Another Royal Baby

[Hibrandenburg]

The Daily Mail and Express will be creaming themselves. Another Royal baby and that on St George's day. I'll be avoiding the UK news for a few weeks now.

[ACLeith]

On another thread there was info that the world is ending today. Tragedy for the wean that his life will be so short

[snooky]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ-r0bilzhU

It's a damn shame for the bairn.

[Colr]

May I be amongst the first the express my complete apathy at this news.

[Pretty Boy]

Great news for his parents, sure they are delighted and rightly so.

Quite why it merits so much news coverage is beyond me. He's essentially a Princess Anne or Prince Edward for a new generation. In other words; a bit pointless.

[EH6 Hibby]

Wonder if the taxpayer will be funding this 3rd child. Thought people were only allowed 2 now.

[Colr]

Wonder if the taxpayer will be funding this 3rd child. Thought people were only allowed 2 now.

Good point!

[The_Exile]

Feel sorry for these kids, born into a bit of a strange existence and although I've no ill will towards the Royals, the fact this is yet another bairn to support with crazy money while so many ordinary kids are living in relative poverty is a complete p**s take.

[G B Young]

IMHO the younger generation of royals are doing OK. William and Harry seem more grounded and likeable than previous generations and when all's said and done they bring a bit of colour and light relief to a pretty drab news agenda. With a royal wedding also coming up a good many folk will get a lot of enjoyment out of it all and the economy is likely to be boosted by additional tourism (pretty sure there was a hefty spike in the year William and Kate got married). Yes, the crowds who had been camped outside the hospital since the start of April must be a bit nutty, but I was struck when seeing some of them interviewed by the fact they're by and large just ordinary punters who have made royal watching their hobby.

[Sir David Gray]

Woman gives birth to baby.

Congratulations.

[johnbc70]

Like it or not it's newsworthy because lots of people are interested and care more about the baby than they do about the likes of Brexit. Yes Brexit will have a significantly greater impact on their lives than a baby they will never meet but that's the reality.

[Hibrandenburg]

IMHO the younger generation of royals are doing OK. William and Harry seem more grounded and likeable than previous generations and when all's said and done they bring a bit of colour and light relief to a pretty drab news agenda. With a royal wedding also coming up a good many folk will get a lot of enjoyment out of it all and the economy is likely to be boosted by additional tourism (pretty sure there was a hefty spike in the year William and Kate got married). Yes, the crowds who had been camped outside the hospital since the start of April must be a bit nutty, but I was struck when seeing some of them interviewed by the fact they're by and large just ordinary punters who have made royal watching their hobby.

Light relief!!! It's all over the bloody news. You can't get away from it. Endless reels of cat ladies waving union jacks and clutching photos of princess Diana and weird men wearing red, white and blue 3 piece suits that would draw attention from the police if they merely walked passed a school. It's almost creepy.

[RyeSloan]

Light relief!!! It's all over the bloody news. You can't get away from it. Endless reels of cat ladies waving union jacks and clutching photos of princess Diana and weird men wearing red, white and blue 3 piece suits that would draw attention from the police if they merely walked passed a school. It's almost creepy.

Ach people are so cynical these days...just relax and roll with it. Sure it’s all a bit loopy and defies any logic but sometimes the world needs stuff like that.

[lord bunberry]

Genuinely could care less about the royal family. It’s an outdated system that should be scrapped immediately.

[JeMeSouviens]

Like it or not it's newsworthy because lots of people are interested and care more about the baby than they do about the likes of Brexit. Yes Brexit will have a significantly greater impact on their lives than a baby they will never meet but that's the reality.

Really? I didn't know she was pregnant until yesterday and I have yet to meet anyone who could gaf. Actually, my mother probably does.

The royals will (hopefully) last about 10 minutes post Indy.

[Geo_1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-43870026 this happens while everybody is "celebrating" the birth of another freeloader.

[lapsedhibee]

Genuinely could care less about the royal family. It’s an outdated system that should be scrapped immediately.

