Queen gets golden Wii from THQ

By Ellie Gibson Published 22 May, 2009

Along with a mini-game collection.

What do you buy the woman who has everything, including GBP 40 million of public money every year? A golden Wii, of course.

That's THQ's thinking - they've specially commissioned a gold-plated console and delivered it to Buckingham Palace. It's all part of plans to promote BIG Family Games, the new mini-game collection launching today.

As "the UK's ultimate family", not to mention the most powerful unelected institution in Britain, the royals will also get a free copy of the game. It features 24 mini-games including "golf, tennis, ladder golf, lawn darts, horseshoes, bocce and more". BOCCE!

"The Royal Family is arguably the most important family in the country so we felt that they had to have a copy of the new game," said THQ exec Danielle Robinson.

"But we thought that Her Majesty the Queen wouldn’t want to play on any old console, so an extra-special gold one was commissioned. We hope that she and the rest of the Royal Family enjoy the game!" Just like they enjoy all those free holidays and parties where they get to dress up as Nazis.

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (45) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • teabagger #1 3 years ago

    Because she obviously couldn't afford one herself...

  • Nemesis #2 3 years ago

    Wii are not amused.

    /veal

  • DDevil #3 3 years ago

    Why do THQ hate the Queen? :-(
    Edited by DDevil at 22/05/09 @ 09:14

  • MORZTAN #4 3 years ago

    HAHA!! Now that's good humor!

    THQ gives Queen Golden Wii!

  • X201 #5 3 years ago

    Nah, it was piss poor

  • LazyDan #6 3 years ago

    Mental image of the Queen doing the hula hoop game in Wii Fit GO!


    (I'll let you decide what she's wearing.)

  • Xerx3s #7 3 years ago

    So does does this make them a supplier of the crown, meaning that they are now Royal THQ?

  • LowEnergyCycle #8 3 years ago

    Call me up for treachery if need be, but I'm willing to openly state that the Queen and all of her wretched inbred family are useless, pointless, money-soaking twats.

    I'm came onto EG for some light video-game relief. I'll leave now, in a huff.

  • midnight_walker #9 3 years ago

    I wonder how long it'll be before she whacks it on ebay?

  • kinky_mong #10 3 years ago

    More likely one of her staff will pilfer it from the cupboard it gets put in after a week.

  • insincere_dave #11 3 years ago

    http://www.republic.org.uk/

  • Triggerhappytel #12 3 years ago

    Probably not a bad move on THQ's part, as I can see this getting mentioned in the mainstream press. Although it will probably do more for the Wii's reputation than the game's (of which I have already forgotten the name).

  • chrisjm #13 3 years ago

    look out for a golden wii on ebay marked as unwanted gift.

  • skillian #14 3 years ago

    That the queen gets £40m of taxpayer money a year puts the MPs expense scandal into perspective for me.

  • insincere_dave #15 3 years ago

    That's £40m before all the security costs which are rumoured to be £100m+ for the entire royal family.

  • Quickstick4 #16 3 years ago

    I for one like the Royal Family. Sod a republic, you want to give Gordon Brown even more power to dictate your life? At least if it gets really bad the Royal Family can order to close the house of commons. Besides, if we got rid of the queen we would need a written constitution and i for one don't want that.

    All the military are also loyal to the crown, the army even have to take an oath that they will do what the Queen and the officers she places in charge tell them to do. The government cannot give a direct military order, only the queen can, so if it was republicanism vs royals; you would have all the British armed forces fighting for the queen!

    She personally does not get £40Million pounds either, thats how much it costs to run all her estates, security, flights, diplomatic meals, awards she hands out etc. If we were a republic; a president would cost just as much, if not more. go figure

  • Rtrdo #17 3 years ago

    Do you think the WiFi and Bluetooth still work, or will the gold plating stop it?
    Edited by Rtrdo at 22/05/09 @ 12:02

  • insincere_dave #18 3 years ago

    Quickstick4... twat.

  • skillian #19 3 years ago

    Sod a republic, you want to give Gordon Brown even more power to dictate your life?

    I don't see why chopping off the Queen's head would give Gordon Brown more power. Besides, the point of course is that if you don't want Gordon Brown to have power, you vote him out. The Queen stays in power regardless of what I think about her, because she has Royal blood and I am just a pleb.

