A Lovely, Joyful Ceremony...

[Bicycle Bill]

Granted, my Midlands clan are not to the 'manner' born but most are very comfortable in their position. They know the Royals are leaches on the overtaxed citizens of Great Britain and need to be sent packing.

Too bad their comfort in their position didn't extend to alleviate your apparent discomfort — or perhaps disdain — for the English language.
The word you wanted is 'leeches', not 'leaches'.

And I don't see a whole lot of difference between the money spent by Great Britain to support the Royals vis-à-vis the amount of money Trump and family (and various other governmental teat-suckers of questionable function or necessity) are costing the federal exchequer.

-"BB"-

[Lord Jim]

I don't see a whole lot of difference between the money spent by Great Britain to support the Royals vis-à-vis the amount of money Trump and family

There's actually a very significant difference...

The Royal Family is a net money maker for the UK, by a considerable margin:

A leading consultancy firm found that the Royals contributed £1.766 billion to the economy in 2017.

Maintaining the monarchy costs around £292 million - £4.50 per person.

Brand Finance measured the monarchy's value as if it were a business and said it was worth £25.5 billion.

This included the Crown Estate, the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall and the jewels and art that comprise the Royal Collection.

They estimate the Royals will bring in a further £42 billion to the UK economy over the next few years.

The report also estimates the monarchy generated £550million for tourism this year, the largest single contribution to the economy. [They generated almost twice the cost of maintaining the monarchy just in tourism dollars alone]

Last year more than 2.7 million tourists visited royal attractions.

Organisations supported by royal patronage, such as Royal Ascot and the Royal Opera House, also generate a lot of money, £150 million extra was brought in to charities this year.

The figures come on the Queen and Prince Phillip's platinum wedding anniversary.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4950897/q ... rchy-2017/

Those figures are from last November, with the royal wedding this year should be even more profitable for British subjects...

The House Of Windsor is that rarest of creatures...

A government supported operation that actually brings in more than it costs...

By contrast, believe me when I tell you, ain't nobody coming to the US to see anything associated with Donald Trump...

In fact a really good educated guess would be that his Presidency is costing the country tourism dollars...

[dales]

In fact a really good educated guess would be that his Presidency is costing the country tourism dollars...

And a lot more.

[RayThom]

I was merely speaking for those who are closest to, and effected by, this outmoded monarchy. You know, the one's who pay such a paltry sum to maintain their lavish lifestyle.

It's not so much the money, obviously, but the sense of entitlement the Royals display.

It's time for Great Britain to create their own true republic, and send the queen and her brood to Madame Tussauds for a good waxing.

[RayThom]

... They know the Royals are leaches on the overtaxed citizens of Great Britain and need to be sent packing.

Too bad their comfort in their position didn't extend to alleviate your apparent discomfort — or perhaps disdain — for the English language.
The word you wanted is 'leeches', not 'leaches'

.

Thank you Perfesser Bi, for your erudite, yet petty, castigation. Rest assured, it will serve as a great character builder for future threads.

[Gob]

It's time for Great Britain to create their own true republic, and send the queen and her brood to Madame Tussauds for a good waxing.

Even a waxwork of our beloved Queen would be more intelligent than the fuckwits who you elect.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Or did RT mean "lychees", referring to the next most blessed event he anticipates with joy?


Germinating lychee seed with its main root (about 3 months old)

[Lord Jim]

It's time for Great Britain to create their own true republic

That didn't go so well the last time...

send the queen and her brood to Madame Tussauds for a good waxing.

Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that...

Abolishing the Monarchy has about as much support in Great Britain as repealing the 2nd Amendment does here:

There is little doubt that the British public are strongly committed to the monarchy. Opinion polls consistently indicate that less than one in five would like Britain to become a republic while around three quarters favour Britain remaining a monarchy. Moreover, support for the monarchy remains extraordinarily stable.



Even at the time of the death of Princess Diana in 1997, when polls indicated some dissatisfaction with the Palace’s response, support for Britain remaining a monarchy held steady. As shown in the graph above, there is even some evidence that support for the monarchy has increased in recent years.