Not neonate-shapeshifter related, but when did it become a thing to say "could care less" when you mean "couldn't care less"? Did Zuckerberg/Bezel/Gates decree this one night while I was asleep? :confused: Next thing you know the dictionary will be defining "literally" as "not literally" and that "loosen" and "unloosen" mean the same thing. :grr: :panic:

[lord bunberry]

Not neonate-shapeshifter related, but when did it become a thing to say "could care less" when you mean "couldn't care less"? Did Zuckerberg/Bezel/Gates decree this one night while I was asleep? :confused: Next thing you know the dictionary will be defining "literally" as "not literally" and that "loosen" and "unloosen" mean the same thing. :grr: :panic:
I don’t think it has ever become a thing, my lack of intelligence and ability to construct a coherent sentence however has long been a thing :greengrin

[Speedy]

Not neonate-shapeshifter related, but when did it become a thing to say "could care less" when you mean "couldn't care less"? Did Zuckerberg/Bezel/Gates decree this one night while I was asleep? :confused: Next thing you know the dictionary will be defining "literally" as "not literally" and that "loosen" and "unloosen" mean the same thing. :grr: :panic:

It's an American thing

[JeMeSouviens]

Not neonate-shapeshifter related, but when did it become a thing to say "could care less" when you mean "couldn't care less"? Did Zuckerberg/Bezel/Gates decree this one night while I was asleep? :confused: Next thing you know the dictionary will be defining "literally" as "not literally" and that "loosen" and "unloosen" mean the same thing. :grr: :panic:

It's an americanism, they've always done it afaik.

btw, the dictionary already gave up on literally. :rolleyes:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/literally


1.1informal Used for emphasis while not being literally true.
‘I was literally blown away by the response I got’

[snooky]

It's an American thing

Like their double-negative tendacies?
e.g. "I didn't do nuttin" & "I ain't never going home".

[Pete]

It looks like a genuine typo has opened a can of worms. Not literally of course.

[ACLeith]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-43870026 this happens while everybody is "celebrating" the birth of another freeloader.

Nail firmly hit on head

[G B Young]

Really? I didn't know she was pregnant until yesterday and I have yet to meet anyone who could gaf. Actually, my mother probably does.

The royals will (hopefully) last about 10 minutes post Indy.

Not that there's likely to be another vote on any time soon, but what's the SNP's latest stance re the Queen in the event that Scotland were ever to become independent? Salmond was pretty clear she'd remain head of state back in 2014 as that was what he perceived to be the preference of a majority of Scots (including himself) but since his political career took a nosedive has there been a change of tack from Sturgeon?

[JeMeSouviens]

Not that there's likely to be another vote on any time soon, but what's the SNP's latest stance re the Queen in the event that Scotland were ever to become independent? Salmond was pretty clear she'd remain head of state back in 2014 as that was what he perceived to be the preference of a majority of Scots (including himself) but since his political career took a nosedive has there been a change of tack from Sturgeon?

Don't think they've changed and it would be bad tactics to do so but leaving SNP policy to one side for a moment, I think the people will be happy with a republic shortly after we are a proper country.

[Pretty Boy]

Really? I didn't know she was pregnant until yesterday and I have yet to meet anyone who could gaf. Actually, my mother probably does.

The royals will (hopefully) last about 10 minutes post Indy.

The women in my work are all very excited. there's a sweep going on what the name will be :rolleyes:

I'm the oddball because I said i couldn't care less and when I said i was a republican it was like I'd announced I was going to go to London and slaughter the new bairn myself.

[johnbc70]

Really? I didn't know she was pregnant until yesterday and I have yet to meet anyone who could gaf. Actually, my mother probably does.

The royals will (hopefully) last about 10 minutes post Indy.

Yes really, just because you don't care for them does not mean everyone is the same as you. But I think you know that.

Last poll done was a few years ago but only 9% said the Royals were bad for the UK. Yes it could be different in Scotland but the general feeling across the UK is pro Royal family and as I say people are far more interested in these stories than Brexit.

[JeMeSouviens]

Yes really, just because you don't care for them does not mean everyone is the same as you. But I think you know that.

Last poll done was a few years ago but only 9% said the Royals were bad for the UK. Yes it could be different in Scotland but the general feeling across the UK is pro Royal family and as I say people are far more interested in these stories than Brexit.

I'm not saying it's not important to some* or that UK opinion is not generally pro-monarchy** but I would dispute the last bit about Brexit. I think most people have some opinion on Brexit and even if they wish it would go away, think it's important one way or the other.



* nutters
** in large part, imo, because people have been conditioned to think the only alternative is a political head of state, "President Thatcher" or "President Blair". :rolleyes:

[Sylar]

Don't think they've changed and it would be bad tactics to do so but leaving SNP policy to one side for a moment, I think the people will be happy with a republic shortly after we are a proper country.

Really? I suspect if you presented people with the figures of cost of upkeep vs economic revenue, most people would probably accept a continuation of the monarchy.

