View Full Version : Royal engagement... do we really care?
Tilly Teckel
16-Nov-10, 20:10
Personally, I'd rather be watching Emmerdale! Can't believe they've interrupted my evening's viewing for this :mad:
dragonfly
16-Nov-10, 20:11
here don't knock it, we might get an extra day off work on their big day ;)
Mrs Bucket
16-Nov-10, 20:12
Must say its very very boring very
lindsaymcc
16-Nov-10, 20:19
I think its lovely news, but not exactly worthy of all the airtime its been getting!!!!
Ok, so announcement made, first press conference done - now leave them in peace!!!!
I think it is nice, I am sure it is tinged with sadness too for prince William as I am sure he must miss his mum at times like this.
I like the fact that the ring he gave Kate was his mums.
I'm not a fan of the Royals... never have been but they seem genuine and happy and like they've actually got a bit of personality to them. Good luck to them
orkneycadian
16-Nov-10, 20:24
I think its lovely news, but not exactly worthy of all the airtime its been getting!!!!
Plenty other channels that its no on! :cool:
changilass
16-Nov-10, 20:24
I think its lovely.
About time we had some feel good news for a change.
Good luck to them.
I'm not a royalist but think it's a wee bit of good news that the country needs, even though we'll be paying for the wedding. They make a lovely couple and hopefully in time they'll bring royalty into the modern age and get rid of all those people with non-jobs with fancy titles.
orkneycadian
16-Nov-10, 20:34
They would earn a lot of respect if they announced that given the countries situation, they were having a peedie, cheap wedding - Something like getting married in the Music Room at Buck House, then getting a Dominoes delivered!
George Brims
16-Nov-10, 21:19
No. Not one bit.
I thought it was good news!
But a bit sad they have started to compare Kate to Diana already!
God help them with the media circus starting:eek:
Personally, I'd rather be watching Emmerdale! Can't believe they've interrupted my evening's viewing for this :mad:
I totally agree.
Aye, we'll be paying for it alright we've got plenty to go round!! But why 'they've got loads of their own......of course I don't grudge it (fibber) I'd rather give it to our pensioners.....ok so I'm miffed at no invite! :roll:
onecalledk
16-Nov-10, 22:34
was a bit concerned that the engagement ring was the one his mother wore. I would have thought that given the circumstances of his mothers death, the state of the marriage in general when she was alive that perhaps "handing" down the engagement ring might be a bit of a bad luck token ........
K
The sentimental value of the ring as it was his mums should outweigh the thoughts of it being a bad luck token....remember he was only young when Diana died!
I was made up, I really was. Clicking my heels in joy.
Then I found out we don't get a day off fer the weddin' :(
Wullie and Kate have been courtin’ since they left uni’ so why now :confused?
The cynic in me says it’s ‘cos the grubbiement thinks the country needs cheering up and public morale needs a boost :D!
My these politicians are fly [disgust]!
Ithink its lovely news prince William is such a down to earth lad good luck to them both:D
BillyEspie
17-Nov-10, 00:25
oh well i guess us tax payers will be paying for another wedding for a spoilt brat.
chocolatechip
17-Nov-10, 00:28
I agree with some of the ones who are in agreement!! It's so nice to hear good news for a change!! I am glad he has given his mum's ring to Kate, sentimental value is what counts! Wouldn't you like your son's to give their future wives your engagement ring? Just to keep it in the family or something!! I know I would some day in the future when I have a son I would like him to have my engagement ring to pass it on to his future wife!!!
chocolatechip
17-Nov-10, 00:29
By the way I am not married or anything like that I am just putting my point of view across
I am mildly interested. They seem down to earth and happy and I hope they manage to stay that way.
i was tickled and happy for them when i heard the news.
a lot of sour grapes around here if you ask me.
why did they wait to now to decided to get married?
why does anyone?
they courted and waited until they felt it was right just like everyone else
usually does.
spoilt brat? umm did you miss the part where hes Military, and they are going to be living
in north wales where hes stationed as search and rescue?
im sorry i have nothing but admiration for those boys.. they have been hounded
their entire lives just so people can read a little dirt .
yet, they carry on and try and lead as normal a life as they can.
personally, i hope william will be our next king.
but that is just me..
I cant wait to see the wedding dress:lol:
Or find out who the designer is!
im such a girl about this.. but i cant either! im guessing they will go far aways from what diana had. i saw her dress last night on a doc. shivers.. sorry i know it was the times but ugghhh
Whatever you think about the royals I believe that they bring tourists into the country in droves and the forthcoming nuptials will be a great boost to the economy from the tourist industry. The couple themselves seem to be happy and are marrying for the right reasons so I wish them well and hope that they have a happier marriage than Will's parents.
Would the anti-royal brigade prefer if we had a republic?
The Pepsi Challenge
17-Nov-10, 00:52
Who pays for the wedding?
they carry on and try and lead as normal a life as they can.
Yes, it must be so hard having the world hanging on your every word and down to your last £50 million in the bank.
Typical vainglorious nonsense about people who are living the dream, while the world's real sufferers scratch out the most piteous of existences without a second thought from those getting their knickers in a twist over a lavish ceremony in the offing.
