Royal Baby #2

[Asha]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-middleton-pregnant-duke-duchess-4182192

 

Good people - Brace yourselves!

 

It's coming again.

[RobHawk]

Im pissed off about hearing about it already!

[Jon the Hat]

Awwww.  I do love babies.  xx

[The Doctor]

That's 9 months of non-news being the headlines again...

[ScouseFox]

be the unluckiest kid ever, born two years earlier and it'd be the king of england. now just a kid who can't do anything without it being in the paper. heavy. 

[Jon the Hat]

be the unluckiest kid ever, born two years earlier and it'd be the king of england. now just a kid who can't do anything without it being in the paper. heavy. 

 

Are you having a laugh?  He will be the Harry to William.  All the wealth and fame with little of the responsibility.  Much more fun.

[Rincewind]

I gree with The Doctor.

Another 9 months to give the media a story that will keep the public happy.

[Jon the Hat]

Another 9 months to give the media a story that will keep the public happy.

 

God you are right.  We should all be ****ing miserable shouldn't we.  **** this joy shit, lets all read miserable stories all the time.

[Corky]

YES!!!

 

Another free pull-out of baby pictures from the papers

[ScouseFox]

Are you having a laugh?  He will be the Harry to William.  All the wealth and fame with little of the responsibility.  Much more fun.

 

yeah harry has nailed it like. 

 

still probably rather be the king though. pretty cool that. 

[Rincewind]

God you are right.  We should all be ****ing miserable shouldn't we.  **** this joy shit, lets all read miserable stories all the time.

Not all been bad stories that have been missed by the media. Defeat in the commons for the Tories just one. first defeat in this session and very little coverage.

But all this is for another time. I have started no threads on the above. I was waiting for others to do it. I will shut up now.

 

My point was the royal baby story will take prominence over others good or bad and TBH I could not care less about it.

[Harry - LCFC]

Time for some real BBC bias then. Funny how no-one seems to mention it when it's most obvious.

[Rincewind]

The timing is good anyway Got to be coincidental.

[ADK]

Another drain on the taxpayer.

[RonnieTodger]

Heard it on the radio and they described the future to be "months of speculation as to the gender". Months? Really? You've only got 2 options.

[Fox92]

It will be covered as if no other woman in this history of the World has given birth before.

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

This is an outrage. Cameron out. Feed the baby to the homeless

[Buce]

Wonderful - another Royal parasite to leech off my taxes.

Four generations of worklessness in one household is a record to make even 'White Dee' blush.

Princess Dee: it has quite a nice ring to it..

[Haydos]

Wonderful - another Royal parasite to leech off my taxes.

 

 

They appear to bring in SO much more in revenue and contribution to the economy than they cost the taxpayer. Am I overlooking something or is Buce talking nonsense?

 

They cost us each 56p per year in taxes (£35.7m) but bring in "close to £500 million" in tourism.

 

Sources:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cost-of-royal-family-rises-twice-as-fast-as-inflation-9563293.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/tourism/8587231/UK-Tourism-facts-and-figures.html

[Captain...]

They appear to bring in SO much more in revenue and contribution to the economy than they cost the taxpayer. Am I overlooking something or is Buce talking nonsense?

 

They cost us each 56p per year in taxes (£35.7m) but bring in "close to £500 million" in tourism.

 

Sources:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cost-of-royal-family-rises-twice-as-fast-as-inflation-9563293.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/tourism/8587231/UK-Tourism-facts-and-figures.html

 

That is a poor argument.

 

Firstly: That figure on tourism generated by the "royal family" is bollocks, and if we canned the royals it wouldn't mean we would get 0 tourism to the Tower of London, Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace. We still have the history and heritage that people are a lot more interested in Henry VIII, Queen Vic etc and people would still visit these places. If the number of visitors to these places dropped then it would just mean tourists have more disposable income to spend on other things.

 

Secondly: The money generated by these places through Tourism will largely go to the up keep of these places, rather than back to the tax payer so it doesn't matter how much money they generate we don't see any of it and we still pay, admittedly a small amount per person, for their upkeep.

 

We don't pay a lot per person for the royals, but to say they pay for themselves in tourism is just wrong.

[Buce]

is Buce talking nonsense?

I'm offended by the very suggestion..

http://republic.org.uk/what-we-want/royal-finances

[Guest MattP]

Sure they would be delighted to set up as a private company instead.

[ADK]

Sure they would be delighted to set up as a private company instead.

 

Great lets get it done.

[Grandad.]

Can't people just be happy? 

 

Sad bastards.

[Harry - LCFC]

I think the fact that people tend to resort to economic arguments to defend the monarchy shows how weak the case is for having it in principle. Most people don't even try to argue that it's a positive component of our government. Pretty telling IMO.