Kate and Williams Baby

[BruceVC]

So the prince has been born and he is a cute "little critter"

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/23/world/europe/uk-royal-baby/

 

Its all over the news and for me its significant but I wouldn't mind a break from the constant updates on the international News Channels. Anyway what do you guys think, do you care and have you been following the developments?

Edited July 24, 2013 by BruceVC

[Raithe]

I thought the whole reason the yanks had their war of independence was so they wouldn't have to worry about the royal baby...

But they seem even more obsessed with it then us over here in the UK.. 

[BruceVC]

I thought the whole reason the yanks had their war of independence was so they wouldn't have to worry about the royal baby...

But they seem even more obsessed with it then us over here in the UK.. 

 

That's a good point, there is huge support and a massive following in the USA

 

I think its because the USA doesn't have real royalty and people that represent hundreds of years of historical legacy. And to be honest who doesn't like the idealistic and nostalgic appeal of a Royal family that has done so much for a country from a tourism perspective?

[Malcador]

Media like frivolous junk. I did laugh at the 'Republican?' link on the Guardian site though.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Malcador

[BruceVC]

Media liks frivolous junk. I did laugh at the 'Republican?' link on the Guardian site though.

 

Can you post that link?

[Raithe]

Well, actually here's a thing for you..  since besides all the love there's still floating a lot of hate and people saying that the Royal family is a waste, and give nothing to the county in return for taxpayers money.. So here's a short rant:

 

History lesson time!

First if all, by dint of being old and having passed land and money down the line for generations, the British royal family has apparent assets in excess of $400 milli...on - about $200 million of which is land. They are the largest land owners in the UK (followed by Cambridge and Oxford Universities). Some of the land they own actually dates back over a thousand years. Now, it wasnt all lawfully obtained - plenty of it was taken from barons, lords, other kings, retaken from the Danes, the French, passed back and forth and generally had its provenance muddied. However, lets not start taking about the legality of it’s ownership… After all, the entire of the US and Canada was basically stolen from the people who were already here. We just started doing it earlier..

Now, back in the 1700’s George III (the crazy one who was king when the war of independence happened) owned almost as much land as the current royal family. However, he was massively in debt and the rents weren’t cutting it for him. So, he made a deal with the parliament of the day. In exchange for voluntarily giving all the profits from his lands to the treasury he would receive a yearly income from the government. This arrangement has continued ever since, with each successive monarch voluntarily giving the proceeds of their land holdings to the treasury. This is called the Crown Trust. These days, that amounts to over $200 million. Now, the queen and the royal family get about $40 million from the taxpayer every year. Everything else they make or own is private holdings… With a few exceptions. This includes the 2 residences the queen owns (not any of the places you might think of - those are all owned in trust by the monarchy and cannot be changed, sold or rented without the government’s approval - this includes Buckingham palace, St. James’s palace and almost everywhere that the royal family lives or works), private collections of art, jewelry and stamps(!!!) as well as a pretty massive stock portfolio. So far the royal family contributes about $160 million to the British purse. That’s about £2.50 each for every person in the UK.

That’s not the big thing though. It’s true that the royal family costs the taxpayers in other ways. The wedding of William and Kate for example cost approximately $64 million, the christening of the new baby will undoubtably cost more again, the Queen’s public itinerary is partly funded by the public and so on. So yes, that $40 million is only part of it… However, guess how much tourists spent in the UK in 2012?

$7 BILLION

Yes, you read right, that’s a 7 with nine zeros after it. And the primary reason they spent that money? Yep, seeing the royal palaces, the castles and a whole bunch of other royal associated junk. Now, other countries have castles and palaces and stuff, but they don’t have a functioning monarchy and as a result people (Americans especially) are a lot less interested. Lets say for arguments sake that if we kicked out the Windsors tomorrow that those tourist revenues only fell by 10%. Thats still a loss of $700 million… Oh and if we did that, I’m sure they’d stop giving all the proceeds of their land holdings to the treasury, so that’s actually a loss of $860 million.