I remember those "ordinary folks" who queued up to give lavish presents to Prince Edward on his wedding day. The same folks who wouldn't give as much as a kind look to those who could have survived for a year on the same money spent on the gift.
yes they have had a privileged life, but they have paid for it.
if im not mistaken, you complain about someone knocking on your door as an invasion
of privacy.
how would you like it if you were stalked every day of your life.
every thing you did watched and scrutinized?
to be grabbed and pulled at when you go out in public?
thats what they deal with because of an accident of birth.
i cant say about what people choose to do, if that be snobbery and hypocrisy.. both of which we have on this board here.
but to my knowledge both those boys are decent young men and i dont care who their momma or daddy are, their own actions will speak for themselves and not what some sleezy tabloid writes to draw readers.
The Angel Of Death
17-Nov-10, 10:08
Don't care one bit the royals are a drain on my pocket why should i pay for someone else's "privalaged" lifestyle
The russians had the right idea when it came to royalty
cuddlepop
17-Nov-10, 10:16
[quote=The Angel Of Death;786753]Don't care one bit the royals are a drain on my pocket why should i pay for someone else's "privalaged" lifestyle
My sentiments exactly.
so you think murder is the right idea? to kill a family including small children?
The Angel Of Death
17-Nov-10, 10:39
so you think murder is the right idea? to kill a family including small children?
Do you think its right that familys / young children go without because were paying for the royals to have a spiffing time and live in ther big houses when we have children starving and pensioners freezing and things like that
I can bet you as much as you want that the royals are not sitting there freezing wondering where there next meal is coming from with 3 jumpers on trying to keep warm because they cant afford the gas on
and i cant bet you that the revenue they bring in thru tourism more than covers what comes in from taxes, you can add to that their humanitarian and ambassador acts that every memeber adds to.
you seem to think they sit high and mighty and do nothing, but unlike most politicians they work very hard to make sure they do their part.
And what is the alternative? President boris? That makes me shudder even more than the royal family do. Brandy is right, their attraction to foreign visitors really is a boost to the economy and a wedding will increase that. Having said that, I hope that over the next fifty years we will see a marked change in the way the royal family are funded. I would like to see only the monarch and first in line to the throne and their family paid from the civil list... That would mean the queen, Charles and William . After that any member of the royal family should receive an allowance for any official duties they carry out but should be expected to work and support themselves.
I still believe that a royal family where obligation and duty are built in from the start is preferable to some sleezy politician doing it for the money
The Angel Of Death
17-Nov-10, 11:11
and i cant bet you that the revenue they bring in thru tourism more than covers what comes in from taxes, you can add to that their humanitarian and ambassador acts that every memeber adds to.
you seem to think they sit high and mighty and do nothing, but unlike most politicians they work very hard to make sure they do their part.
So the fact that they take £££ into the economy justify's the fact that there all allocated a specific amount per year to live on (and were not talking about a few thousand were on millions here) combine that with the fact that were paying for minor royals as well its just not right we should be looking out for others first
They should be on a percentage of the estimated income they take into the country and fund there lifestyle themselfs its not as if they are short of a £ or two given there bank ballances and land they have amassed
Strange though you never hear of a poor royal apart from fergie who technically isn't a royal anymore
Walter Ego
17-Nov-10, 12:13
Don't care one bit the royals are a drain on my pocket why should i pay for someone else's "privalaged" lifestyle
The russians had the right idea when it came to royalty
The Civil List is only paying out for the Queen and Philip. The payments come to about £44m pa. That's equivalent to a cost of 69p per person per year off the taxes raised in the UK. Your local council is probably squandering more than that on jollies and perks every week.
The revenue brought into the UK by tourism based upon interest in the Uk's Royal Family and it's associated buildings and heritage is estimated at around £500 million. Just the VAT off that would cover the UKs' expenditure on the Royal family. That leaves £400 million of wealth being pumped into the country.
There is always an argument from the anti-Royalist camp that this revenue would still come in if we abolished the RF. That's rubbish.
France got rid of its Monarchy and the only place that attracts any noteworthy 'royal' attention is Versailles. Very few tourists to France could tell you anything about the history of the French monarchy - nor are they interested. People don't go to France for the wealth of *history, but they do come the the UK for it.
To be honest, reading a lot of the comments regarding anything to do with the Royal family, all I hear is pathetic whining and sour grapes because someone better off than the whiner is enjoying themselves.
I usually find that it's the same people who whine about 'rich' landowners, that bloke three doors up whose got a better car than them ("he shouldn't have that, flashy bighead. What does he want one of them for? Thinks he's better than us, he does. Balhblahblah"), 'toffs' and anyone who can afford to eat out in better restaurants than them.
Socialism for the numpties: If I haven't got it - you shouldn't have it either.[lol]
Life is too short.
*(EDIT): Should have read 'Royal' history.
Walter Ego
17-Nov-10, 12:16
So the fact that they take £££ into the economy justify's the fact that there all allocated a specific amount per year to live on (and were not talking about a few thousand were on millions here) combine that with the fact that were paying for minor royals as well its just not right we should be looking out for others first
They should be on a percentage of the estimated income they take into the country and fund there lifestyle themselfs its not as if they are short of a £ or two given there bank ballances and land they have amassed
Strange though you never hear of a poor royal apart from fergie who technically isn't a royal anymore
You're not paying for minor Royals. Facts not rants, please.
A percentage? Good idea. Ten percent sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
Great, we've saved £40m pounds now.....er, whats ten percent of £500m, anyone know?
Is it being so miserable that keeps you happy Angel & it's privileged!