I'm not likely to don a Union Jack suit and host a garden party to celebrate the new Prince's arrival (or indeed his uncle's upcoming wedding next month), but their contribution to the UK economy is considerable (around £2 billion a year from memory, based on a 2017 report?).

[JeMeSouviens]

Really? I suspect if you presented people with the figures of cost of upkeep vs economic revenue, most people would probably accept a continuation of the monarchy.

I'm not likely to don a Union Jack suit and host a garden party to celebrate the new Prince's arrival (or indeed his uncle's upcoming wedding next month), but their contribution to the UK economy is considerable (around £2 billion a year from memory, based on a 2017 report?).

Reports about the RF's contributions to the economy or charities are largely made up pish. Yes, Americans come to Britain and want to see Buckingham Palace. They also go to Paris and visit Versailles etc. It's not like the queen pops out with tea and scones for them. :rolleyes:

Anyway, even if they really brought in £s, choosing our head of state on a hereditary basis in 2018 is just wrong.

[Sylar]

Reports about the RF's contributions to the economy or charities are largely made up pish. Yes, Americans come to Britain and want to see Buckingham Palace. They also go to Paris and visit Versailles etc. It's not like the queen pops out with tea and scones for them. :rolleyes:

Anyway, even if they really brought in £s, choosing our head of state on a hereditary basis in 2018 is just wrong.

It's not just in the form of tourism (which is considerable in its own right at an estimated £500 million, whether or not these tourists actually get to see them or not) - it's the trade they generate from overseas visits, it's the popular culture impact they have on multimedia platforms (even things like The Crown, which can attribute some of its successes to the fact that people are interested in the Royal Family). The royal warrant holding companies are significant contributers to UK revenues, and like it or not, large Royal events bring masses of people to the UK in significant numbers (Royal Weddings, Trooping The Colour etc) and these tourists put money into our coffers.

I 100% agree that having a hereditary head of state is an archaic principle, and that there are plenty of the extended Royal Family that are "kept" entirely, but even in a symbollic capacity, they're good for our economy. Republic estimate they cost the taxpayer around £345 million every year. Independent financial reports estimate they contribute £2 billion to the economy every year (easily quantifiable by the way, since you don't seem to believe any of the reports). That seems like decent value to me.

[greenlex]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-43870026 this happens while everybody is "celebrating" the birth of another freeloader.
Today’s record had the baby picture headline and the food bank story beneath it. Heartbreaking.

[greenlex]

It's not just in the form of tourism (which is considerable in its own right at an estimated £500 million, whether or not these tourists actually get to see them or not) - it's the trade they generate from overseas visits, it's the popular culture impact they have on multimedia platforms (even things like The Crown, which can attribute some of its successes to the fact that people are interested in the Royal Family). The royal warrant holding companies are significant contributers to UK revenues, and like it or not, large Royal events bring masses of people to the UK in significant numbers (Royal Weddings, Trooping The Colour etc) and these tourists put money into our coffers.

I 100% agree that having a hereditary head of state is an archaic principle, and that there are plenty of the extended Royal Family that are "kept" entirely, but even in a symbollic capacity, they're good for our economy. Republic estimate they cost the taxpayer around £345 million every year. Independent financial reports estimate they contribute £2 billion to the economy every year (easily quantifiable by the way, since you don't seem to believe any of the reports). That seems like decent value to me.
The question is do the tourists come because we have a royal family or would they come in any case. I don’t know the tourism numbers but it would be interesting to see how they compare to say France. They have plenty similar tourist attractions without a royal family.

[Sylar]

The question is do the tourists come because we have a royal family or would they come in any case. I don’t know the tourism numbers but it would be interesting to see how they compare to say France. They have plenty similar tourist attractions without a royal family.

JMS is quite right with his point that people still flock to Republican countries to view palaces, whether or not someone's living in them or not. I'm in absolutely no doubt that tourism would always be a strong pull to the UK irrespective of the presence of a Royal Family or not. But again, tourism is only part of the puzzle. I've no idea what the revenues from places like Windsor Castle, Kensingston Palace, Buckingham Palace etc are on an annual basis (the data will exist somewhere though), or how much additional merchandise is purchased by folks visiting these establishments, but the interest in an active Royal Family undoubtedly plays a role in sales/visits.

I'm the furthest thing from a Royalist - I just think to dismiss them as a worthless, costly behemoth is an ill-informed opinion.

