Queen Elizabeth's Christmas message criticised online for featuring gold piano

[ansible]

Link to tweet

There’s been an online backlash to the Queen’s Christmas message this year after viewers took offence at her gold piano. The Queen was filmed sitting at a desk in the White Drawing Room at Buckingham Palace when she delivered her speech, which included personal reflections on her long life and a wish for peace.

But it was the presence of a gold piano in the background that sparked accusations of hypocrisy and that she was out of touch. Daily Mirror associate editor Kevin Maguire said the Queen had killed satire by “lecturing the nation to pull together” while sitting in front of a golden piano in a palace she was charging taxpayers to renovate.

Scottish National Party politician James Dornan also pilloried her message suggesting a singalong on the gold piano might cheer up those hungry and sleeping on the streets. The way the Queen funds her activities, what she personally owns and what is owned by the public, is complex.

Taxpayers fund her activities including a planned renovation of Buckingham Palace (which is not her personal property) through the Sovereign Grant, which is funded from profits generated by the huge commercial property business owned by the reigning monarch but only while she is Queen. In 2017/18, the Crown Estate generated a profit of £329.4 million ($A588 million) and this money was given to the UK Treasury, the BBC reported.

A portion of this money, about £47.4 million ($A84 million), was provided as a grant to the Queen to fund her duties and maintenance of the royal palaces. The gold piano is part of the Royal Collection, an art collection made up of more than one million objects owned by the British royal family. The Queen owns some of the objects as a private individual but others are owned in the right of the Crown.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/backlash-against-queens-christmas-day-message-because-of-gold-piano/news-story/4918a80c0f0db77076b838fa200a53d5

[Demovictory9]

1. doesnt everyone have a gold piano?

[VMA131Marine]

3. Technically it's a gold-colored piano

And I believe it was Queen Victoria's

But seriously, the Queen has some seriously nice things. That can't be a huge surprise to people.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. FFS, it's an antique pianoforte

Pianos are not made of metal, save for the strings and the mechanisms. And decidedly not gold.

Can't people see it's wood with a gold pain veneer?

[Cirque du So-What]

4. Austerity for thee

gilded pianoforte for me.

[Hassler]

5. Lush Rimball is lusting for that piano.

[cwydro]

6. It's mahogany.

Would we mind if Elton John had a gold piano?

[912gdm]

7. Im not British so I don't feel it's my place to comment one way or another.

It's their monarchy, and the piano is owned the the people.

I do believe that the 'monarchy' will undergo a massive change when she dies, and her heirs will not be so kept.


ETA: I have been very impressed with William and Harry and how they use their roles for public good.

[JI7]

32. she used her role to do good also

[912gdm]

34. oh hell yeah she did.

I was floored when I found out she was a car mechanic for the army during WW2.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

8. some people are determined to be offended

Facts don't matter -- as we've learned from the age of trumpism -- division and outrage are supreme.

It might be interesting to conduct a poll in the UK and find out if the average citizen would prefer the Queen live in a 2 room apartment with an army cot and a pair of milk crates for chairs.

I suspect (without facts) that the average UK citizen has some pride in the history of the 'trappings' of their monarchy.

[NanceGreggs]

10. Somehow I'm not seeing ...

,,, living in extreme luxury and living in a 2-room apartment with an army cot and orange crates as being the only two possibilities.

[912gdm]

13. would you prefer her in sathcloth

[NanceGreggs]

14. I assume you mean "sackcloth".

And again, why is there nothing between living in luxury and walking around in sackcloth? Do you really think it's got to be one or the other?

[912gdm]

19. Your the one who suggested the extremes.

if you looked at my earlier comment I said that im not British, so im withholding judgement.

your the one who posed the binary luxury or cot room suggestion.


personally, I see shades of gray.

[NanceGreggs]

25. Uh, no ...

I'm the one who responded to the person who posed the extremes.

[912gdm]

26. you are correct.

my apologies

[NanceGreggs]

29. No apology necessary.

We've all done it at some point!

[cwydro]

18. Sathcloth?

Lol!

[912gdm]

20. HARHARHAR

[Hermit-The-Prog]

15. i confess -- reductio ad absurdem

I also confess to not knowing Latin and thus may have gotten that wrong. In any case, yes, I argued the absurd extreme.

It's their palace.

[Mariana]

17. The Queen would never have to live like that

even if she had to pay 100% of her own living expenses. Her personal net worth in the hundreds of millions. If she were cut off from all public support tomorrow, she would still live like the extremely wealthy person she is.

[EffieBlack]

9. Oh, please.

[a kennedy]

11. It's probably part of the years, and years of English rule.......

there’s gonna be stuff that is so audacious it makes us weep. IT’S THE ENGLISH HERITAGE......HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN AROUND.?? Forever???

[msongs]

12. one may suspect the royal family thing brings in huge wads of tourist $$ and other

revenues that would be lost if the royals were deposed

[Blue_true]

33. They bring in a lot more than they take back.

They are a national industry that generate money for other uses other than by them.

[sheshe2]

35. Unlike our First Family.

Grifters.

[Blue_true]

42. Yep. nt

[displacedtexan]

50. The royals are the reason for most of the country's charitable giving.

Each of them is the patron of several charities and work year round to raise funds for everything from children's hospitals to hospice services. But for the royals' ability to shame them, most nobility and merchant-class wealthy wouldn't give a dime to charity.

[area51]

16. And now for something completely different.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

21. she'd probably take that in stride

Somehow, I don't think you could rattle that lady with something as simple as a nude (possibly mad) piano player.

[gldstwmn]

48. He's wearing a tie. n/t

[denbot]

23. LoL

Thanks man, I needed that..