The Angel Of Death
17-Nov-10, 12:34
it's the same people who whine about 'rich' landowners, that bloke three doors up whose got a better car than them ("he shouldn't have that, flashy bighead. What does he want one of them for? Thinks he's better than us, he does. Balhblahblah"), 'toffs' and anyone who can afford to eat out in better restaurants than them.
Has the bloke up the road in his nice house with his nice car got there by getting hand outs from the purse and investing next to no money of his own or has he got there by working hard putting in the hours etc
I have nothing against someone working hard to get where they are in life however i do have an issue with someone being born into the lifestyle and then automatically being kept in the lifestyle
I have nothing against someone working hard to get where they are in life however i do have an issue with someone being born into the lifestyle and then automatically being kept in the lifestyle
A bit of the green eyed monster jealousy creeping in here [lol]
Royal engagement... do we really care? Nope
Walter Ego
17-Nov-10, 14:21
Has the bloke up the road in his nice house with his nice car got there by getting hand outs from the purse and investing next to no money of his own or has he got there by working hard putting in the hours etc
I have nothing against someone working hard to get where they are in life however i do have an issue with someone being born into the lifestyle and then automatically being kept in the lifestyle
So abolish inheritance. When someone dies, all their estate passes to the Government and that wealth is then distributed amongst the public equally. Regardless of who they are.
Job done.
Agreed?
Or could you possibly have a problem just with people inheriting who are more fiscally secure than your good self?
I wonder........
i was tickled and happy for them when i heard the news.
a lot of sour grapes around here if you ask me.
why did they wait to now to decided to get married?
why does anyone?
they courted and waited until they felt it was right just like everyone else
usually does.
spoilt brat? umm did you miss the part where hes Military, and they are going to be living
in north wales where hes stationed as search and rescue?
im sorry i have nothing but admiration for those boys.. they have been hounded
their entire lives just so people can read a little dirt .
yet, they carry on and try and lead as normal a life as they can.
personally, i hope william will be our next king.
but that is just me..
I agree with everything you say
Brandy. I'm happy for them and wish them every happiness. However, when the royalty are as rich as they are, and given the state of the country, I feel agrieved that we have to pay for it. the queen is the seventh richest person in the world yet want grants to pay for the upkeep of her homes. The royalty would gain 100 percent popularity by meeting their own expenses. and they would not go short. buy your own dress, kate, the rest of us have to!
i totally agree.. on the foot your own wedding.. *grins* or sell the story to the media let them pay for it *Laughs* they will be at everyones throats trying to get the best video as it is!
if im not mistaken, you complain about someone knocking on your door as an invasion
of privacy.
Give me the money and privilege that goes with the attention and they can tap my door all day long!!
I am sure that the large majority of people, particularly the poorest in society, would swap places, in a heartbeat, with these "poor" people "cursed" by being born into royalty!!
You have NO idea what William and Harry are like in real life. You only see the public face of them. It makes me laugh to read about celebrities being described as "nice" and "down to earth" by eager fans. These people make their living from putting on a face to the paying public.
Personally, I'd rather be watching Emmerdale! Can't believe they've interrupted my evening's viewing for this :mad:
There is just no answer to that!
"..There is always an argument from the anti-Royalist camp that this revenue would still come in if we abolished the RF. That's rubbish.
France got rid of its Monarchy and the only place that attracts any noteworthy 'royal' attention is Versailles. Very few tourists to France could tell you anything about the history of the French monarchy - nor are they interested. People don't go to France for the wealth of history, but they do come the the UK for it.."
So people don't go to France for its History, but they come here instead?
In 2009 France had 74 Million visitors and was ranked 1st for tourists destinations, the UK, in 6th place had 28 Million (source) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings)
So I take it that all the "republican" tourists in France ignored the cultural history of France and failed to visit the likes of the Louvre, Notre Dame, Sacre Coeur to name just a few Parisian landmarks.
Your assumption that people who do not share your beliefs in the Windsor mob are all whingers is an insult to 41% of the population who would like to see a referendum on the UK to becoming a republic (Daily Mail Mori Poll) (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=1325)
So people don't go to France for its History, but they come here instead?
In 2009 France had 74 Million visitors and was ranked 1st for tourists destinations, the UK, in 6th place had 28 Million (source) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings)
So I take it that all the "republican" tourists in France ignored the cultural history of France and failed to visit the likes of the Louvre, Notre Dame, Sacre Coeur to name just a few Parisian landmarks.
Your assumption that people who do not share your beliefs in the Windsor mob are all whingers is an insult to 41% of the population who would like to see a referendum on the UK to becoming a republic (Daily Mail Mori Poll) (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=1325)
What! quoting the 'Daily Mail' whatever next!
Hmm.. Seems folk like the Monarchy?
'The monarchy currently remains secure in the United Kingdom with MORI Polls in the opening years of the 21st century showing support for retaining the monarchy stable at around 70% of people. In 2005, during the time of the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, support for the monarchy dipped slightly with one poll showing that only 65% of people would support keeping the monarchy if there were a referendum on the issue, with 22% saying they favoured a republic.
In 2009 an ICM poll, commission by the BBC, found that 76% of those asked wanted the monarchy to continue after the Queen, against 18% of people who said they would favour Britain becoming a republic and 6% who said they did not know. In the wake of the 209 MP's expenses scandal, a poll of readers of the Guardian and Observer newspapers placed support for abolition of the monarchy at 54%, although only 3% saw it as top priority and both these papers have disproportionately left-of-centre readerships..'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom)
John Little
17-Nov-10, 19:52
We are a monarchy.