[JeMeSouviens]

It's not just in the form of tourism (which is considerable in its own right at an estimated £500 million, whether or not these tourists actually get to see them or not) - it's the trade they generate from overseas visits, it's the popular culture impact they have on multimedia platforms (even things like The Crown, which can attribute some of its successes to the fact that people are interested in the Royal Family). The royal warrant holding companies are significant contributers to UK revenues, and like it or not, large Royal events bring masses of people to the UK in significant numbers (Royal Weddings, Trooping The Colour etc) and these tourists put money into our coffers.

I 100% agree that having a hereditary head of state is an archaic principle, and that there are plenty of the extended Royal Family that are "kept" entirely, but even in a symbollic capacity, they're good for our economy. Republic estimate they cost the taxpayer around £345 million every year. Independent financial reports estimate they contribute £2 billion to the economy every year (easily quantifiable by the way, since you don't seem to believe any of the reports). That seems like decent value to me.

Sorry, not buying it.

http://brandfinance.com/images/upload/bf_monarchy_report_2017.pdf

- £550M estimate for "uplift in tourism" based on visits to Buck palace, Westminster abbey, etc. I've visited Westminster Abbey, I certainly wasn't there because the UK has a current royal family. Where's the analysis of uniquely royal inspired visits? It's just a guess.
- £329M crown estate surplus, ie. money generated from lands that will be owned by the state as soon as we get rid of the RF.

etc. etc.

Comparable european countries' economies don't seem to suffer from no royals.

[JeMeSouviens]

JMS is quite right with his point that people still flock to Republican countries to view palaces, whether or not someone's living in them or not. I'm in absolutely no doubt that tourism would always be a strong pull to the UK irrespective of the presence of a Royal Family or not. But again, tourism is only part of the puzzle. I've no idea what the revenues from places like Windsor Castle, Kensingston Palace, Buckingham Palace etc are on an annual basis (the data will exist somewhere though), or how much additional merchandise is purchased by folks visiting these establishments, but the interest in an active Royal Family undoubtedly plays a role in sales/visits.

I'm the furthest thing from a Royalist - I just think to dismiss them as a worthless, costly behemoth is an ill-informed opinion.

Even if the £2Bn figure was reliable, it's a tiny drop in the bucket of the UK economy. Even if it was 10x as much, it wouldn't justify hanging onto something that's just wrong in principle.

[johnbc70]

Even if the £2Bn figure was reliable, it's a tiny drop in the bucket of the UK economy. Even if it was 10x as much, it wouldn't justify hanging onto something that's just wrong in principle.

Its only wrong in your opinion of course, unfortunately for you lots of other people have a different opinion and they outnumber you at the moment.

[JeMeSouviens]

Its only wrong in your opinion of course, unfortunately for you lots of other people have a different opinion and they outnumber you at the moment.

As soon as my (mainly) benign dictatorship takes over, this point will be moot. :greengrin

[lord bunberry]

Its only wrong in your opinion of course, unfortunately for you lots of other people have a different opinion and they outnumber you at the moment.
How many large and reliable surveys have been done regarding the royal family? Has there ever been one done in Scotland? I’m always sceptical when I hear about how popular they are as the vast majority of the people I speak to couldn’t care less about them. When I speak to someone who is pro the royal family it sticks in my mind as it’s such a rare occurrence.
The most common reaction is one of apathy towards them. Maybe it’s just the circles I move in :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

How many large and reliable surveys have been done regarding the royal family? Has there ever been one done in Scotland? I’m always sceptical when I hear about how popular they are as the vast majority of the people I speak to couldn’t care less about them. When I speak to someone who is pro the royal family it sticks in my mind as it’s such a rare occurrence.
The most common reaction is one of apathy towards them. Maybe it’s just the circles I move in :greengrin

Me too. :agree: I get the impression (in Scotland anyway) that the only thing that keeps them in place is folk think the alternatives would be even worse.

[lord bunberry]

Me too. :agree: I get the impression (in Scotland anyway) that the only thing that keeps them in place is folk think the alternatives would be even worse.
I agree and also think that no one wants to stick their head above the parapet and try and get rid of them due to the pro royal family media.

[johnbc70]

How many large and reliable surveys have been done regarding the royal family? Has there ever been one done in Scotland? I’m always sceptical when I hear about how popular they are as the vast majority of the people I speak to couldn’t care less about them. When I speak to someone who is pro the royal family it sticks in my mind as it’s such a rare occurrence.
The most common reaction is one of apathy towards them. Maybe it’s just the circles I move in :greengrin

Probably not many surveys in Scotland, but I read one from 2014 which was split 50/50 in terms of keep the Royals or not and 47% wanted the Queen as the head of state in an independent Scotland.

