evelyn on September 27th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Evelyn, it used to be called The Queen’s Flight and was run by the RAF. The present mob changed it to The Royal Flight and ensured that ministers had priority, even when the Queen was on a State visit.
On one occasion, when three ministers fell out, they commandeered three planes to go to the same meeting while the Queen had to use a commercial airline to take her on a State visit to Australia.
That looks like changing and not before time.
By John on September 27th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Thanks, John. Reading in the Telegraph, this will be the Queen’s first private jet.
By Evelyn on September 27th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
She’s very generous with her staff.
The photo of her: there is just something about the Windsor aura that eminates sophistication. I love it! I get so excited when I see new pictures of them.
By Meg on September 27th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Well done! I think its wonderful that Her Majesty is looking out for her staff so well and encouraging a healthy lifestyle. And I’m pleased she’s purchasing a plane. It makes a lot of sense.
By Leslie on September 27th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Great for the environment, owning your own plane.
By ClassyCanuck on September 28th, 2008 at 4:31 am
You have to make a distinction between a Head of State and a joy-riding rock star.
By John on September 28th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Too bad she can’t power the jet with the wind turbine she just bought, but all that wind energy ought to count as an offset!
By Dan on September 28th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
John, I have posted two comments at the weekend, and neither of them appear here. What on earth happened to them?
By Gigi on September 28th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Gigi, no sign of them, I’m afraid.
Two options: either they encountered a surge in traffic — we were boosted in Google’s PageRank yesterday — or you forgot to click on “Submit Comment”.
It’s surprising how frequently the latter happens. I’ve done it myself a few times.
By John on September 28th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
This is so nice of HM to do this, and a typically thoughtful thing as well.
It makes me smile to think of her sneaking into the gym late one night, with her loyal footman offering to “spot her twenty.”
Happy “crunches” to your Majesty and may you long continue to “rock.” !!!
By alsgal on September 28th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Out of curiosity, is there any indication as to how Her Majesty feels about the Duchess Camilla becoming Queen when Charles becomes King? And would the people of England welcome that?
By Meg on September 29th, 2008 at 1:34 am
I just saw an article from Mandrake, that says Kate is interviewing protection officers….John is this possibly true??? That would be a good sign as it says PC and PW will pay!
By Julie on September 29th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Can someone answer my question on tuxes. Any picture I see of a Royal wedding, the men seem to be wearing a tux with tails. At first I thought it was just a “royal” thing, but at Prince William’s college friend wedding, he ws wearing the same type of tux. Is that tux, the “style” in europe or is it a royal thing? Thanks!
By American Cousin on September 29th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Isn’t that the highest level of formal weddings, in the USA and other places?
By Julie on September 29th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I don’t believe so in the states. Maybe black tie and people where your traditional tux, but I’ve never seen an american wedding with tails, just your regular tux.
By American Cousin on September 29th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
American Cousin, it’s a formal “morning suit”, usually grey with tails and a top hat.
The nearest we have to a tux is a “dinner jacket” with formal trousers and black bow tie.
By John on September 29th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Hm, my wedding here in the states had black tuxes w/tails. That’s what the bridal magazine said was most formal but I have not seen a wedding that formal since my sister’s wedding 8 years ago. I do like the look though…
Seems like these days people are as likely to wear jeans!
By Julie on September 29th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Tails usually go with white tie - a step up from the more pedestrian black tie - the White House dinner for the Queen was white tie.
By Amity on September 29th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I remembered that the dinner for the Queen at the white house was white tie, but my memory is so bad that I did not want to stick my foot in it! Thanks for confirming what I was too shy to throw out there for fear of sharing bad info
By Julie on September 29th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Even here in the US, white tie is most formal for evening, and then black tie. During the daytime (before 6 PM), the proper tuxedo is a “morning coat”, which is what you’re seeing with tails. I just had them at my 11 AM wedding. Hardly anyone here ever wears them, though.
By Kris on September 29th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
White tie and the morning coat are not the same - even if they both have tails. White tie is a black jacket with tails - very elegant; morning coat, as John pointed out, is grey jacket with tails - also very elegant. True that the former is for evening and the latter for daytime, however.