Whether or not we should be is a big question, but the fact is that we are.
That is to say that the form of constitution we have places sovereignty into the form of a person. That person has no political power- by custom and precedent and a notional veto has not been used for over 200 years.
Other countries place their sovereignty elsewhere - the US places it into a document called the Constitution. But the flaw is that the interpretation of the constitution rests on a subjectively and politically chosen Supreme Court. In other countries the President is sovereign.
But our sovereignty is vested in a monarch. That is to say that the King or Queen is the physical representation of the British nation and ultimate power resides in her person - though she may not use it.
Who they are does not matter. It's like in the services - it ain't the person you salute, it's the uniform.
Now I actually have reservations about our monarchy. Part of me thinks that perhaps we'd be better as a federal republic. And another part knows its history and thinks that the House of Stuart was conned out of its birthright by a bunch of German shysters..
But we are a monarchy and while we are a monarchy I don't want the physical representation of our country to be a cut-price bike riding, prefab living nobody. I want a first rate, world class, mystique drenched monarchy and I don't want it attacked because of its sex life, its morality or anything else because an attack on it is an attack on the dignity and standing of the british state. In Japan or Thailand the position of the monarchy is understood and they do not attack it or drag it in the mud because hey - that's our sovereignty.
Frankly I do not care if the monarch is a dope smoking transvestite with a penchant for sailors. I do not have to like the person- it's the office.
Mr D Cameron can never be sovereign. Every week he has to go into a room and bow to a wee woman with no power and call her ma'am- and no matter how much he would like it, he can never ever have the top position.
I like that.
And I also like the fact that Liz could stop things just by refusing to sign- so if anyone tried to bring in concentration camps or something then she could cause a constitutional crisis and stop a dictator in his tracks.
So if it comes to a royal wedding I want a first class affair, the day off from work and a street party. I want the world to look on it and see how we 'do' royalty properly. Then they'll come and gawk at the palaces and the ceremonies and spend billions and wonder at how quaint it all is.
I don't want something bought at Lidl - John Lewis please.
While we are a monarchy, why be cheapskate about it?
Or should we have a President instead so we can skimp on them too and have the world think we're a bunch of paupers.
Maybe they do already.
I am not disputing the fact that some people like the Windsor mob, what I am suggesting is that there is no place in the 21st century for such an outdated institution.
I am sure that if it were possible to show a historical analysis of the popularity of this wretched family, omitting all the peaks and troughs caused by having weddings and births when the popularity is waning, that it would show that that support for them is dropping.
I think it is wonderful. I also got engaged about a month ago after being with my OH for 6 1/2 years. I am excited about our wedding and excited that others are too. It is an important time for any couple, but in the scrutinous public eye it must be hard.
Best of luck to them.
redeyedtreefrog
17-Nov-10, 21:04
Provided they pay for it from the money the Royals get anyway, I'm happy for them.
However, if, when everything's being cut, the Government gives even more money to one family who contribute little to the country, that is just wrong.
When it comes to the monarchy, the French had the correct approach.
We are a monarchy.
Whether or not we should be is a big question, but the fact is that we are.
That is to say that the form of constitution we have places sovereignty into the form of a person. That person has no political power- by custom and precedent and a notional veto has not been used for over 200 years.
Other countries place their sovereignty elsewhere - the US places it into a document called the Constitution. But the flaw is that the interpretation of the constitution rests on a subjectively and politically chosen Supreme Court. In other countries the President is sovereign.
But our sovereignty is vested in a monarch. That is to say that the King or Queen is the physical representation of the British nation and ultimate power resides in her person - though she may not use it.
Who they are does not matter. It's like in the services - it ain't the person you salute, it's the uniform.
Now I actually have reservations about our monarchy. Part of me thinks that perhaps we'd be better as a federal republic. And another part knows its history and thinks that the House of Stuart was conned out of its birthright by a bunch of German shysters..
But we are a monarchy and while we are a monarchy I don't want the physical representation of our country to be a cut-price bike riding, prefab living nobody. I want a first rate, world class, mystique drenched monarchy and I don't want it attacked because of its sex life, its morality or anything else because an attack on it is an attack on the dignity and standing of the british state. In Japan or Thailand the position of the monarchy is understood and they do not attack it or drag it in the mud because hey - that's our sovereignty.
Frankly I do not care if the monarch is a dope smoking transvestite with a penchant for sailors. I do not have to like the person- it's the office.
Mr D Cameron can never be sovereign. Every week he has to go into a room and bow to a wee woman with no power and call her ma'am- and no matter how much he would like it, he can never ever have the top position.
I like that.
And I also like the fact that Liz could stop things just by refusing to sign- so if anyone tried to bring in concentration camps or something then she could cause a constitutional crisis and stop a dictator in his tracks.
So if it comes to a royal wedding I want a first class affair, the day off from work and a street party. I want the world to look on it and see how we 'do' royalty properly. Then they'll come and gawk at the palaces and the ceremonies and spend billions and wonder at how quaint it all is.
I don't want something bought at Lidl - John Lewis please.
While we are a monarchy, why be cheapskate about it?
Or should we have a President instead so we can skimp on them too and have the world think we're a bunch of paupers.
Maybe they do already.