They make the UK more money in a year than the GDP of several nations.

[Malcador]

 

Media liks frivolous junk. I did laugh at the 'Republican?' link on the Guardian site though.

 

Can you post that link?

 

It was just a toggle to shut off the coverage of Middleton's delivery.

[Woldan]

 

[BruceVC]

Well, actually here's a thing for you..  since besides all the love there's still floating a lot of hate and people saying that the Royal family is a waste, and give nothing to the county in return for taxpayers money.. So here's a short rant:

 

History lesson time!

First if all, by dint of being old and having passed land and money down the line for generations, the British royal family has apparent assets in excess of $400 milli...on - about $200 million of which is land. They are the largest land owners in the UK (followed by Cambridge and Oxford Universities). Some of the land they own actually dates back over a thousand years. Now, it wasnt all lawfully obtained - plenty of it was taken from barons, lords, other kings, retaken from the Danes, the French, passed back and forth and generally had its provenance muddied. However, lets not start taking about the legality of it’s ownership… After all, the entire of the US and Canada was basically stolen from the people who were already here. We just started doing it earlier..

 

Now, back in the 1700’s George III (the crazy one who was king when the war of independence happened) owned almost as much land as the current royal family. However, he was massively in debt and the rents weren’t cutting it for him. So, he made a deal with the parliament of the day. In exchange for voluntarily giving all the profits from his lands to the treasury he would receive a yearly income from the government. This arrangement has continued ever since, with each successive monarch voluntarily giving the proceeds of their land holdings to the treasury. This is called the Crown Trust. These days, that amounts to over $200 million. Now, the queen and the royal family get about $40 million from the taxpayer every year. Everything else they make or own is private holdings… With a few exceptions. This includes the 2 residences the queen owns (not any of the places you might think of - those are all owned in trust by the monarchy and cannot be changed, sold or rented without the government’s approval - this includes Buckingham palace, St. James’s palace and almost everywhere that the royal family lives or works), private collections of art, jewelry and stamps(!!!) as well as a pretty massive stock portfolio. So far the royal family contributes about $160 million to the British purse. That’s about £2.50 each for every person in the UK.

 

That’s not the big thing though. It’s true that the royal family costs the taxpayers in other ways. The wedding of William and Kate for example cost approximately $64 million, the christening of the new baby will undoubtably cost more again, the Queen’s public itinerary is partly funded by the public and so on. So yes, that $40 million is only part of it… However, guess how much tourists spent in the UK in 2012?

 

$7 BILLION

 

Yes, you read right, that’s a 7 with nine zeros after it. And the primary reason they spent that money? Yep, seeing the royal palaces, the castles and a whole bunch of other royal associated junk. Now, other countries have castles and palaces and stuff, but they don’t have a functioning monarchy and as a result people (Americans especially) are a lot less interested. Lets say for arguments sake that if we kicked out the Windsors tomorrow that those tourist revenues only fell by 10%. Thats still a loss of $700 million… Oh and if we did that, I’m sure they’d stop giving all the proceeds of their land holdings to the treasury, so that’s actually a loss of $860 million.

 

They make the UK more money in a year than the GDP of several nations.

 

Wow, that's an interesting post. I always knew they were an important factor around Tourism but I didn't realize they made that much money. My respect for them has increased even more

[Guard Dog]

Isn't the royal family sort of like a zoo attraction? You get to tour their home, they are put on display during holidays and special occasions, your tax money feeds and takes care of them. They really don't get to go or do what they want. The are like prized zoo exhibits.

[Gorgon]

Bloody parasites. If it were up to me they would be digging ditches when they are not cutting ribbons.

[BruceVC]

Isn't the royal family sort of like a zoo attraction? You get to tour their home, they are put on display during holidays and special occasions, your tax money feeds and takes care of them. They really don't get to go or do what they want. The are like prized zoo exhibits.