By Amity on September 29th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
The great thing is that these days women can get away with wearing just about anything - even pants or if you really have nerve, a shorter (ie, non-floor-length) dress!
By Amity on September 29th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Some times that’s great and other times…not so much
By Julie on September 29th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I have been to weddings where white tie and tails were the mode of dress for the bridal party and for guests. They seem to be less common today than in my youth, but then as now, the attire of the bridal party and groomsmen is dictated by the time of day of the ceremony.
Of course, fashion decrees changes in wedding attire. Currently, many brides are wearing strapless prom dresses as wedding gowns, often with no bridal veil. It is not a fashion I find attractive or appropriate, especially at a church wedding, but there you have it.
When I was growing up, no bride could be married in church wearing a strapless or low-cut gown, as it was considered disrespectful in a House of Worship. Now, we hear of incredible lapses of decorum occurring at weddings, in the manner of dress and in the behavior of the participants. Often, I long for the clarity and civility of my childhood days.
By Gigi on September 29th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
By the way, there are two wonderful photographs in Hello Magazine. One of Charles, patting the noses of the beautiful horses of the mounted police and another terrific photo of the Earl and Countess of Wessex at Ascot, presenting the Queen Elizabeth II Cup to the winner. Except for shots of Charles playing polo years ago and photos of Charles, mounted and riding on parade for Trooping the Color, I have seldom seen a photo of Charles relating so closely to horses, and I am delighted to see this picture. The second photo shows Prince Edward and Sophie Wessex looking so happy and beautiful, performing Royal duties with grace and charm, and it is really delightful.
By Gigi on September 30th, 2008 at 1:46 am
I was wearing a strapless dress, but I got married on an island! (but I made my poor husband wear a suit and tie)
By dally on September 30th, 2008 at 2:51 am
Sorry Gigi I’m with you on Bridal fashion. When I married in ‘79 my wedding was at 2:00 and believe me even my maids were covered up and the dresses were long as were the guests and it was formal. I myself wore a dress with a Queen Anne neckline and catheredal veil with a juliet cap and the men wore tuxes. My sister who married in ‘96 was just as formal with no revealing neckline but a shorter veil and my BIL wore tails. And the men wore dinner jackets. I feel in a formal church wedding decorum should still dictate and my church is what you call High Episcopal modeled on the great churches of England with three Alters It would never occur to me even at a sunday service to wear jeans or revealing dress.
By Trudie on September 30th, 2008 at 4:12 am
Thanks for all your fascinating reminiscences. With the news coming out of America and the worsening financial situation, we may all be reduced to wearing sacks.
By John on September 30th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Burlap is very versatile, John!
By alsgal on September 30th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
John, I hope your conservatives are better leaders than ours. 12 Republicans were insulted by a Democrat’s speech before the rescue plan vote and decided to punish the country. Now the world can enjoy the result.
One congressman said he voted against it because it betrayed Ronald Reagan’s legacy. Now that’s 21st-century thinking for you!
I’m going to NYC today, spending a few days in the financial district of lower Manhattan. I’ll let you know how it goes!
By Dan on September 30th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Dan, 95 Democrats also voted it down. They’re all afraid that very angry voters will kick them out next month.
I saw the Pelosi rant and it beggared belief that this person can hold so much power in the party. What was she thinking of? Does she have no idea of basic psychology?
I’m afraid Nancy Pelosi is every much to blame as the Republicans. But then so many people are to blame for this mess, it’s hard to know where to start.
By John on September 30th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Alan Greenspan needs to be arrested and tried for treason — that’s at least a start IMO. Lax lending standards leading to the overabundance of cheap and easy credit beginning back in the 90s caused the crack in the foundation on which the entire economy was built.
It’s amazing to me that it took so long for this Ponzi scheme to collapse; many have speculated this would happen for several years now.
Until yesterday, I don’t think lawmakers and “Main Street” grasped just how Wall Street’s collapse will reverberate throughout the economy. Perhaps now they will realise this failed bailout affects them as well because their pensions are in the hands of the asset management funds which are invested primarily in equities. When the equities tank, so will their income.