  • sneetch #20 3 years ago

    Wouldn't be surprised if it was returned. I can't really see the Queen of the United Kingdom being too happy about being involved in a marketing gimmick.

    Mind you: gold is gold.

  • Rubarack #21 3 years ago

    ^Hopefully but it seems unlikely. At any rate THQ just lost a whole lot of points with this stunt.

  • kingofbergamo #22 3 years ago

    to quote LowEnergyCycle:

    "Call me up for treachery if need be, but I'm willing to openly state that the Queen and all of her wretched inbred family are useless, pointless, money-soaking twats."

    1+ for that!

    and Mr Quickstick4 fella,

    you obviously know shit about how this country work! Queen is head of the Legislative - however, its more a symbolic power than anything. In order for a bill to become law it needs the Queen signature - (this is all she does) - and if she does dare not to sign she is OUT!!!

    i tell you what, its one expensive signature if u ask me...

  • TonyB #23 3 years ago

    Anyone who thinks the royal family have the power to do anything is deluding themselves. The Queen is a figurehead, but never has any effect on political decisions. Technically she still has the right to block certain things, but if she ever tried to wield that power to any degree she'd soon find Parliament would take it away.

  • YenRug #24 3 years ago

    @Quickstick4

    As someone who served in the Army for 14 years, I fear you are a little mistaken. When you swear your oath to the Queen, you are making that oath to the post, not the person; if she stood up and said, "I order you to storm Parliament and take all politicians into custody!" then she would be acting as Elizabeth Windsor, not as the Queen.

    Now, if she had legally closed Parliament (note the legally bit, again, she can't just stand up and disband the Government on a whim) and some members refused to recognise the order and carried on working/debating, then she could issue the order for a forced entry and arrest.

  • ViralNinja #25 3 years ago

    Shame they were late to the party, the first gold plated oen was given away at the Gamestation Cofnerence last september.

    Poor queenie getting the second one ever

  • imamazed #26 3 years ago

    surely the house of lords is a more powerful non-elected institution?

  • Quickstick4 #27 3 years ago

    YenRug You are correct, sorry for not being more explicit.

    @ kingofbergamo I was pointing out what she can potentially do, now what she actually can do.

    @ skillian the reason It would give him more power is that there would be less red tape for him to implement legislation and, (theoretically) the queen could block anything (or at least kick up a fuss) he does; as the government rules in her stead. this all depends on how the republican system was implemented; if the President acted as the USAs president does, it would be fine by me, but i fear that a "president of Britain" would have alot more power with little ways of removing him from office until the next election.

    Im somewhat surprised by the amount of anti-monarchy sentiment.

    The only reason I am against abolishing the monarchy is that i feel the present government has done an awful lot to curtail our personal freedoms, and people don't notice its the little things they have removed, for example, it is illegal to protest outside westminster with out permission from the government this law was introduced without any protest and no-one noticed. And allot of our personal privacy laws are ignored in the name of Anti Terrorist activities, another example of how the government used a big issue to hide an erosion of our freedoms. I feel if there was a move to remove the Monarchy it could/would be used to erode our freedoms further.

    I fear the people of the nation are so distracted by what the government has told them is important that they are losing sight of what Great Britain stands/stood for.

    Another reason I support the monarchy is that it (as well as some pears in the house of lords) represent positions that are NON ELECTABLE, and therefore the process of putting people in them cannot be rigged/fixed/influenced. The person may be bribed etc but at the end of the day; no-body can control who gets those positions.

    The house of Commons has all the power in the country; this is where the elected individuals are, the people who can block and highlight what the house of commons does that they do not feel are for the good of the country, are the Queen and the house of lords; both can only block them to a certain extent (for example the house of lords can only send legislation back to the commons three times before the house of commons either drops it, or forces it through)

    If you oppose the Monarchy due to the amount she costs 66p a day is two first class stamps: thats half the MOD get and they use only 2% of GDP. I make £40 a day in my job, I don't mind 66p going out of the £8 a day i spend on tax anyways going to the queen.

    *sigh* no point writing all this, most will be construed in a manner that isn't what it was meant to say.