 

No that's Raithe's point, they pay for themselves 10 times over with the support from tourism that comes from places like the USA.

[Raithe]

Also, for those that like so say they're idle, lazy and entitled layabouts..

 

Ok, back to a George again. George V was king during World War I, and while he did provide a good figurehead and did a lot of work in public, he and his first son (who would one day be Edward VIII) did still fulfill the image of the idle rich. However, by this point the tradition of the royal sons joining the armed forces was well in place. Both sons (the other one would become George VI) fought in WWI. While the elder was a bit of a wastrel, the younger (his first name was actually Albert) didnt even live in any of the palaces. He married a noble daughter, not royalty, and as the second son he was expected to work for a living… Mainly what he did was public work though. He supported charities, carried the good name of Britain around the world and so on. Think of him as a mix of public philanthropist and ambassador. He was never meant to be king… That is until George V died and Edward VIII decided he had to marry a divorced, American Catholic. It’s too long for me to explain why the divorced and Catholic parts are bad, but suffice to say Edward abdicated and suddenly Albert (crowned George VI) was king.

 

Yes, the same guy from The King’s Speech - awesome movie, worthy of all it’s Oscars.

 

Now, George hadn’t been raised to be idle, so he wasn’t. Neither was his daughter (Elizabeth II), her sister (Princess Anne), or any of his grandchildren. ALL the British princes have served in the armed forces, Charles was in the navy and saw combat in the Falklands war, Andrew was in the Air Force, William is still a naval helicopter pilot and Harry (crazy bastard that he is) insisted on joining the Army and serving on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq… Every one of the current royal family works constantly for the public, in both charitable and ambassadorial capacities. In fact, that $7 billion is largely due to the fact that, because of the efforts of the royal family, the rest of the world LOVES GIVING US THEIR MONEY!!!!

 

How, in the name of Satan’s butthole, is that idle?

[Malcador]

Well, some animals probably do likewise for their zoo, Bruce.

 

The military service bit, well, have to wonder at how deep they get in, so to speak. I thought it was just Andrew that went on a trip to the Falklands, not Charles and him. Still, they do charity work and so on, so not as if they're completely idle.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Malcador

[Gorgon]

Yes, but it's an inherited government gig, and a really nice one at that. If anything like that could exist in a state that was fair to the tax payers the king would be chosen by lottery, or maybe a last man standing competition, like bloodsport.

[Keyrock]

I've never quite understood all the hubbub over the royal baby, or raby (I'm hereby coining the term 'raby').  So this is the future King of England.  That hasn't meant anything other than "rich" in hundreds of years.

[Raithe]

Right, so say we do stop giving them the £40 million a year and kick them out.. What they can do is then take that £200 million that they give to the treasury, and walk away with that and the land they own.  How many of the "political aristocracy" over in the US would give up most of the earnings of their real estate holdings to the government treasury?

 

And the military service bit, here's a fun fact for you, the UK news services knew about both the princes being involved in Afghanistan and being out on the front lines. They were asked (politely) not to put it out there because it might cause more danger and make the princes and the units they worked with bigger targets then they already were.

 

Then of course after a couple of months, some of the American and other world services managed to find out about it and splashed it out there for everyone to see. So it's not like they purely went out there for the pr coup, and everyone in the Armed Services over there freely admits that it's not like either of them were hidden away and not doing their job. Both Harry and William fought to make sure they took the same risks as the guys they worked with when they were out there.

[Malcador]

Heh, would be an interesting court case, if the government just doesn't seize it as part of giving them the boot. Still, you'd have to imagine they'd keep high ranking royals safe regardless of said royal's wishes, may be cynical to think so,

[Raithe]

It's no real different to family members of various presidents/prime ministers serving in the armed forces. We've got the tradition of it, they don't get to completely bypass it, and frankly if you're out there in the sandbox that close to the front line the only way you're going to be safe is be buried in a bunker and never go out. Which didn't happy with the princes. It didn't with their father when he was on ship during the Falklands. There's not much in added security you can really do in those situations.