Unfortunately, it’s too late now for a good solution, but lawmakers must at the very least pick the one which will cause the least damage.
The idea I like best is to skip a government controlled bailout which overvalues this worthless debt and instead for the government to loan the troubled institutions at Treasury + 2%.
By alsgal on September 30th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I’m of the opinion that there is not a person in DC or the management of these companies that is not responsible. Certainly some more than others…but that does not change the situation.
I DON’T want my tax dollars bailing out a bunch of corrupt or stupid companies (and in some cases both.) I’ll take the hit in my 401K (and I really am)…I’ll invest more carefully in companies that don’t pay CEOs millions to WALK AWAY and retire later than I had hoped.
But I don’t want to give the government or congress any more of my money! They CLEARLY can NOT spend it smarter than I CAN!
I am so tired of watching the government spend money to “help” or fund crazy things that have nothing to do with roads, education and security. Get OUT of everything else…for example we don’t need a government funded stadium, or bike paths, or another art gallery. Fix the roads (I live in Minnesota where the bridge just went down last year,) secure the borders, and improve the schools…and get out of my way and let me live my life and take care of my family. I do charitable work, I give money & time, I help in the school…if everyone did their share, we would not need 1/2 the programs out there and the gov’t would be 1/4 it’s size.
To me the most important thing in any solution that they come up with…LOAN the $ and do NOT reward the management with severance/bonuses. I will be watching and I will keep track of who voted and what they tried to do/not do.
Ok, end of rant! Whew! And what this has to do with the Queen? I don’t know!
By Julie on September 30th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
The plan died because dishonest lawmakers trying to win re-election kept calling it a “bailout” for wall street. It was no such thing; it was a way to unfreeze the credit markets by getting the bad mortgage securities off the books, repackaging them to sell later, and possibly MAKE THE MONEY BACK. That’s what we did with the Savings & Loan “bailout,” where the American taxpayer actually made a PROFIT in the long term.
So what do the taxpayers do? They reject a $700 rescue plan, and then lose over 1 TRILLION DOLLARS in their retirement savings when the market responds.
For myself, I’m not worried. The Washington idiots will come to their senses. In the meantime, I have no credit card debt, no kids to educate, no elderly relatives to care for, and a mortgage that costs me only 10 % of my take-home pay. I’ll just ride this crisis out. (Of course, I am about to get on an airplane, so I’m not totally out of the woods!
) I feel sorry for any of you in tougher circumstances.
It’s like Churchill said: Americans usually get around to doing the right thing, but not after first trying virtually everything else.
And yes, Pelosi showed poor tact at precisely the wrong moment, but if she’s the dog wagging the tail-between-their-legs conservatives, they aren’t any better than she.
By Dan on September 30th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
On a more appropriate, less partisan topic, Kate’s bid to change her image is getting not-bad coverage in the Mail today. No comments have been posted yet, so we’ll see how it goes. But at least Rebecca English is neutral, and not Katie Nicholl-like in tone.
By Dan on September 30th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Aren’t Congressmen elected to listen to their constituents? The problem is credibility. Our leaders have lost credibility. The message being sent by the constituents to their representatives is that the government doesn’t rule the people; the people rule the government. A forgotten fact in this administration. The Republicans have been the majority rule over the past 8 years while credibility was lost and controls put in place after the depression were loosened unnoticed causing our spiral.
The Fed will continue to release money. It has the freedom to do that on a case by case basis and that is just what it is doing. It did so yesterday and also today. It just won’t be able to have $700 million as a blank check to administer at once until an agreement is made. An agreement will be made; most likely this week. Both parties want this to fly. The bailout means the people will own these loans and it needs to represent the people. It just needs to represent the people quickly.
There have been people who have seen this coming. I know at least one. My husband (education economics then business, works for Siemens) advised caution after the last national election because he felt more damage could be done leading to disaster.
I think what we need to remember is that the $700 million is a necessary bandaid. A temporary fix to avert immediate (as compared to long term) disaster. We are capitalism over the edge. We have a lot of work ahead to regain a healthy balance. Plan accordingly.
