Royal banquet for Saudi King

Michael Ferrier · Post by **Michael Ferrier** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:25 am

I'm delighted to see that the Queen showed impeccable taste in the choice of port for last night's banquet for King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. The following is an extract from yesterday's Times :

Tonight's state banquet will begin with fillets of sole with salmon mousse and butter sauce, followed by venison with stuffed tomatoes and braised lettuce. Vegetables will consist of chateau potatoes, broccoli in a hollandaise sauce, a panache of root vegetables and a salad of pears, walnuts and celery. Pudding is a raspberry shortbread tartlet.

The non-Muslim guests will be invited to drink Puligny-Montrachet, Les Champs Gain 2000, Bouchard Pere et Fils Chateau Pichon Longueville, Comtesse de Lalande 1986, and Bollinger Grande Annee 1996. The port will be Taylor's, 1977 vintage.

Post by **Andy Velebil** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:11 am

She's got good taste in Port

Mario Ferreira · Post by **Mario Ferreira** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:29 am

God save the Queen !! :)

Nikolaj Winther · Post by **Nikolaj Winther** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:19 am

Her taste in claret isn't too bad either.

Does the Saudi King drink or..?

Derek T. · Post by **Derek T.** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:35 pm

Hmmm,

I think if I was the Monarch of a high profile State and was visiting the Queen I would rather have a Nacional 31 than something that most of us mere mortals would have in our cellars :?

I might be being greedy or envious here, but you guys don't pay tax to allow these people to survive

Derek

Post by **Roy Hersh** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:56 pm

Derek is right.

I have 2 of these 3 wines in my own meager cellar.

They should have broken out signficantly better stuff than that, to say the least.

Mario Ferreira · Post by **Mario Ferreira** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:37 pm

oh well, ...
... the mortals like us do not know how many guests will attend the function :? . Therefore, "the availability of the wine" might also be a factor to take into consideration

Whatever ......

Derek T. wrote:I might be being greedy or envious here, but you guys don't pay tax to allow these people to survive

.... somehow this thread reminds me that one line from Rod Stewart's song > "Some guys have all the luck" !!

MF

Michael Ferrier · Post by **Michael Ferrier** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:38 pm

I assume that you mere mortals have enough of these wines to serve two hundred guests. Clearly you have bigger pockets than the Queen or I do.

Nikolaj Winther · Post by **Nikolaj Winther** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:12 am

Roy Hersh wrote:Derek is right.

I have 2 of these 3 wines in my own meager cellar.

They should have broken out signficantly better stuff than that, to say the least.

It may be irony - but if not then here's my rant:

This goes to show the difference between old world and new world or old money/new money.

Some americans think that all that glitters is gold and vice versa. I can't help but thinking of images from the middle east, when US troops entered Saddams palaces, they reported that he had gold water faucets and fixtures. You could also see pictures of Saddam recieving a gold AK47.

This syndrome flourishes in the US where ms. Paris Hilton has to get rhinestones glued on her cell-phone in order to make it shine. You see it on rappers - gold chains ½" in thickness, and mostly you see it in the stretch limoes - preferbly a stretch Hummer!

Bigger is better, image is everything, if you got it flaunt it etc.

In Europe you don't see that too much (though the syndrome thrives here too). The presidents of big companies don't drive stretches - they drive big, yet anonymous AUDI's or Mercedes'.

In Denmark, the finest order attainable, the order of the elephant, is solid gold, "plated" in ceramics. While it represents a huge value in materials, this is "hidden" by the porcelain. I somehow think that americans would do it the other way around.

In Japan, before and during WW2, soldiers could be awarded the emperors watch for bravery etc. It was something alike the VC or something. The watch was silver, rather than gold, representing modesty.
Now, a state dinner isn't a modesty-contest I know. But still...

The queens selection of wine is most likely a thought-through decision. What wine goes best with what is eaten. Choosing Taylor is likely due to the british connection with the house - but I'm sure it's also a thought-through decision where "this wine does the job". Surely, the House of Windsor can produce some great wines, but why go overboard?

In other words - it's easy to pick the most expensive - and noone will be able to point fingers. However the real art is to put some thought into what goes well together with what, and perhaps sometimes be a bit original and refined. I think the queen shows great refinement and originality.

BTW. no offense

Alan C. · Post by **Alan C.** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:21 am

Nikolaj,

You are absolutely right (In my opinion). Our Queen has several state banquets a year, this is just recieving a little more publicity than most.
So when it comes to food, wine and Port, they know their stuff, and have experienced staff who's job it is to match the food of the menu, and then the accompanying drinks.
The 'Flash for Cash' approach to life is for others, not the Windsors. I just hope that if our Cousins are daft enough to seriously consider re-visiting the Clintons and their unusual reputations, they have enough Cruz 89 ready.