Moreover, when presented with the options for an alternative head of state, support for monarchy is even higher. In an Ipsos-Mori poll from 2016 which asked whether Britain should continue to have a King or Queen as head of state or an elected President, 86% supported retaining a monarch, while only 12% supported moving to an elected President.

It is also apparent that a large proportion of the public not only like the monarchy, but also think it is positively beneficial to Britain. Polling by Ipsos Mori between 1984 and 2002 indicated that while there was a fall in the proportion of people who thought Britain would be ‘worse off’ if it abolished the monarchy, this view was still held by more people than those who felt it would not make a difference.

In more recent polling by YouGov from 2015, 68% of respondents agreed that the monarchy was ‘good for Britain’, while in Opinium polls from earlier this year, 70% thought Britain is perceived more positively abroad because of the monarchy, while 66% believed [correctly] the monarchy benefitted the economy.

https://whorunsbritain.blogs.lincoln.ac ... -monarchy/

[Big RR]

By contrast, believe me when I tell you, ain't nobody coming to the US to see anything associated with Donald Trump...

In fact a really good educated guess would be that his Presidency is costing the country tourism dollars...

while I won't argue with that, people aren't traveling to England to see the royals either; they'll visit Buckingham palace and maybe other sites associate with the monarchy, but that is no more tourism money brought in by the monarchy than DC tourist dollars are brought in by Trump (or Vatican tourism dollars are brought in by the pope). If it was pay x number of pounds to get your picture with the Queen you may have a point, but it's nowhere near that.

Now there is a busisness to get plates and hats with the queen, etc. on them, but then I've seen the same thing with Trump in the US.

If the Brits want to keep their monarchy and feel their queen is beloved, I have no problem with it, but when you say they generate money, you really have to devise a way to see how much can be attributed to the individuals vs the history or the pageantry like this weekend (and were people there just to watch the parade, or to celebrate this grand royal family--I'd bet that many who come to St Patrick's Day parades, generating tourist dollars for the cities, don't even know who St Patrick was).

[Crackpot]

[ex-khobar Andy]

B. . . people aren't traveling to England to see the royals either; they'll visit Buckingham palace and maybe other sites associate with the monarchy, but that is no more tourism money brought in by the monarchy than DC tourist dollars are brought in by Trump (or Vatican tourism dollars are brought in by the pope).

I am by no means a royalist but Churchill's quote on democracy is apposite: "“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Then same could be said of a constitutional monarchy. And while I don't think that tourism dollars is a good motive for one sort of system over another (if it were, there would be some who argue for bringing back public executions) there are undeniably those who come to the UK solely for a royal event. There were several who were interviewed in the streets of Windsor who had flown in (IIRC all from the US; but I am sure there were others) especially in the hope of catching a glimpse of E2R and/or her relatives.

I am not sure if the below was posted here of if I saw it elsewhere. Apologies if it's a repost. I don't know the originator.

[Big RR]

don't get me wrong--I have nothing against that form of government as it has apparently worked well for much of the UK, but I think going to watch a parade of carriages and horses is no more tourism because of the monarch than coming to NYC to watch the St Patrick's Day parade is an endorsement of sainthood (r watching the inauguration would be an endorsement of Trump). Undoubtedly there are some who love the cult of celebrity, whether in the UK or the US, and will flock to catch a glimpse of their "idol(s)", but there are many who enjoy the hoopla, and pageantry, and even the historical genesis of it (I know that's how I felt when I watched the changing of the guard at Buckingham palace, much as I did when I viewed a session of Parliament (years ago from the gallery) and a session of US Congress).

As for military service (or lack thereof) in a national leader or figurehead, I personally don't think it matters much of the time; much of Trump's family grew up in a time where there was no conscription, so I do not see a shame in not serving. Indeed, a couple of years of policing the area for garbage in a peacetime army doesn't really qualify anyone for anything IMHO. I do appreciate the service of many who choose to serve (including those who have little to do when we are not at war), and also think the military can be a good experience for the right person in the right job, but so can a lot of other paths.

[Gob]

ss).

As for military service (or lack thereof) in a national leader or figurehead,

Some do it well

[Burning Petard]

The royal family as a financial burden on the general population? There is the little matter of legality. I believe the English Monarch is the legal owner of all real property in the United Kingdom. [that is why any buried treasure found therein belongs to the crown. There is also the assumption that it was buried in the first place to hide it from the crown.]