[Adsos Letter]

37. She appears determined to ignore him.

Enter the palace guard with truncheons swinging in 3...2...1...

[gldstwmn]

47. Is that the nude selfie from the Russian bot farm cache? n/t

[WillowTree]

22. Oh for Heaven's sake! Do people think Buckingham Palace is furnished from Ikea?

That piano has no doubt been there for a couple of generations at least. At that, technically, the royal family doesn't own the palace or most of its contents.

And, by the way, "she" isn't charging the taxpayers for the planned renovations. They are being paid, as the story clearly states, from a trust which, as the story also says, from a grant which is funded by the businesses owned by the reigning sovereign. In other words, she is paying for renovations to a palace that she doesn't even own.

What bunch of bunk! I feel genuinely sorry for people who go looking for something to be unhappy about like that.

[Blue_true]

31. The piano likely is maybe 100 years old if not older.

Look at it. She could have chosen another room, but hitting her over the golden piano that she likely does not own because it is a museum quality piece is plain silly.

[obamanut2012]

36. it was queen victoria's

[Basement Beat]

24. It's quite "Gold" that the British Monarch would ask for peace.

After they built up everything they have now after war, terror and absolute destruction of every land they viciously "colonized".

[brooklynite]

27. I don't understand the issue...

The wealth of the the Royal Family has never been a surprise to the Britons.

[Blue_true]

28. The money flow for the Royals is complex, from what I understand.

Their activities and properties generate hundreds of millions per year, they get back maybe 1/6th of that.

The gold piano is likely pretty ancient. But the Queen could have chosen a different room. A fumble on her part.

[JI7]

30. the UK has elections for public offices where people actually have the power

to do something about those things.

[Turbineguy]

38. Yes, it is a bit

Trump-like.

[ProudLib72]

39. If she sold it (assuming that it is even possible for her to do so), she could distribute the money

to those less fortunate. Yet, the piano would still be in private hands. The only sensible thing to do is destroy it so no one can have it. Isn't this what totalitarian regimes do, destroy items deemed too decadent?

[Blue_true]

43. 150+ year old piano purchased by Queen Victoria?

I don't think so. Didn't Elizabeth break Victoria's record as the longest serving monarch? Maybe Lizzie was trying to throw in a tone deaf historical note.

[ProudLib72]

44. This is what I was thinking of specifically: China's Cultural Revolution

In an out-of-the-way room in the grounds of the Shanghai Conservatory of Music, I came across a memorial: photographs, papers and objects in memory of the 20 people – professors, spouses and students – who lost their lives during the 10-year Chinese Cultural Revolution. This catastrophe officially ended in 1976, the year of Mao Zedong’s death. When, a short time later, violinist Isaac Stern arrived for a series of high-profile concerts, he found that Shanghai – home for nearly a century to one of the first orchestras in Asia – could not find him one playable piano. The instruments, including an estimated 500 owned by the Shanghai Conservatory, had been destroyed.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jul/08/after-the-cultural-revolution-what-western-classical-music-means-in-china

Have you ever seen the movie The Red Violin? I kept thinking of that scene in China where they destroy all the classical instruments. They make a big pile of them and burn them. Only the red violin escapes burning because it is hidden. Now the western world wants to declare musical instruments signs of decadence.

[Blue_true]

45. I think is more people going overboard to rip anyone that enjoy even a hint of elegance.

The piano is likely a museum piece for the castle. The queen was likely near it because she or someone else had decided that room was the place to give her annual message. A fumble on her part, but not nearly what people are making it out to be.

I am sure that some would want that piano destroyed simply because it is dripping with gold. They don't care that it is most likely an expertly crafted musical instrument that has a rich history. The gold on that piano is VERY unlike the gold that Trump splashed on every thing, the piano gold has both character and historical significance, Trump's gold is just tacky.

[OrlandoDem2]

40. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn that a woman who is literally the QUEEN lives in a palace

with museum-quality furniture!

FFS, people!

[MFM008]

41. Its like the white house

There are many treasures in the white house, and hopefully they will continue to be there even after the current squatters leave.
The Royal Family doesnt own them they are held in trust for the country.
Since England has such a long history their Treasures are a lot older than ours.
The royal family does not own the crown jewels for example.
This particular piano looks to be about 1700 possibly King George era.

[mcar]

46. So the Queen, in Buckingham Palace

has some ridiculously elaborate things? And people are shocked by this?

[GulfCoast66]

49. She the F'ing queen. In a palace.

I don’t expect to see a lazy-boy and a TV table.

That said, I do Not really understand the Royalty thing. Glad we ditched them.

But I would happily scrap the governing part of the constitution in favor of a parliamentary system if we could keep the Bill of Rights.

[Mike Nelson]

51. There are times...

… when flaunting filthy wealth is cool, I guess. Maybe those times are over? I'd prefer a more simple background, but I don't care for royalty at all.

[Xolodno]

52. Yeah, you tell them!

All those years of signing in austerity measures, horrific economic policies she signed into law!

Oh wait.....

[Farmer-Rick]

53. Something about uber rich kings and queens lecturing others

That comes across as ridiculous.

A woman who has never gone hungry, never been cold with no hope of warmth, never gone without shelter or needed medicine or medical attention. A woman who has her own personal hand washer and wouldn't know the first thing about cooking her own meal, telling others to be nice and pull together.

Why isn't she pictured helping in some volunteer endeavor, feeding the poor, visiting a children's hospital? Why isn't she encouraging education, training and honesty, instead of niceness?

The uber rich kings and queens with all their special privileges should give up the majority of their wealth until every citizen has enough to eat, a roof over their head and enough heat to heat their homes. Otherwise all their words are ridiculous and they are failures as leaders.