Alan

Post by **Andy Velebil** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:54 pm

Alan C. wrote:Our Queen has several state banquets a year,
Alan

If she's serving T77 then I'm coming over for dinner

Derek T. · Post by **Derek T.** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:00 pm

Sorry, I'm not getting that argument.

We are talking about people who spend tens of thousands of pounds going to Scotland (500 miles away) for a weekend break. The Queen will have known nothing whatsoever about which port was being served and whether or not it went with the particular species of Oyster they had.

I am quite sure that if the guests had been from a state that knew and appreciated port then a greater wine would have been served. Volume is not an issue when you have your family crest on the label

Derek

Nikolaj Winther · Post by **Nikolaj Winther** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:39 pm

Derek T. wrote:Sorry, I'm not getting that argument.

We are talking about people who spend tens of thousands of pounds going to Scotland (500 miles away) for a weekend break. The Queen will have known nothing whatsoever about which port was being served and whether or not it went with the particular species of Oyster they had.

I am quite sure that if the guests had been from a state that knew and appreciated port then a greater wine would have been served. Volume is not an issue when you have your family crest on the label

Derek

Well, let me put it this way: If it was Paris Hilton who went, the scotland resort would look like something from Eurodisney, and she'd have it all gold-plated. It's a matter of doing something that's actually quite expensive without making it vulgar. As Mark Knopfler said, when having Sting, Elton John and Phil Collins on stage for playing Money For Nothing "Let's have Eric (Clapton) on as well. He's done it enough times... Because we can!" - It was completely unnecessary and it was vulgar. And serving Nacional "because we can" is just as vulgar.

Alan C. · Post by **Alan C.** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:45 pm

You do know that whenever an Official Head of State visits, and think how many there are, they have an Official Banquet. I dont know whether ER II knows her Port. I do know there isn't enough rare and special Port to keep the 100 plus guests happy every time they have one, year after year.
She's also probably not quite grasped your habit of not letting the good bottle out of your sight!

The bottles that were choosen for her and her guests are worthy of such an occasion. I'd love to know what they serve when its the Portuguese Head of State. I suppose you would have to push the boat out then.

Alan

Todd Pettinger · Post by **Todd Pettinger** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:42 pm

I'd have to agree that those who suggested that the Queen would have very little (if any) input in the decision would likely be entirely correct. I'm sure she is surprised every time one of these dinners are put on by the selection made by her staff.

That being said, I am sure the selection is made with a lot of thought by those who do make the decisions.

And the king of Saudi, who in all likelihood would not be consuming alcohol in any case, would not have extensive experience with too many of the Ports that they could choose from.

Nikolaj Winther · Post by **Nikolaj Winther** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:18 am

Todd Pettinger wrote:And the king of Saudi, who in all likelihood would not be consuming alcohol in any case

- Keep dreaming.

Michael Ferrier · Post by **Michael Ferrier** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:41 am

I understand that the Queen is considered extremely knowledgable on wine and does get personally involved in decisions on food and wine at state functions. The serving of Nacional '31 would not constitute good taste in my opinion, whereas Taylor '77 is by any standard a good wine (in Roy's top twelve) and appropriate for the occasion. That is what I meant by impeccable taste.

Al B. · Post by **Al B.** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:39 am

I wonder if Her Majesty knows the Bishop of Norwich...

Todd Pettinger · Post by **Todd Pettinger** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:26 pm

Al B. wrote:I wonder if Her Majesty knows the Bishop of Norwich...

And I wonder if any of her guests, should she forget to pass the decanter, have the gumption to ask???? :?

Although, that being said, I'm sure she'd know what the hell that meant, whereas MOST of the time, hereabouts, I'd just get a blank stare...

Todd

Nikolaj Winther · Post by **Nikolaj Winther** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:17 am

On a previous note - here's something from a danish newspaper. Though it's not the americans this time, but the russians. Certainly it underlines my standing on the "nuveau".

Translated, some of the article says something like "Gold Toilet 1,8 mill. DKR"
"There are extravagant toilets with built-in mp3-players and LCD-displays and now there's a gold-plated toilet too. Pricetag 1,8 mill. DKR (360,000 $US).

This ad infinitum vulgar (me fail english and latin? That's unpossible) golden toilet was presented on a luxury-convention for nuveau russians in Moscow recently, writes the website Bornrich.

The pricetag is around 250.000 Euro, the same as 1.8 mill. DKR, but then the bowl is gold plated and the seat is marble (plated?)