Obviously it's much higher when polls across the UK are looked at.

[G B Young]

It's not just in the form of tourism (which is considerable in its own right at an estimated £500 million, whether or not these tourists actually get to see them or not) - it's the trade they generate from overseas visits, it's the popular culture impact they have on multimedia platforms (even things like The Crown, which can attribute some of its successes to the fact that people are interested in the Royal Family). The royal warrant holding companies are significant contributers to UK revenues, and like it or not, large Royal events bring masses of people to the UK in significant numbers (Royal Weddings, Trooping The Colour etc) and these tourists put money into our coffers.

I 100% agree that having a hereditary head of state is an archaic principle, and that there are plenty of the extended Royal Family that are "kept" entirely, but even in a symbollic capacity, they're good for our economy. Republic estimate they cost the taxpayer around £345 million every year. Independent financial reports estimate they contribute £2 billion to the economy every year (easily quantifiable by the way, since you don't seem to believe any of the reports). That seems like decent value to me.

That's a surprisingly great series, well worth watching even if you think you have no interest in the royal family. While fictionalised to a certain extent, it's largely fact-based and is brilliantly put together.

[RyeSloan]

Me too. :agree: I get the impression (in Scotland anyway) that the only thing that keeps them in place is folk think the alternatives would be even worse.

Or maybe a lot of people don’t really give much of a toss.

We seem to function reasonably well with our parliamentary system and a non political head of state with its dash of rather old fashioned pomp and pageantry.

Would I cry if the monarchy was abolished? Naw.

Do I imagine any replacement would be just as flawed with it’s own complications and retractions? Aye.

Changing the status quo to a republic or the like is simply not something I’m really interested in and I’d hazard a guess that a lot of folk feel the same. Based simply on the fact that I’ve rarely heard anyone (outside of these four walls) who seem to be overly fussed about it all.

[Glory Lurker]

What bothers me most as a republican is the way there is never even debate about whether the current system is the best way to operate. The establishment and the media have no interest in discussing it because, imho, they know that it would lead to change. Anything that might erode the culture of privilege in this country is stifled.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Set o' self serving parasites kept in place by a bunch o' forelock tugging peasants ..... who gives a flying **** what they allegedly contribute to the economy, privilege and deference as a matter of birthright is an anathema to a modern society and an unelected head of state an utter nonsense in any democracy.

As for the Queen being apolitical ... ask the displaced people of Diego Garcia if they agree. Ask yourself if her "I hope people will think carefully about the future" comment during the independence referendum wasn't the same as starting a sentence with I'm not racist 'but' ... or 'I'm not homophobic 'but' .... apolitical my arse.

Geeza republic :aok:

[lapsedhibee]

It's an American thing


It's an americanism, they've always done it afaik.


********.

[lord bunberry]

I read a quote from frankie boyle, it was referring to rangers fans singing god save the queen. It was something like “people with a life expectancy of 56 asking god to save the queen” Says a lot about the support the royal family receives up here.

[Scouse Hibee]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-43870026 this happens while everybody is "celebrating" the birth of another freeloader.

Yet free loaders all over the country churn out children without a thought of how they are going to support them, what's worse?

[snooky]

Yet free loaders all over the country churn out children without a thought of how they are going to support them, what's worse?

Baby is being named Louis - after Stevenson no doubt :not worth

[Geo_1875]

Yet free loaders all over the country churn out children without a thought of how they are going to support them, what's worse?

Both equally as bad to my mind but they get different treatment in the media and middle-class perception.

[snooky]

Both equally as bad to my mind but they get different treatment in the media and middle-class perception.

And a different amount of money. :coffee:

[Bristolhibby]

Don't think they've changed and it would be bad tactics to do so but leaving SNP policy to one side for a moment, I think the people will be happy with a republic shortly after we are a proper country.

This Indy first. Plebiscite to become a Rebublic after that.

It’s almost irrelevant what the SNP or anyone else for that matter want. It will be up to the people of Scotland to decide.

Personally Monarchy is a totally outdated system that has no place in a Democracy. The Queen can literally get away with murder in this country. As the courts prosecute on her behalf. She can’t prosecute herself. Nobody should be above the law.

J