Hear hear John Little, you have hit the nail on the head again. Whilst I may not agree with everything connected to royalty, the current incumbents of these positions are there through no fault of their own and the majority of them carry out their duties with dignity whilst having their every move scrutinised. I wouldn't swap roles with them for anything.
Provided they pay for it from the money the Royals get anyway, I'm happy for them.
However, if, when everything's being cut, the Government gives even more money to one family who contribute little to the country, that is just wrong.
When it comes to the monarchy, the French had the correct approach.
The royal family contributes an enormous amount to the economy of the country through tourism and I wouldn't want to contemplate the alternative. Would you really want an elected president? At least the sovereign sets an example to her people and we know what we have. There are enough falling standards in the 21st century without stripping us of our history and all the pomp and ceremony that goes along with it. Who knows what skeletons would fall out of a president's cupboard :eek:
I think those who knock them are jealous that they don't enjoy the same privileges but they forget that they pay dearly for those privileges through loss of privacy and any semblance of the normal life the rest of us enjoy.
Walter Ego
18-Nov-10, 09:15
So people don't go to France for its History, but they come here instead?
In 2009 France had 74 Million visitors and was ranked 1st for tourists destinations, the UK, in 6th place had 28 Million (source) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings)
An irrelevance.
You are quoting visitor numbers to the country as a whole - and quoting 'history' as opposed to any direct link to the monarchy of France. The fact that France has more visitors than the UK does not have any relevance whatsoever.
I note you do not quote any hard cash figures that can be directly attributed to Frances' monarchial past. Those visiting France to go to the Cote d'Azur are hardly likely to be heading for the beaches because they're interested in French royal history. Id' say that the vast majority of visitors to Versailles could not tell you who the Sun King was - or even who was the last King. I'd hazard that those who go to see Buck House, Hampton Court etc are a little more savvy and go because they are interested in our current Royals as well as the dead ones.
So I take it that all the "republican" tourists in France ignored the cultural history of France and failed to visit the likes of the Louvre, Notre Dame, Sacre Coeur to name just a few Parisian landmarks.
Smoke and mirrors, again you have deliberately ignored any reference to Royalty and income generated and merely pointed out a few tourist attractions.
None of the ones you mentioned above are directly linked to the French monarchy. Nobody is saying that visitors to France 'ignore' history and culture. What I am saying is that the UK Royal family generate far more money for the UK than the defunct French royalty do for France.
I'm talking about economic reality, you're attempting to use your own political and ideological views to blur hard financial fact.
As witnessed here:
Your assumption that people who do not sh
are your beliefs in the Windsor mob are all whingers is an insult to 41% of the population who would like to see a referendum on the UK to becoming a republic (Daily Mail Mori Poll) (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=1325)
Your 40% is those who would like to see a Referndum - not 40% anti-Royalty.
Look at the reply to Question 2 of your alleged 'evidence' to support your cause . ... 71% would be pro-Monarchy in a referendum.
You'll have to do better than the usual chucking up flak and hoping nobody checks your souces.
Game over.
I am not disputing the fact that some people like the Windsor mob, what I am suggesting is that there is no place in the 21st century for such an outdated institution.
I am sure that if it were possible to show a historical analysis of the popularity of this wretched family, omitting all the peaks and troughs caused by having weddings and births when the popularity is waning, that it would show that that support for them is dropping.
I understand that you are anti Monarchy from this and previous threads, personally I don't really care one way or t'other. It is so far removed from my life as to be irrelevant. The civil list money is peanuts in these days of mind bogglingly huge numbers bandied about and I understand most of the assets belong (ultimately) to the nation.
So the question is, why so veheminent about something that is really only a minor distraction (to me anyway)?
".. I note you do not quote any hard cash figures that can be directly attributed to Frances' monarchial past. Those visiting France to go to the Cote d'Azur are hardly likely to be heading for the beaches because they're interested in French royal history. Id' say that the vast majority of visitors to Versailles could not tell you who the Sun King was - or even who was the last King. I'd hazard that those who go to see Buck House, Hampton Court etc are a little more savvy and go because they are interested in our current Royals as well as the dead ones.
A lot of suppositions but no facts in the above paragraph
"..Smoke and mirrors, again you have deliberately ignored any reference to Royalty and income generated and merely pointed out a few tourist attractions.
None of the ones you mentioned above are directly linked to the French monarchy. Nobody is saying that visitors to France 'ignore' history and culture. What I am saying is that the UK Royal family generate far more money for the UK than the defunct French royalty do for France.
I'm talking about economic reality, you're attempting to use your own political and ideological views to blur hard financial fact.
Can you provide us with "hard financial facts" that support your theory about the people who come to UK PRIMARILY to see the Windsor Mob and their history?
Your 40% is those who would like to see a Referndum - not 40% anti-Royalty.
You'll have to do better than the usual chucking up flak and hoping nobody checks your souces.
Take off your Union Jack tinted glasses and read my post again and you will find that I did not say that 40% were opposed to the Windsors, I stated (with source material) that 40% of the UK population wanted a referendum on the subject.
So the question is, why so veheminent about something that is really only a minor distraction (to me anyway)?