By lionhound on September 30th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Also interesting to note…they mention that the party pcs. website uses the name “Kate” multiple times…thereby ending the debate on Kate vs. Catherine…at least for now
By Julie on September 30th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Hmmmm! Hot topic! I notice there were 4 posts on the subject in the time it took me to write my, rather lengthy, post!
By lionhound on September 30th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Dan, just read your post and smiled. Whenever I mention the term “bail out” it provokes my husband’s wrath and I receive a message identical to yours. Maybe I’ll stop using the term “bail out”.
By lionhound on September 30th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Dan and Lionhound, let’s hope something is done and quickly as the fat cats already cashed out a long time ago and the people who will be most hurt will be the small business owners (who buy products to sell and make their payrolls using lines of credit) and the people trying to get student, home and auto loans.
The sudden effect of the tightening in the credit markets has already been felt across the board, as people with $ 25,000. credit limits have seen that slashed to $ 1800. in the course of days. Doesn’t take much to imagine how this will affect the student with a $ 1,000. limit who uses her credit cards to buy books and food.
People with sterling credit records who did not contribute to this mess have now found themselves unable to qualify for home loans, even with 20% down, high credit scores, and incomes exceeding 3 times the house value.
Imagine who else this will affect. Cities can no longer issue municipal bonds, and many will go bankrupt and will be unable to pay their employees. Infrastructure projects will be cancelled, such as light rail, which will mean people like the hourly welder on the shop floor will be let go.
Julie, those roads you want fixed can’t get fixed until your city issues a muni bond which can be bought by investors. An investor won’t buy the muni bond if they can’t get credit. Therefore, your road and your bridge will stay like they are, and will deteriorate further.
The guy who mows the lawn, the housekeeper, the hairdresser, the restaurant employee who will be let go because fewer people use their services or go out to eat. The student working at the Gap on the weekend will be let go as people lose their jobs, save their money, and stay home. Eventually, even they will be laid off, and unemployment payments only last so long.
No, it should have never happened. If Greenspan and others hadn’t been asleep at the wheel, it shouldn’t have come to this.
But it has, and sadly, if some sort of active bail out/”buy in” doesn’t occur, many more will be affected negatively than I think many can understand at this point.
Sort of to get back on topic, but I think, in retrospect, this was perhaps not the best week to buy a plane.
By alsgal on September 30th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
That thought occurred to me too, Alsgal. I expect it’s been in the pipeline for a while. HM may also get a good discount if her agent negotiates wisely.
I need to get some Royal stuff up on this site, but there’s little around right now. We’re all transfixed by the financial shenanigans. I’ll try again tomorrow.
By John on September 30th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
I just taxied into NYC. My driver informed me the Dow ended up almost 500 points. By the way, he’s against the “bailout.”
But the Dow doesn’t tell the story; it’s just the reaction to the news of the moment. When we hear that an auto company, or an airline, or another major corporation can’t make its payroll because it has no access to credit, then we’ll see how the markets respond.
For the first time since moving to the Midwest, my flight to NY was non-stop. No getting stuck at O’Hare! If this is the way the Queen is going to fly, it’ll be worth every penny. If she gets caught short, she can sell a Rembrandt to a Russian billionaire. That’s the way to game the system!
By Dan on September 30th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Hm, my husband, a small business owner with exellent credit has the banks calling him to give him loans today, asking if he’s sure he does not need a new machine or two. My sister and her husband who invested in banks and like Dan have no debt (in their case not even a mortgage) are making $ hand over fist because they invested in clean banks and did their research. It’s the banks that got greedy that are having these issues.
But I do get your point and I do understand that there are people who did not realize the risk of working with these other banks/investment companies. I’m just out for blood right now and I want the companies leaders to be punished and the politicians to be punished proportionate to their level of gross negligence. As for the CEOs being long gone, I have trouble believing that the current CEOs don’t have some great compensation packages that if they stick it out long enough they will see the same $. Because…I believe that they will find a loop hole or a “friend” or something.
I don’t think I trust anyone right now about this whole thing and that really makes me sad. Ok, I have to be done talking about this now.
So, has anyone seen Kate or William recently? Do we know if William’s training has begun?
By Julie on September 30th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Dan, Alitalia has bombed and a number of European airlines are going south.
