General
06 May 19
06 May 19
@very-rusty saidWhat about the Scotts, the Northern Irish and the Welsh?
What do our English members think about the Royal Baby, is everyone excited?
-VR
@divegeester saidGood point Dive, shows you I am from this side of the pond! 😉 I am leaving out a big group of people there! I assumed it was the British people that footed the bill, I know we don't pay a nickle for anything over here, except when we have a Royal Visit!!!
What about the Scotts, the Northern Irish and the Welsh?
-VR
@very-rusty saidI can barely contain myself.
What do our English members think about the Royal Baby, is everyone excited?
-VR
[/sarcasm]
@caesar-salad removed their quoted postAccording to Royalists the Royal Family bring in gazillions.
It should be compulsory for all royals to have 10 children and build palaces for them all.
That way Britain would be thriving!
@very-rusty saidYou are leaving out about 16,000,000 people.
I am leaving out a big group of people there! I assumed it was the British people that footed the bill
Yes, it is the British taxpayer who funds the monarchy and all its paraphernalia, but Great Britain is more than just “England”.
07 May 19
@Very-Rusty
I am not English. I live in Honolulu. The new royal baby was great news because along with this news there was a program that covered Harry & Megan's backstory. The royal biographer thought that their relationship was a bridge between the young English generation and the royal family. Interesting observations. Fireagate
07 May 19
1 edit
@wolfgang59 saidBritain is thriving and would continue to thrive without the Royal family.
According to Royalists the Royal Family bring in gazillions.
It should be compulsory for all royals to have 10 children and build palaces for them all.
That way Britain would be thriving!
The cost of the monarchy is easily covered by estimated tourism revenues it brings, however commentators and statical bodies have noted that the net receipts from tourism are huge compared to the monarchy element which is relatively small. So whether or not the overall interest in visiting the UK would be negatively impacted if there was no longer a sitting royal family remains to be speculated on.
On a theoretical distribution of value per royal head I suppose it could be hypothesised that after the first generation (William and Harry) the fiscal benefit of all the chinless wonders becomes dispensable.
07 May 19
@wolfgang59 saidBritain is thriving and would continue to thrive without the Royal family.
According to Royalists the Royal Family bring in gazillions.
It should be compulsory for all royals to have 10 children and build palaces for them all.
That way Britain would be thriving!
The cost of the monarchy is easily covered by estimated tourism revenues it brings, however commentators and statical bodies have noted that the net receipts from tourism are huge compared to the monarchy element which is relatively small. So whether or not the overall interest in visiting the UK would be negatively impacted if there was no longer a sitting royal family remains to be speculated on.
On a theoretical distribution of value per royal head I suppose it could be hypothesised that after the first generation (William and Harry) the fiscal benefit of all the other chinless wonders becomes dispensable.
07 May 19
@very-rusty saidAs a non-English non-British Person I wish the child well. Though I fear it will be a very stressful life to be led, regardless of the perks.
What do our English members think about the Royal Baby, is everyone excited?
-VR
- Joined
- 09 Sep 18
- Moves
- 20590
@very-rusty saidNo I £ecking hate the royal family and Megan the most.
What do our English members think about the Royal Baby, is everyone excited?
-VR
- Joined
- 09 Sep 18
- Moves
- 20590
@ponderable saidSTRESS are u taking the piss.
As a non-English non-British Person I wish the child well. Though I fear it will be a very stressful life to be led, regardless of the perks.