Maybe it is because of all the Racists, Neo Nazis, Animal abusers and Sectarian bigots that are in their ranks, and thats just for starters
Much as I don't like the idea of paying out for this wedding and rather it went to the more needy I do however agree that the 'Monarchy' love or loath them are better than the alternative....I am not so wet behind the ears to think that a dictatorship could not rear it's ugly head just like it was thought before and we haven't moved-on all that much. I do not begrudge them their happiness, i hope it works out better for them with no interfearing grannies as in the past. please please try not to vote for a republic it's not all it's made out to be....just look around it aint so rosey and they're such a b**g**r to get rid of. nuf said, just my oppinion! :(
With a Republican swing and a bit of bad luck, the yanks could end up with Sara Palin in the Whitehouse. Now that is a good advert for a Monarchy! :eek:
Walter Ego
18-Nov-10, 20:57
A lot of suppositions but no facts in the above paragraph
Really?
Can you provide us with "hard financial facts" that support your theory about the people who come to UK PRIMARILY to see the Windsor Mob and their history?
Certainly, Anfield. I got my figures from 'Attractions Management', here's the link: http://www.attractionsmanagement.com/detail1.cfm?pagetype=detail&subject=news&codeID=227363&site=AM&dom=N
I actually read it before I posted it as a valid reference.;) You'll see that Visit England came up with the figure of £500m - that's without the upsurge through the forthcoming wedding. Of course, if you wish to try and scupper this by claiming that VE are nothing more than Right-Wing Royalist lickspittles - then please feel free.
There, I've provided my credible evidence.
Take off your Union Jack tinted glasses and read my post again and you will find that I did not say that 40% were opposed to the Windsors, I stated (with source material) that 40% of the UK population wanted a referendum on the subject.
Dear, oh dear. If you genuinely thought that, it would have not been used to back up your opinion that the Royal family are a waste of space. Your crude attempt to gull people by appearing to link to an article that somehow backed up your stance was incredibly daft:
"Your assumption that people who do not share your beliefs in the Windsor mob are all whingers is an insult to 41% of the population who would like to see a referendum on the UK to becoming a republic"
You honestly thought that this would be read as 41% of the population were demanding a referendum because they weren't happy with the Monarchy. I ain't that daft, been around too long.
Maybe it is because of all the Racists, Neo Nazis, Animal abusers and Sectarian bigots that are in their ranks, and thats just for starters
Bang goes your credibility.
A great good news story, the Royal Family are worth every penny and more......all the best to our future King William!
Prince Charles' income rises to £16m - but his taxes drop by £5,000, private accounts show
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1030534/Prince-Charles-income-rises-16m--taxes-drop-5-000-private-accounts-show.html#ixzz15iYkDSeD
here don't knock it, we might get an extra day off work on their big day ;)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331117/Prince-William-Kate-Middleton-engagement-Cameron-promises-bank-holiday.html
Seems like a day off may be on the cards after all. Congratulations to the happy couple, I for one am looking forward to watching the wedding.:)
Certainly, Anfield. I got my figures from 'Attractions Management', here's the link: http://www.attractionsmanagement.com/detail1.cfm?pagetype=detail&subject=news&codeID=227363&site=AM&dom=N
I actually read it before I posted it as a valid reference.;) You'll see that Visit England came up with the figure of £500m - that's without the upsurge through the forthcoming wedding.
Correct me if I am wrong but does the headline not read "..Royal wedding worth more than £500m to UK tourism.."
Given that the wedding was announced less than 24 hours before this article was published I would like to know what type of research this guy did to come up with this "guesstimate"
Is he the same guy that told all the pubs in Caithness that there would be thousands of extra tourists in the area to see last months MOD?
Or maybe he is the eternal optimist who provided the sacked "Enterprise Advisor" Lord Young with the information that "Britons have never had it so good"
Lets face it, as a member of the Visitengland quango he does have a bit of a vested interest in telling us how many millions of people will be visiting these shores.
Dear, oh dear. If you genuinely thought that, it would have not been used to back up your opinion that the Royal family are a waste of space. Your crude attempt to gull people by appearing to link to an article that somehow backed up your stance was incredibly daft:
You honestly thought that this would be read as 41% of the population were demanding a referendum because they weren't happy with the Monarchy. I ain't that daft, been around too long.
I am sure that most people who read the threads on this forum read them and can understand what is said, you apparently can not understand plain English as I did not attempt to deceive anyone
Bang goes your credibility.
Even before he lost all his marbles Phillip Windsor was well known for his racist views.
As you seem knowledgeable about royal history I am sure that I do not have to remind you of the Windsors many links to the Nazis. For those who wish to learn more about this sordid secret look Here (http://american_almanac.tripod.com/naziroot.htm)
More recently, do you not recall Harry Windsor dressing up in a Nazi uniform? I bet he did not have to go to a fancy dress shop to hire it, as I am sure that there a lot of them hanging up in the various Windsors wardrobes.
As to religious bigots, the following was taken from the official British Monarchy web site (http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensoftheUnitedKingdom/TheStuarts/MaryIIWilliamIIIandTheActofSettlement/TheActofSettlement.aspx)"..The Act of Settlement of 1701 was designed to secure the Protestant succession to the throne.."
Perhaps, with your in depth knowledge of royalty, you could inform us of any members of the Windsors who have supported any attempts at repealing this disgusting piece of legislation
As to the Windors love of slaughtering animals, do I really need to give examples?
Walter Ego
19-Nov-10, 20:53
Correct me if I am wrong but does the headline not read "..Royal wedding worth more than £500m to UK tourism.."
Given that the wedding was announced less than 24 hours before this article was published I would like to know what type of research this guy did to come up with this "guesstimate"......