 

And really, what would be to the court case? They legally own the land they have. It's not a legal requirement for them to transfer the money. Each monarch in turn voluntarily does it, so technically any change in monarch can stop it happening and keep that real estate luchre and not take the government pay packet.  And if the government can suddenly take possession of legal ownership, what's to stop them doing that with any other rich landowner because they want extra income?

[BruceVC]

Right, so say we do stop giving them the £40 million a year and kick them out.. What they can do is then take that £200 million that they give to the treasury, and walk away with that and the land they own.  How many of the "political aristocracy" over in the US would give up most of the earnings of their real estate holdings to the government treasury?

 

And the military service bit, here's a fun fact for you, the UK news services knew about both the princes being involved in Afghanistan and being out on the front lines. They were asked (politely) not to put it out there because it might cause more danger and make the princes and the units they worked with bigger targets then they already were.

 

Then of course after a couple of months, some of the American and other world services managed to find out about it and splashed it out there for everyone to see. So it's not like they purely went out there for the pr coup, and everyone in the Armed Services over there freely admits that it's not like either of them were hidden away and not doing their job. Both Harry and William fought to make sure they took the same risks as the guys they worked with when they were out there.

 

Yes just to add to the distinguished service that Harry did in Afghanistan. He was a forward air controller until that German newspaper ran the story. His job was deployment into the field with one other person and they had to get close enough to enemy positions to radio in to the airforce the positions of enemy combatants. This is a very dangerous and important job. I can't think of one Royal family in the world in the last 30 years that has allowed one of there princes to be in a position in the front line where they might get killed like this, especially when Harry is a huge target for the Taliban. So huge kudos to him 

Edited July 24, 2013 by BruceVC

[Amentep]

I thought the whole reason the yanks had their war of independence was so they wouldn't have to worry about the royal baby...

But they seem even more obsessed with it then us over here in the UK.. 

 

Everybody likes babies when they can give them back to their parents when they start crying and needing changing and stuff.

 

[Malcador]

http://www.panarabiaenquirer.com/wordpress/royal-baby-to-be-named-qatar-airways-after-landmark-sponsorship-deal/

[Malcador]

It's no real different to family members of various presidents/prime ministers serving in the armed forces. We've got the tradition of it, they don't get to completely bypass it, and frankly if you're out there in the sandbox that close to the front line the only way you're going to be safe is be buried in a bunker and never go out. Which didn't happy with the princes. It didn't with their father when he was on ship during the Falklands. There's not much in added security you can really do in those situations.

 

And really, what would be to the court case? They legally own the land they have. It's not a legal requirement for them to transfer the money. Each monarch in turn voluntarily does it, so technically any change in monarch can stop it happening and keep that real estate luchre and not take the government pay packet.  And if the government can suddenly take possession of legal ownership, what's to stop them doing that with any other rich landowner because they want extra income?

Yes, and I would assume the same from a PM's son serving anywhere. As for a government just seizing land, well, they can do that if push comes to shove (and if they're booting the royals, I assume the mood will be anti-royal anyway, so who'll care).

 

But ok, I get it, you love the Royals, etc.

[Raithe]

Eh, I wouldn't say I love the Royals. I'm pro-monarchist, yes but I don't follow them like some folks do. 

 

Mostly it just bugs me when people ignore the history and the actual facts of how it's established and what they do, so that they go on and on about them being parasites who do nothing and only leech money from the Government and should be booted out because of it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Well Raithe, I'll give you that the British monarchs don't seem as bad as some of the royalty in the middle east.

 

I honestly don't see the appeal of royal family so meh, hope mommy gets some rest and doesn't have cameras following her around constantly for the next few months.