Have a good time in NYC, you are at least at the centre of the universe now, even if the Masters of the Universe have departed.
By John on September 30th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Julie, my personal credit card limit has just been bumped up way beyond my business card limit. As you say, there still is money around — but for how long?
William’s training begins in January, if reports can be believed. He’s currently undergoing spells in various ministries and, I believe, the special forces.
By John on September 30th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Julie, I live in Minnesota, too!
It’s sounding like the DC leaders are looking for other ways to avert the crisis. FDIC seems to be playing a more important role. We shall see what happens tonight.
Bringing conversation around to the Royal Family, I think it’s a great time for the Queen to be making a major purchase. She certainly won’t need a loan to buy the airplane, and the order may help some people somewhere keep their jobs.
By Evelyn on September 30th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Sorry. I do not buy that someone with 20% down, excellent credit and income 3 times the homes value cannot get a mortgage.
By Ursula on October 1st, 2008 at 1:47 am
Ursula, it might happen if the bank believes the home no longer carries the value of the selling price. The bank may then be unlikely to loan because the price of the house is too high. In that case the buyer may have to put down a very high down payment to make the loan worth the risk. That is another can of worms. I’m not certain about this so I invite anyone to correct me.
I’m looking forward to seeing pictures of the Queen’s family plane. A wonderful move! I hope it brings her (and her family) many peace filled trips as they meet their commitments.
By lionhound on October 1st, 2008 at 2:35 am
P.S. Re my earlier posts. I didn’t mean to type $700 million. I do know its $700 billion. I just can’t wrap my head around billion! And trillion? Don’t even go there.
By lionhound on October 1st, 2008 at 2:39 am
Alas, in Manhattan, there are many examples of people with 20% down, credit scores above 720, and liquidity equaling 2 years mortgage/maintenance payments who cannot get loans or pass the coop board - especially for those in finance. People in finance are seen as major liabilities these days….
By Amity on October 1st, 2008 at 3:44 am
It may be that lenders wonder if those finance jobs are at risk.
By Evelyn on October 1st, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Changing the subject before I begin to bleed out of my ears…
…has anyone seen the article on Kate in Vanity Fair?
http://tinyurl.com/43jpv7
Leslie (the Libertarian!)
By Leslie on October 1st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Leslie, thanks so much for the link. It’s a fabulous article!
By Kris on October 1st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
That is a great article…informative and positive…gives a girl hope. Thanks for sharing!
By Julie on October 1st, 2008 at 5:15 pm
It is a more hopeful article then the tabloid articles we have gotten lately, although I did not appreciate the teaser tag:
“We profile Prince William’s girlfriend, who has been ridiculed by the press and the aristocracy” — what on Earth is that supposed to mean? Why even point that out?
Ridiculed for what exactly? Being loyal despite dealing with her (IMO) somewhat immature and sometimes spoiled Prince? Being too close to her family? Working in their self-made business?
Oh yes, that shows terrible character. (rolling eyes)
By alsgal on October 1st, 2008 at 9:38 pm
For many in the states, that will be the first thing they’ve heard of Kate Middleton. It was a summary of what we’ve been talking about all along, but it will be brand new to many Americans.
I wonder if this American “roll out” might be timed strategically? The Royal Family would not want to announce an engagement to someone most of the world had never heard of.
Has any article like this previously appeared in the US? I know she’s been mentioned on CBS and FoxNews, but not a backgrounder as extensive as this.
By Dan on October 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 am
HI John
Here’s a lovely article for you & rest of RA readers
LINK
Enjoy!
By Nikki on October 2nd, 2008 at 6:24 am
Nikki, this a composite of many articles that have appeared in the Daily Mail and others over the past two years. It comes very close to plagiarism — it even contains chunks of the Vanity Fair piece, which itself says nothing new, just regurgitates other articles without attribution.
The VF piece itself is quite sharp at some points and reprints inaccuracies and misunderstandings without challenging them. Information pieces are one thing, but they should surely be tested for accuracy.
By John on October 2nd, 2008 at 9:10 am
oops sorry about that!