Oh dear.
I really, really, hoped you would take the hint and read articles through before you posted comments, it would appear that hint fell upon deaf ears.
Rather than pouncing on the headline, you'd have done better if you'd read down at least as the third paragraph. Allow me to replicate it here:
"Our research indicates that Monarchy and the associated places, events and history generate directly and indirectly well over £500m a year in revenue for the British tourism industry. We expect that figure to be exceeded next year, thanks to the wedding."
Now, I've proved my point from a group who are interested in making money out of this - not driven by political ideals....I know which group I'll listen to when it comes to potential revenue.
Is he the same guy that told all the pubs in Caithness that there would be thousands of extra tourists in the area to see last months MOD?
Or maybe he is the eternal optimist who provided the sacked "Enterprise Advisor" Lord Young with the information that "Britons have never had it so good"
Lets face it, as a member of the Visitengland quango he does have a bit of a vested interest in telling us how many millions of people will be visiting these shores.
Ah refute fact with ridicule, nice try Anfield, but you wouldn't last two seconds in a live debate with teddy throwing and rants like that.
I am sure that most people who read the threads on this forum read them and can understand what is said, you apparently can not understand plain English as I did not attempt to deceive anyone..
Refer to my original comment on this, you got caught out by trying to waffle your way. Taking people as gulls is always a dangerous game to play.
Even before he lost all his marbles Phillip Windsor was well known for his racist views.
As you seem knowledgeable about royal history I am sure that I do not have to remind you of the Windsors many links to the Nazis. For those who wish to learn more about this sordid secret look Here (http://american_almanac.tripod.com/naziroot.htm)
More recently, do you not recall Harry Windsor dressing up in a Nazi uniform? I bet he did not have to go to a fancy dress shop to hire it, as I am sure that there a lot of them hanging up in the various Windsors wardrobes.
As to religious bigots, the following was taken from the official British Monarchy web site (http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensoftheUnitedKingdom/TheStuarts/MaryIIWilliamIIIandTheActofSettlement/TheActofSettlement.aspx)"..The Act of Settlement of 1701 was designed to secure the Protestant succession to the throne.."
Perhaps, with your in depth knowledge of royalty, you could inform us of any members of the Windsors who have supported any attempts at repealing this disgusting piece of legislation
As to the Windors love of slaughtering animals, do I really need to give examples?
Oh dear. All the bile is spewing out now, isn't it? You've lost it, Anfield.
Well you know what 'they' say....there's nothing like weddings and funerals to bring out the best (?)in us!!!! :lol:
Did anyone catch the name of the designer doing the dress?
Saw some of the other dresses designed but never caught the name.
The dresses were stunning!
Wonder what Kate will go for:lol:
Omg ...gone into total girlie mode!
Not interested one iota. Even if there was to be a day off I would work it for free.
The sooner all that crowd get out of Buck Palace and all their other haunts around the country the better.
The Loafer
oldmarine
20-Nov-10, 19:53
A bit of the green eyed monster jealousy creeping in here [lol]
golach: It's always interesting to read your comments on this website.
We are a monarchy.
Whether or not we should be is a big question, but the fact is that we are.
That is to say that the form of constitution we have places sovereignty into the form of a person. That person has no political power- by custom and precedent and a notional veto has not been used for over 200 years.
Other countries place their sovereignty elsewhere - the US places it into a document called the Constitution. But the flaw is that the interpretation of the constitution rests on a subjectively and politically chosen Supreme Court. In other countries the President is sovereign.
But our sovereignty is vested in a monarch. That is to say that the King or Queen is the physical representation of the British nation and ultimate power resides in her person - though she may not use it.
Who they are does not matter. It's like in the services - it ain't the person you salute, it's the uniform.
Now I actually have reservations about our monarchy. Part of me thinks that perhaps we'd be better as a federal republic. And another part knows its history and thinks that the House of Stuart was conned out of its birthright by a bunch of German shysters..
But we are a monarchy and while we are a monarchy I don't want the physical representation of our country to be a cut-price bike riding, prefab living nobody. I want a first rate, world class, mystique drenched monarchy and I don't want it attacked because of its sex life, its morality or anything else because an attack on it is an attack on the dignity and standing of the british state. In Japan or Thailand the position of the monarchy is understood and they do not attack it or drag it in the mud because hey - that's our sovereignty.
Frankly I do not care if the monarch is a dope smoking transvestite with a penchant for sailors. I do not have to like the person- it's the office.
Mr D Cameron can never be sovereign. Every week he has to go into a room and bow to a wee woman with no power and call her ma'am- and no matter how much he would like it, he can never ever have the top position.
I like that.
And I also like the fact that Liz could stop things just by refusing to sign- so if anyone tried to bring in concentration camps or something then she could cause a constitutional crisis and stop a dictator in his tracks.
So if it comes to a royal wedding I want a first class affair, the day off from work and a street party. I want the world to look on it and see how we 'do' royalty properly. Then they'll come and gawk at the palaces and the ceremonies and spend billions and wonder at how quaint it all is.
I don't want something bought at Lidl - John Lewis please.
While we are a monarchy, why be cheapskate about it?
Or should we have a President instead so we can skimp on them too and have the world think we're a bunch of paupers.
Maybe they do already.
What that man said and more. :)
Well mostly.....
