A baby boy!

[Worthy4England]

Cold blooded murder then?

I suppose that'd work.

Sometimes, it's better just to stick to the tried and trusted.

And in fairness, the Monarchy should understand this method quite well, after all, it's how they got there in the first place.

[BWFC_Insane]

Well we could charge tickets to watch. I reckon Japanese tourists would pay through the roof for a front row ticket for Charles' disbanding.....

[thebish]

Cold blooded murder then?

I suppose that'd work.

as WtW pointed out - all the guns missed!

[89bwfc89]

Knowing that I have to go to work to pay for this family of spongers is absolutely nauseating

Yeah but I'm pretty sure they'll generate a fair bit of money for this country by the amount of tourists they attract for a start. It's the families full of spongers that do absolutely F all that nauseate me. I actually know someone who pays 81p a week rent to live in a council house but is able to pay £113 a month for Virgin Media. Come back when you've finished puking over that.

I don't constantly fawn over the Royals all year round either but we're watching history unfold and it's exciting, plus as already mentioned, I love a good bit of baby news regardless of who the baby belongs to.

I didn't even know you could spend that much on Virgin Media!

I just had a quick look on their website to make sure I hadn't mis-heard her or exaggerated (!).....the VIP package is £99 a month plus line rental of £14.99 a month!!

[tripod]

Knowing that I have to go to work to pay for this family of spongers is absolutely nauseating

Yeah but I'm pretty sure they'll generate a fair bit of money for this country by the amount of tourists they attract for a start. It's the families full of spongers that do absolutely F all that nauseate me. I actually know someone who pays 81p a week rent to live in a council house but is able to pay £113 a month for Virgin Media. Come back when you've finished puking over that.

I don't constantly fawn over the Royals all year round either but we're watching history unfold and it's exciting, plus as already mentioned, I love a good bit of baby news regardless of who the baby belongs to.

I didn't even know you could spend that much on Virgin Media!

I just had a quick look on their website to make sure I hadn't mis-heard her or exaggerated (!).....the VIP package is £99 a month plus line rental of £14.99 a month!!

The royals are spongers too though! Whats the difference between them a large family sat on their arses in a council house on benefits? The taxpayer pays for both. Ok the royals bring in some coin through tourists but how much is spent looking after them?

[Athers]

About £30m a year or something isn't it?

Not easy to quantify the amount they 'bring in' but they definitely add to the appeal of a tourist trip to London... alas so would a guided tour round Buckingham Palace.

Suppose there's thousands of folk making and selling tat & memorabilia though, so that's something for GDP!

[Gooner Girl]

My Somerset cousins are also excited about their new arrival...

[Worthy4England]

[Lost Leopard Spot]

That's good that is. quite funny.

[Prufrock]

one could argue that, given that the royals give up the profits on the land to the Treasury, that they actually cover their costs more thank six times over


(but then you could argue 'BUT WHY DON'T THEY GIVE OVER THE PROFITS FROM THE DUCHIES?' and then moan about inheritance tax and then claim that there is a myth about tourism. You'd be wrong about the last, like, but good on you for having a go)

Someone more republically minded might point out that it isn't *their* land to be giving up the profits on. If we were to get rid of the monarchy Lizzie wouldn't be keeping Buckingham Palace.

I'm an absolute republican constitutionally. Beyond that I'm not really fussed either way.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

one could argue that, given that the royals give up the profits on the land to the Treasury, that they actually cover their costs more thank six times over


(but then you could argue 'BUT WHY DON'T THEY GIVE OVER THE PROFITS FROM THE DUCHIES?' and then moan about inheritance tax and then claim that there is a myth about tourism. You'd be wrong about the last, like, but good on you for having a go)

Someone more republically minded might point out that it isn't *their* land to be giving up the profits on.

As in, if we just reject property as a construct?

[89bwfc89]

Knowing that I have to go to work to pay for this family of spongers is absolutely nauseating

Yeah but I'm pretty sure they'll generate a fair bit of money for this country by the amount of tourists they attract for a start. It's the families full of spongers that do absolutely F all that nauseate me. I actually know someone who pays 81p a week rent to live in a council house but is able to pay £113 a month for Virgin Media. Come back when you've finished puking over that.

I don't constantly fawn over the Royals all year round either but we're watching history unfold and it's exciting, plus as already mentioned, I love a good bit of baby news regardless of who the baby belongs to.

I didn't even know you could spend that much on Virgin Media!

I just had a quick look on their website to make sure I hadn't mis-heard her or exaggerated (!).....the VIP package is £99 a month plus line rental of £14.99 a month!!