    EDIT: Fixed, sorry bit of a side diversion really
    EDIT: Just realised the 66p is a year per person
    Edited by Quickstick4 at 22/05/09 @ 16:45

  • dnd #28 3 years ago

    i'm with quickstick, i like having a monarchy, and i'm from oz! i think it's nice that you can have a head of state who (to my mind) can represent your country with dignity, who does not need to grub for votes, who does not pander to the public/media's latest whim, and who has no real power and thus cannot be held responsible for the current situation. So yes, I think it works precisely because she's unelected and has no real power.

  • Waffleaber #29 3 years ago

    I've got no problem with the royal family. They do plenty of charity work and bring the tourists in. Plus £40m a year isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, the police pay the same in PR according to the times.

  • skillian #30 3 years ago

    Quickstick, your point was going OK (I don't agree, but it was well-argued) until you ruined it with a completely unrelated sideswipe at political correctness and health and safety.

    And 66p a day might not sound like lot, but it would pretty much exactly pay for your Xbox Live subscription. Hah, bet you've changed your mind now, right?!
    Edited by skillian at 22/05/09 @ 15:21

  • Arrr9 #31 3 years ago

    One does like a Wii

  • LowEnergyCycle #32 3 years ago

    @Quickstick4 "If you oppose the Monarchy due to the amount she costs 66p a day is two first class stamps"

    ...And that's exactly 66p per day (or roughly £20 per month) from everyone of us tax-paying Brits for doing WHAT, specifically?

    I know the maths don't quite add up as easily as they look, I dunno where your figure of 66p per day comes from (if that's true then she should be getting BILLIONS of £££ every month...), but my point is this: she deserves fuck all of my money because she does fuck all for me.

    I'd rather give that wholly undeserved 66p per day to a charity - at least some good (and importantly, some constructive use) would come from it.
    Edited by LowEnergyCycle at 22/05/09 @ 16:04

  • Waffleaber #33 3 years ago

    Mathematics fail.

    £40m pounds a year divided by 61m people = 66p a year

    Not sure if the other countries who have the queen as head of state contribute.

  • Quickstick4 #34 3 years ago

    yeah the maths doesn't work because it was 66p per person in a year. Even better! (just re-read the BBC article)
    Edited by Quickstick4 at 22/05/09 @ 16:46

  • LowEnergyCycle #35 3 years ago

    It's still 66p per year, per person, that she doesn't earn in any way. It's our money paying for her celebrity life-style, the problem being we have no choice in the matter.

    The monarchy is irrelevant, lazy, out-dated, and utterly pointless. It's a throwback to more innocent times when people were stupid enough to respect it. That £40million per year could be put to significantly better uses (the NHS is a good example...). The only good reason to keep them is for revenue through tourism.

    Or as THQ have proved, arse-kissing publicity stunts.

  • skillian #36 3 years ago

    The only good reason to keep them is for revenue through tourism.

    Couldn't we just get a zoo or something? For £40m we could get some pretty cool animals.

  • LowEnergyCycle #37 3 years ago

    @skillian "Couldn't we just get a zoo or something? For £40m we could get some pretty cool animals.

    Ha! For £40million per year, I'd reckon we could get a bloody living breathing T-Rex.

  • Bravestinsane #38 3 years ago

    They can fuck off shes just a normal person same as anyone... most important family my arse i don't see her as anything special

  • smelly #39 3 years ago

    >Not sure if the other countries who have the queen as head of state contribute.

    I know canada does

  • smelly #40 3 years ago

    "It's still 66p per year, per person, that she doesn't earn in any way."


    Do some research on the amount of money we pay per person to doley's who dont do anything to earn that money either :-)


  • man.the.king #41 3 years ago

    So does a golden Wii have better graphics and more accurate motion-sensitivity? :)

  • makeamazing #42 3 years ago

    I dont mind the royal family, though i do think they should try to reduce the amount we give them further, to be honest MP's and tax's are much more of a problem for me.

  • hedges1001 #43 3 years ago

    the annoying thing about gordon brown was that he was NOT voted into power (the first pm to do so) and before that he was chancellor so he screwed up our economy (i saw a post saying we should not have voted for him and it pissed me off)

  • SG #44 3 years ago

    Surely she's got enough money to buy one?

    They could give it to someone more needy like me instead.

  • Azazel #45 3 years ago

    She int naw humann beaaaan