I'm glad the German shysters ousted the Stuarts and I believe our country is better for it. The last of the Stuart monarchs and the pretenders represented the megalomania, the absence of democracy and infallibility of monarchies of the past and the (perhaps only conveniently ostensible) infallibility of a foreign church that both Scotland and England had already begun to ditch. They were replaced for good reasons. That we ditched Scots is not a good reason to regret their demise. It's pure sentimentality.
I can see little point in ditching the monarchy and replacing it with a titular non-executive president whether elected or appointed. Ireland have had a couple of good women presidents but I'm not convinced we should go down that route. And who even knows the name of the German or Italian presidents? I'm not an ignoramus but I couldn't name either of them.
I think I'd prefer either the American or French models. At least you know who is in charge there. :lol:
In the meantime I wish the future King Billy and Queen Crayola a long and happy marriage. :D
What that man said and more. :)
Well mostly.....
I'm glad the German shysters ousted the Stuarts and I believe our country is better for it. The last of the Stuart monarchs and the pretenders represented the megalomania, the absence of democracy and infallibility of monarchies of the past and the (perhaps only conveniently ostensible) infallibility of a foreign church that both Scotland and England had already begun to ditch. They were replaced for good reasons. That we ditched Scots is not a good reason to regret their demise. It's pure sentimentality.
I can see little point in ditching the monarchy and replacing it with a titular non-executive president whether elected or appointed. Ireland have had a couple of good women presidents but I'm not convinced we should go down that route. And who even knows the name of the German or Italian presidents? I'm not an ignoramus but I couldn't name either of them.
I think I'd prefer either the American or French models. At least you know who is in charge there. :lol:
In the meantime I wish the future King Billy and Queen Crayola a long and happy marriage. :D
Amen to that!
Our Royal family may well have their faults and some people might not like them. However I don't see any suitable alternative on the horizon, unless you want to count Tony BLair and his duck face partner :eek:.
For all those rabid anti-monarchists out there I wish a plague of Silvio Berlusconis on your house! :lol:;)
Our Royal family may well have their faults and some people might not like them. However I don't see any suitable alternative on the horizon, unless you want to count Tony BLair and his duck face partner :eek:.
For all those rabid anti-monarchists out there I wish a plague of Silvio Berlusconis on your house!
Silvio Berlusconni is a prime minister. The president of Italy is Giorgio Napolitano. Would that then be a plague of Napolitanos?:)
The tax situation is better than it used to be: wasn't it the late 80's when they first started paying tax? I seem to remember reading an article about it back when taxes for me were also a distant thing. They do bring in alot of revenue. Lots of tourist dollars and associated income. For many tourists the UK would be less interesting without the pomp and circumstance surrounding the monarchy. I lived in Denmark for a while, where the royal family is very modern and hardly noticed. While the Danish are very fond of them, I doubt that anyone visits Denmark with the intent to visit the palace hoping for a glance of the family from a window, to see the change of guard or to buy royal family nik-naks from the closest tourist trap.
orkneycadian
23-Nov-10, 13:58
Oh well, so much for hopes of a cheap and cheerful do at the local registry office, then a few sausage rolls down the local pub....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11818049
Charlie beautifully reflects my opinion as usual (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/22/charlie-brooker-lord-young-recession)
"You've never had it so good, says Lord Young. By accident. Before promptly stepping down
Just when Kate and Wills had made us forgot about the economy, Lord Young had to come along and spoil it all. But there must be other distractions..."
He's a sorcerer, that one. He reads the thoughts in my brain.
Oh well, so much for hopes of a cheap and cheerful do at the local registry office, then a few sausage rolls down the local pub....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11818049
Add to this the cost to British industry of having an extra Bank Holiday.
According to the Office for National Statistics, (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/UK2005/UK2005.pdf) the working population of the UK is 23.5 million. They also state that in April 2009 (latest figures available) that the average weekly wage was £489 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285). or £97.80 per day (based on 5 day week)
So the cost to Industry for this day amounts to £2,337,420,000, that is over £2 billion pounds!
Add to this the cost to British industry of having an extra Bank Holiday.
According to the Office for National Statistics, (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/UK2005/UK2005.pdf) the working population of the UK is 23.5 million. They also state that in April 2009 (latest figures available) that the average weekly wage was £489 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285). or £97.80 per day (based on 5 day week)
So the cost to Industry for this day amounts to £2,337,420,000, that is over £2 billion pounds!
Yes but think of the extra productivity produced by the feel good factor (present company excepted of course) [lol]
Getting back to the original question ....... do we really care?
Yes I do really care. Having been privileged to spend several years in the company of both the princes when they were at prep school, I found them both to be charming, well mannered and great role models to the other boys. It broke my heart to watch them following behind the coffin of their mother at such a young age and the media attention they have had to endure over the years would break many a lesser person.
Prince William and Kate deserve all the happiness that I hope their engagement and subsequent marriage brings them. I will sit and watch the entire wedding from start to finish and wish them both well for many years to come!!
Yes, you guessed it, I AM a Royalist and proud of it!!!!
Yes but think of the extra productivity produced by the feel good factor (present company excepted of course) [lol]
Is this the "feel good factor" that Cameron is spending £2 million quid on, to gauge how happy we all are?
Is this the "feel good factor" that Cameron is spending £2 million quid on, to gauge how happy we all are?
If he would only slip me a tenner I would tell him how pee'd off I am !!!
C3....:roll:;)
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.