The Queen Loses a Loyal Lady in Waiting

[The Mad Monk]

The Queen has lost a loyal lady in waiting

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/01/0...

A sad year for the Queen.

[Randy Winkman]

The Mad Monk said:

The Queen has lost a loyal lady in waiting

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/01/0...

A sad year for the Queen.

A shame for the family of the person in question.

Part of why I don't think we should have a royal family though. Lady Farnham, Lady of the Bedchamber. I'm sure she was lovely but FFS - is it 2022 or 1922?

[Paul Dishman]

Randy Winkman said:

The Mad Monk said:

The Queen has lost a loyal lady in waiting

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/01/0...

A sad year for the Queen.

A shame for the family of the person in question.

Part of why I don't think we should have a royal family though. Lady Farnham, Lady of the Bedchamber. I'm sure she was lovely but FFS - is it 2022 or 1922?

More like 1522

[Getragdogleg]

Randy Winkman said:

A shame for the family of the person in question.

Part of why I don't think we should have a royal family though. Lady Farnham, Lady of the Bedchamber. I'm sure she was lovely but FFS - is it 2022 or 1922?

Why not?

It's a paid position that she obviously did well, it has a fancy title but it's not much different to an assistant really.

Not different to anyone else who has money and hired help.

It all pays the bills for those who work.

[Randy Winkman]

Getragdogleg said:

Randy Winkman said:

A shame for the family of the person in question.

Part of why I don't think we should have a royal family though. Lady Farnham, Lady of the Bedchamber. I'm sure she was lovely but FFS - is it 2022 or 1922?

Why not?

It's a paid position that she obviously did well, it has a fancy title but it's not much different to an assistant really.

Not different to anyone else who has money and hired help.

It all pays the bills for those who work.

Are you sure it's paid? I appreciate it's a link to Hello magazine but this suggests otherwise.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/202104191113...

It looks to me like it's the same deal that it has been for hundreds of years. Rich, privileged people hang around the king or queen of the day to keep their families in favour and help keep the whole thing going. Who else could do it for nothing and why would they want to?

That's my whole point.

[Getragdogleg]

Excellent, even better, can't be said to cost "the taxpayer" anything.

Rich version of charity work.

It's not slavery or exploiting the poor so I don't care what they do.

[Randy Winkman]

Getragdogleg said:

Excellent, even better, can't be said to cost "the taxpayer" anything.

Rich version of charity work.

It's not slavery or exploiting the poor so I don't care what they do.

Odd that you switched your argument from "It's OK because they are paid" to "It's OK because they are not paid".

[Einion Yrth]

Randy Winkman said:

Lady Farnham, Lady of the Bedchamber.

At least there hasn't been a "groom of the stool" since 1901.

[Randy Winkman]

I wonder what the job ad for the new Lady of the Bedchamber will say?

[Amused2death]

Randy Winkman said:

I wonder what the job ad for the new Lady of the Bedchamber will say?

"Short term contract"?

[Chrisgr31]

Randy Winkman said:

Are you sure it's paid? I appreciate it's a link to Hello magazine but this suggests otherwise.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/202104191113...

It looks to me like it's the same deal that it has been for hundreds of years. Rich, privileged people hang around the king or queen of the day to keep their families in favour and help keep the whole thing going. Who else could do it for nothing and why would they want to?

That's my whole point.

Just what favour are they getting from the Royal Family? It appears that they are little more than close friends of the Queen, people that she can confide in without fear of it appearing on the front page of the papers the following day etc.

[Getragdogleg]

Randy Winkman said:

Odd that you switched your argument from "It's OK because they are paid" to "It's OK because they are not paid".

I switched because it doesn't involve anyone poor or needing the money.

I'd have been pretty annoyed if you'd posted up it was a minimum wage job !

[Evanivitch]

Randy Winkman said:

A shame for the family of the person in question.

Part of why I don't think we should have a royal family though. Lady Farnham, Lady of the Bedchamber. I'm sure she was lovely but FFS - is it 2022 or 1922?

I'm not sure a 95 yr old being dressed by a 90 yr old is the most practical thing in the world.

End of the day, it's mainly just official roles for friends already of wealth. I imagine Prince Charles will have more than a few circling.