The royals are spongers too though! Whats the difference between them a large family sat on their arses in a council house on benefits? The taxpayer pays for both. Ok the royals bring in some coin through tourists but how much is spent looking after them?

William and Harry have jobs!!

[Prufrock]

one could argue that, given that the royals give up the profits on the land to the Treasury, that they actually cover their costs more thank six times over


(but then you could argue 'BUT WHY DON'T THEY GIVE OVER THE PROFITS FROM THE DUCHIES?' and then moan about inheritance tax and then claim that there is a myth about tourism. You'd be wrong about the last, like, but good on you for having a go)

Someone more republically minded might point out that it isn't *their* land to be giving up the profits on.

As in, if we just reject property as a construct?

Hang on!

No, the property belongs to the 'Crown' as a shorthand for it belonging to the State, not Lizzy or Charles. They aren't 'giving' the profits on that land to the Treasury; the Treasury, as the financial embodiment of the State, already owns them.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

No, you hang on! The 'Crown' is only shorthand for 'the State' while we have a constitutional monarchy.

If you want to become a republic and take away their royal status, don't they just become another aristocratic family that owns and inherits property like other historically wealthy families?

[William the White]

No, you hang on! The 'Crown' is only shorthand for 'the State' while we have a constitutional monarchy.

If you want to become a republic and take away their royal status, don't they just become another aristocratic family that owns and inherits property like other historically wealthy families?

Actually - not my preferred solution...

[Prufrock]

No, you hang on! The 'Crown' is only shorthand for 'the State' while we have a constitutional monarchy.

If you want to become a republic and take away their royal status, don't they just become another aristocratic family that owns and inherits property like other historically wealthy families?

Yeah, if it's their property! Buckingham Palace isn't 'theirs'. Technically they own the whole shebang, every bit of land in the realm. The £400m or whatever it is Lizzy has in the bank, that's hers. The stately homes aren't. If it belongs to the Crown, it's the State's, if it belongs to Mrs Windsor, it's hers.

It's hardly the abolition of private property!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

No, you hang on! The 'Crown' is only shorthand for 'the State' while we have a constitutional monarchy.

If you want to become a republic and take away their royal status, don't they just become another aristocratic family that owns and inherits property like other historically wealthy families?

Yeah, if it's their property! Buckingham Palace isn't 'theirs'. Technically they own the whole shebang, every bit of land in the realm. The £400m or whatever it is Lizzy has in the bank, that's hers. The stately homes aren't. If it belongs to the Crown, it's the State's, if it belongs to Mrs Windsor, it's hers.

It's hardly the abolition of private property!

I just find your reasoning a bit teleological.

Let's take Buckingham Palace as an example... this was not a building built as part of some public subscription. Buckingham House was originally built as a private residence, which George III bought for Queen Charlotte. It's true that as a matter of convention it has become the seat of the monarchy, but as a matter of property law, I don't see why you think it is blindingly obvious that George III's descendants haven't inherited it in the normal way?

[Prufrock]

What about the Tower of London?

That hasn't been inherited the normal way. I think it's obvious that there is a distinction between property that is the family's, and property that is the State's. Buckingham Palace may have been a poor example, but I'm not sure it's a general rule.

St James's for instance, dates back to Tudor times. There is no way the current lot have 'inherited' that through the execution of Charles, the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution to now 'own' it privately.

I'd also be intrigued to know who has paid for what regarding the private residences such as Buckingham Palace. There's a prima facie case for the State having a beneficial interest, I reckon.

[Montreal Wanderer]

What about the Tower of London?

That hasn't been inherited the normal way. I think it's obvious that there is a distinction between property that is the family's, and property that is the State's. Buckingham Palace may have been a poor example, but I'm not sure it's a general rule.

St James's for instance, dates back to Tudor times. There is no way the current lot have 'inherited' that through the execution of Charles, the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution to now 'own' it privately.

I'd also be intrigued to know who has paid for what regarding the private residences such as Buckingham Palace. There's a prima facie case for the State having a beneficial interest, I reckon.

I don't understand your argument about St. James's, Pru. With the Restoration all property rights were restored to the monarch. In the Glorious Revolution James II was deposed, but his daughter inherited his properties. If the palace was privately owned by Henry VIII, the Queen is his current heir confirmed by Act of Parliament even if it occasionally came through collateral branches. I think the Queen is a direct descendant of Henry VII.

[Prufrock]

And it's my argument that is teleological!

I think it's astonishing that anyone honestly thinks she owns these things herself!

Not only that, a quick Google says she owns Balmoral and Sandringham are hers, the rest are held as sovereign on trust for future generations, which sounds wishy-washy, but correct. In other words, she doesn't own Buckingham Palace herself.