Any one else can only purchase at most, a 999 years lease to the property.

snailgate.

[Jarlaxle]

This is the second wedding dress by Stella McCartney; it was worn to the evening wedding reception, per tradition there are always two. No insult about her divorcee status whatsoever.

It doesn't look like a wedding dress.

[Econoline]

Maybe this particular post belongs in the "Hardware" forum instead of here...

Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue. All were rolled into one gorgeous bauble leaving Saturday's royal wedding.

The light-blue metallic Jaguar E-Type convertible waiting to whisk Prince Harry and his bride, Meghan Markle, from their public reception at Windsor Castle to a private celebration hosted by Prince Charles at Frogmore House wasn't just any classic Jaguar, it was fitted with an electric powertrain.

This roadster was a Concept Zero, a classic 1968 E-Type convertible lent a new lease on life by Jaguar's own Classic Works restoration shop in England. Classic E-Types don't come cheap. Neither do restorations or electric-car conversions. The Jaguar Zero is reported to cost at least $470,000 (350,000 British pounds)—a small price to pay for a clean getaway.

The Jaguar Concept Zero uses a 225-kw electric motor and 40-kwh battery pack mounted under the hood in place of the classic Jaguar 6-cylinder. It is reported to have a range of about 170 miles thanks to its light weight and aerodynamic shape. Jaguar says it can hit 60 mph from a standstill in 5.5 seconds.

The whole package saves about 100 pounds over the internal combustion setup and doesn't alter the E-Type's driving dynamics, the company says.

What the Zero lacks are the classic E-Type's four chrome tailpipes under the rear license plate, but it gains a J1772 charge port under the classic cat's fuel filler flap in the rear fender.

The interior of the Concept Zero gets a full makeover with a carbon fiber dashboard and a touchscreen control panel where the classic E-Type's row of toggle switches once sat. The hockey puck-like shifter dial is lifted from a modern Jaguar.

Royal acolytes noted the wedding Jaguar had bespoke license plates with the royal wedding date for numbers.

Jaguar has committed to building an all-electric lineup, introducing nothing but hybrid and electric cars starting in 2020.

• 
  
  (more on the Jaguar Concept Zero here)

[RayThom]

It's odd to see a classic British hybrid motorcar recreated with left-hand drive.

More JC-0:

https://www.jaguar.com/about-jaguar/jag ... tzero.html

[dales]

Lucas Electrics aka: Prince of Darkness.

[Gob]

The royal family as a financial burden on the general population? There is the little matter of legality. I believe the English Monarch is the legal owner of all real property in the United Kingdom. [that is why any buried treasure found therein belongs to the crown. There is also the assumption that it was buried in the first place to hide it from the crown.]

Any one else can only purchase at most, a 999 years lease to the property.

snailgate.

You'd be very wrong there then, neither a financial burden, nor legal owner of all real property.

Where did you get those ideas from?

[Econoline]

I just love this...

-In 2015 a Beagle was found alone in the woods in Kentucky
-The Beagle was found by a good samaritan and brought to a shelter
-No one wanted to adopt the Beagle who unfortunately was at a kill shelter and put on the euthanasia list.
-Days before the Beagle was to be put down, a Beagle rescue group in Canada was contacted by the shelter and decided to take him in....to Canada.
-Groups of dog lovers took turns driving the Beagle in one hour shifts from Kentucky to Toronto.
-At a normal run of the mill adoption event a woman who was temporarily working in Toronto saw the Beagle and decided he was for her.
-The woman named the Beagle... Guy.
-That woman was an actress named Meghan Markle.
-Meghan Markle ended up marrying Prince Harry.
-On his owners wedding day, Guy the Beagle rode in a car to a wedding reception with the Queen of England.
-Guy, the stray beagle from Kentucky now lives at Kensington Palace.

(Oh, and before RayThom beats me to it: yes, I checked it with Snopes, and the sentence stating that "Guy the Beagle rode in a car to the wedding reception with the Queen of England" appears to be false, or at least dubious. The rest of the story is apparently all true.)