Royal baby: Prince William and Kate expecting second child
Does it matter though? They're all just rats to me but mama rat just had a litter of one and as a pet, we should be happy for her.
Let them crack on, they do no harm. A few waves, handshakes, kissing babies and entertaining screaming halfwits keeps them busy.
Live and let live etc.
Eh? They are only symbolic now.
They have a royal list, but the estates and lands also bring in a lot of money.
We're symbolically a monarchy but nothing else. Everything the Queen does in relation to Parliament is purely traditional nowadays.
Not true! The monarchy has absolute power over parliament, it's not ceremonial at all. The royal estates do **** all money wise it's be proven time and time again
In theory it's absolute. In practice...
Are you just this bitter and jealous because she got a better payrise than you this year?
Last edited:
I agree generally with the rest of your post but this jumped out...
The office of the president of italy (ie not the prime minister) cost them 181 million pounds a year.
heard of President Wulff? He's unelectable and cost the Germans 26 million pounds a year (as well as 5 million for the ex presidents fund)
Polish presidency? 30 million
These two last examples are without the security cost, so they actually cost just about the same as a monarchy by being a republic... just without any of the soft power or income from holdings.
Also Most of the "royals protection cost" is for visiting VIP's, which will still happen with whatever you would attempt to replace the high level diplomacy a monarch can do. Which is why republic's bills are very similar to monarchy's.
The army regiments are still required, they just wouldn't rotate through the ceremonial duties as often, they wouldn't disband. More so the protection is generally police, not the actual visual distraction of the guards. And they would also stay with a republic as well.dowie said:
The office of the president of italy (ie not the prime minister) cost them 181 million pounds a year.
heard of President Wulff? He's unelectable and cost the Germans 26 million pounds a year (as well as 5 million for the ex presidents fund)
Polish presidency? 30 million
These two last examples are without the security cost, so they actually cost just about the same as a monarchy by being a republic... just without any of the soft power or income from holdings.
Also Most of the "royals protection cost" is for visiting VIP's, which will still happen with whatever you would attempt to replace the high level diplomacy a monarch can do. Which is why republic's bills are very similar to monarchy's.
Nope I don't want to be the subject of some inbred family and believe that this country needs to be a true democracy.
We need two elected houses and a head of state
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 18,464
- Location
- Sunny Sussex
Tony Blair?
You haven't been a subject for quite a while. It also never fails to amaze me how someone who is training/actually a social worker has so little general decency. Let's hope you don't call your clients inbred...
They could be disbanded, you could eliminate most ceremonial duties they currently undertake then they wouldn't be required. Half the household cav and at leat one battalion + a couple of companies on guards are occupied with ceremonial duties at any time. disbanding 1 battalion of guards and the household cav mounted regiment could be done if you no longer needed ceremonial duties.
If you had a president rather than a royal family would we need Buckingham palace and Clarence House and Kensington Palace and St James' Palace and Windsor Castle... one main residence is enough.
I think the soft power itself is enough to want to keep them but we could easily have a president on a much cheaper basis.
You know there is such a thing as separation between personal and professional valuesit's well documented that the royal family are inbred
Ah, so you only care when getting paid to do it, got it now.
eeer yes but they are still part of the army's total manning and capability . If they weren't doing ceremonial stuff they would just be in barracks or doing op's like all the other regiments do on a day to day basis.
They are not employing well over 2000 troops and training them in capabilities such as armoured recon only for a band and 50 of them to stand outside Buckingham palace and horse guards. They have other abilities the army requires, they would just have more time to do that job.
the security bill for the VIP's is the main cost not the houses, as I've pointed out several republics have similar costs to us.
I understand the fixation on the houses but the national trust manages to run 350 houses, parks and monuments for 280 million and still makes a 10% profit. (total income being 310 million)
This also highlights just how well run the royal household is. It brings in the same money as the whole of the national trust but only has a 15% expenditure per year instead of 90%.
Like I say, I agree with most of your post, just not some of the assertions
Yes they rotate... you're essentially advocating extra capability which we don't currently have. There is always part of the household cav on ceremonial duties there is always an infantry (usually guards) battalion... if we don't have ceremonial duties we could make cuts.
If you have 5 battalions one of which is always occupied with ceremonial duties and 4 of which are training/available for ops... and you scrap ceremonial duties - you can get rid of one battalion and you've got the same capability you had previously... 4 battalions. Ditto to the household cav and their mounted regiment.
with one president rather than a bunch of senior royals you'd have a lower security bill too, less locations too to secure, less people to provide security for... frankly you could turn over some of those houses to the national trust too, they don't directly generate much income. 'The crown estate' generates income - that isn't the Queen's personal property but belongs to the state and would still generate income with or without the Royal Family.
Like I say, I agree with most of your post, just not some of the assertions
the assertions are fine IMO, yes I'm aware other countries have presidents with variable costs I'm just giving one example of how costs could be reduced quite easily... replace queen with president, get rid of a bunch of properties, reduce policing/travel costs as you no longer have a bunch of other senior royals to look after and make cuts to the household division as ceremonial duties not required so much.
So is half of Norfolk and the Isle of Sheppey would you say the same about them. Also you are talking about a historical context that would apply to large bodies of people at such times. As in the case at point there is no closeness at all. If there was a profound degree of being inbred the Royal Family would consistently have congenital abnormalities like how Pakistanii and Bangladeshi families do. And yet they don't which again disproves your point.
Big thumbs up for her names, Charlotte Elizabeth Diana!
Same here.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,632
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
^Yep, I like that they got a Diana in there, although I suspect that this wasn't really an option for them somehow
Why wouldn't William want his Mum's name in there like most young men do when they've lost a Mother?
Yawn. You are an odd, angry, and confused little man.
I'll say it again in the hope that you might take something from it; be happy that someone has had a healthy little baby, wish them well, and get on with your life
.
Last edited: