Royal Baby

Jeff Almeyda

Senior Consultant
Is this really such a big deal? From what I can see, people are losing their minds over this.

Waiting on line for days outside the hospital? Don't these people have somewhere to be or are they all independently wealthy that they can afford not to work?
 
Ah... And I was just about to ask you why you even bother... ;-)
I couldn't care less, too.

Thinking of the merchandise related, that must be huge business.

It seems those people have one thing that's needed if you want to stand in line there... an absence of intellect. Not everybody has that ;-)
Did some of those at least care to bring a practice pad and some sticks with them? Now that would be a significantly different situation - spending a lot of quality time on some good stuff, haha.
 
It has been the top story for 3 days now, and it's still the top story! How are we supposed to get our Justin Bieber news when all they want to talk about is the Royal Baby?

It's a nice diversion from that Trayvon story.
 
I think most of the people don't really care, but the media turns it into a circus. It happens with so much stuff. Those people are crazy, but when we get their stuff and listen to them I guess it fuels them.
 
Yeah, at least it's a positive story. Everything else in the news is mostly negative stuff about tragic accidents or giant fires blazing or schools getting shot-up, etc & so on. On and on it goes and the wheel in the sky keeps turning...
 
To all my UK friends: How much is the UK tax payer burdened with the royals?
 
To all my UK friends: How much is the UK tax payer burdened with the royals?

Very little, probably.

I am a Republican (in the classical sense of the word) but there is no doubt in my mind that the UK gains a lot in terms of tourism and business as a result of the Royal Family. I'd guess that they were financially neutral in macroeconomic terms but quantifying that is incredibly difficult and I'd say that my guess is purely speculative.

My issue is that constitutionally the monarch has power to override any single parliamentary bill. They never would but I have real issues with that kind of power potential lying with one individual.
 
To all my UK friends: How much is the UK tax payer burdened with the royals?


Depends how one defines "burdened". The Sovereign Grant, which replaced The Civil List, is the annual allowance that the UK government gives to the head of state in order to run her rather costly operation. This year it's just over 30 million GBP - around 70% of which pays the salaries of her staff. This figure does not take into account the amount of personal wealth the queen has and how much income is generated by the various privy purses bestowed upon her and other members of the royal family. These sources of funding are essentially real estate portfolios and are, like everything else in the royal sphere, hereditary acquisitions.


Whereas the royal family themselves are probably no more expensive to run than a fleet of nuclear submarines or whatever, I guess the "burden" felt by some citizens of the UK relates to whether or not one feels having a monarch is worth the bother in the first place. To be fair, if absolutely everyone in the UK had the same standard of living as the queen then the question you raised would be less contentious.
 
Yes, the royal sprog has had its fair share of airtime in the colonies too.


Is this really such a big deal? From what I can see, people are losing their minds over this.

Waiting on line for days outside the hospital? Don't these people have somewhere to be or are they all independently wealthy that they can afford not to work?

Really it's no different to people camping out for days on end for a good spot at a presidential inauguration though is it?

Whereas the royal family themselves are probably no more expensive to run than a fleet of nuclear submarines or whatever,

Offset substantially by the tourist dollar it manages to generate too, I take it?
 
Really it's no different to people camping out for days on end for a good spot at a presidential inauguration though is it?

Difference is people doing the camping for the President at least had some say in the election.

No one camping out for the baby had a hand in making the baby.
 
According to the UK Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, none of the occupied royal residences made it into the top 15 UK tourist destinations in 2012. At a meager 613,000 visits Buckingham Palace didn't even make the top 40. The top 5 attractions last year were all museums and galleries in London - the most popular being The British Museum with around 5.6 million visitors.

I'm sure some of our younger, prettier royals will help to sell the odd copy of Hello magazine now and then but I've never heard any substantial evidence to suggest that tourism in the UK would collapse or even suffer particularly badly if it became a republic.
 
What I've always wondered is if the "royal family" have any actual influence and power in British society. I know little, if not nothing at all, about British way of life, but it seems to me that British royalty is kinda like the Kardashians here in the US....just something for the tabloids and paparazzi to hound and harass. IMO, the idea of royalty just seems antiquated and irrelevant in these times.

I think the reality is that only about .00000001% of earth's population is genuinely concerned with this.
 
Is this really such a big deal? From what I can see, people are losing their minds over this.

Waiting on line for days outside the hospital? Don't these people have somewhere to be or are they all independently wealthy that they can afford not to work?

'Thundering footsteps of an ant climbing the wall'.


( Sorry for riding on the slip stream of this thread, Jeff, but this post specifically is for Andy and Spleen )
 
I just don't get it. Someone had a baby. Big deal, it happens numerous times every day. But when it is someone of notoriety that has a baby, everyone drops what they are doing and acts like it is some king of friggin miracle or something. Kate had a baby, so what? So did my mother, and my sister. Hell, my aunt had 5 boys after having 9 miscarriages and being a test dummy for pregnancy drugs. If anything, that deserves a mention more than someone who can conceive normally. But she isn't famous, so her kids (my cousins) are not worth anything to society. If they had money it might be a different story.
 
No one camping out for the baby had a hand in making the baby.
I'd be happy to take a stab at that ;)

'Thundering footsteps of an ant climbing the wall'.


( Sorry for riding on the slip stream of this thread, Jeff, but this post specifically is for Andy and Spleen )
Those bloody ants again Abe! I can only surmise you're playing your drums too quietly these days. Time for some rock drumming for you m'lad.



On the subject of funding the royal family (minus periphery royals), I think we should spend more, not less (let the flaming begin). No, I'm not tied up in the romance thing, but yes, I am patriotic. You can tear the finances apart as much as you like, but having travelled the world extensively in a business capacity for many years, I can assure you that, as a marketing tool for UK PLC, they're unequalled. It's not just the tourism side of things (& counting visits to royal attractions isn't a valid measure here. The royals are seen as representative of an unreal society fabric & pageant that attracts visitors per se), it's added gravitas to our country's overseas representations. Biggest mistake we (as a country) made in recent times was not replacing the royal yacht. That thing was a bloody gold mine in terms of hosting business functions overseas. Sure you can have a prime minister/president/whatever arrive in a smart aircraft & be driven through the streets in almost cavalcade style, then host a "dinner" in a local building of note, but that's hugely trumped by a queen arriving serenely in a classic yacht, dropping anchor in a location that affords a panoramic view, then hosting a classic reception. So much more class, so much more pull. If I was on a trade mission kinda deal, I know which I'd rather be associated with. The politician lead deal is impressive, the queen/royal yacht fronted deal is "special". Soap box away for the day :)
 
What I've always wondered is if the "royal family" have any actual influence and power in British society. I know little, if not nothing at all, about British way of life, but it seems to me that British royalty is kinda like the Kardashians here in the US....just something for the tabloids and paparazzi to hound and harass. IMO, the idea of royalty just seems antiquated and irrelevant in these times.

I think the reality is that only about .00000001% of earth's population is genuinely concerned with this.

You're forgetting that the British Royal Family or at least the idea of the Monarchy itself stretches back well over a thousand years. Although I'm a Republican in many respects, the history of the British monarchs is quite remarkable and quite a few old families (like mine) are able to trace themselves back to at least one of the royal houses and at least one monarch (I can with two, if I recall). In a sense, it is a big part of our identity as a nation.

One of the mistakes that people make when thinking about British aristocracy is that they're all wealthy. Most of them are but it's a quirk in the British class system that you don't have to be rich to be upper class - it's a lot more than that. In the same way, the role of the Royal Family is misunderstood.

They actually do hold political power. The Queen is our head of state, so if a bill is approved by both houses of parliament, it still has to be ratified by her. In theory, she could refuse to sign a bill that has been democratically debated and approved. She probably never would refuse a bill but I cannot stand the idea of one individual having that power.
 
Back
Top