By Nikki on October 2nd, 2008 at 11:10 am
That’s okay, Nikki, it’s easy to take as Gospel what the big-name titles print.
By John on October 2nd, 2008 at 11:15 am
I agree about accuracy, John, but in the US we’ll see a lot of “regurgitated” information, because, as I said, few in America have any idea who Kate Middleton is. As William approaches possible engagement, the American press is playing catch up.
The Daily Mail does not have a great readership in the US. When you say the words daily mail in the US, we think about, um, the mail that comes daily.
My point was about the sudden appearance of Kate Middleton in the US press. I don’t think the timing is a coincidence. It would be a boon to British tourism (at a time when we dollar holders can ill afford European travel) if America suddenly fell in love with a future Queen of England.
By Dan on October 2nd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
John, do you see the hand of Miguel Head in any of this?
With the exception of the Tamara Rosenberg quotes, the VF article does indeed seem to be a rehash of previous DM articles. I wouldn’t consider this to be a background piece since despite Gerrard Tyrrell’s cooperation, I didn’t see any mention of Starlight or PP/First Birthdays. If GT did have some involvement, it seems he should have given Vicky Ward that information, as Kate’s involvement with PP/First Brthdays started back in January (according to Carole Middleton last week) and the Starlight involvement began in June. (According to the RE at the Daily Mail.
) Plenty of time to update the article before it went to press, and certainly Kate’s reputation was not well-served by delaying the release of that information.
What I am trying to piece together now is why the Hello! article confirming Kate working for her parents, along with the change in the PP website didn’t come until September, eight months after the fact. The Middletons are smart people, and Kate is relatively media savvy, so I am wondering whether Miguel Head
as given some sort of blessing from CH for her family to finally speak out, or whether the family “gave up” to a certain extent, and decided to take their PR matters into their own hands.
By alsgal on October 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Alsgal, it’s the old damned if they do and damned if they don’t scenario. I would imagine the Middletons are very wary of dipping their toes into the PR scene because of the choruses of “pushy Carole” that usually accompany it.
However, something changed recently. The ludicrously false piece about the Queen “ordering” Kate to get a job while delaying an engagement announcement was probably the last straw. I would think Kate consulted CH and was given the go-ahead to do what followed.
William’s apparently sudden decision to shoot off to Scotland long-term has also changed the balance of probabilities a lot, and those of us who interpret the centre by what goes on at the periphery — like the economic chartists
— are frankly still baffled.
The Middleton’s sudden call to arms may be a frantic attempt to put things right before circumstances drift away from them. But we just don’t know all the answers.
By John on October 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Dan, you may be right, but I suspect they are picking up rumours in Britain like everyone else and trying to do a catchup.
The Huff puff is a bit odd since someone has sat down and cobbled together bits of lots of articles — for what purpose, I don’t know. Perhaps they just want to be ready in case something materializes out of the blue. But I’m pretty sure they know as little as we do.
By John on October 2nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Thanks, John for your insight.
William’s seemingly sudden career decision and Kate’s increasingly public career and charitable announcements are puzzling but I’m still betting that Miguel Head will be leading a bit of a revamp over the next 18 months, and at the very least, has already given the OK for Kate to authorise her attorney to speak out on her behalf. Since Kinloss is only an hour from William’s cottage at Balmoral, I am still hopeful things will work out, perhaps just not as quickly or officially as some of us want.
It’s good that the economy is not as puzzling as William and Kate.
It appears the US is facing ten years of Japanese-style stagflation, as the Fed will likely react by reducing the rate to zero.
Even China has begun to constrict rapidly, as construction is screeching to a halt and the government is slamming on the brakes of the internal expansion.
Investors need to keep an eye on falling copper prices and increased shipping capacity, these are better indicators than anything else of where the markets will be headed.
Scary to read that GE’s industrial business is drying up, and I’m not sure many realised that half of their profit in the past decade was coming from the financial services division. How they managed a triple-A rating when everyone knows their debt is junk is beyond me. The credit rating agencies need to be taken to task for their incompetence, as their ratings often don’t correspond with what is really on the books.
At least the Oracle got a good deal.
By alsgal on October 2nd, 2008 at 3:03 pm