GLASGOWOODS Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 What lovely and appropriate names. Give it a week and the sprog will have a few medals dangling from her bib. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 And why not ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWOODS Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 And why not ? Why not what? Are you mad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Why not what? Are you mad? She deserves a medal for having to put up with all the anti royalist remarks she will have to put up with. Take note of some of the posts on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuttsie Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 She deserves a medal for having to put up with all the anti royalist remarks she will have to put up with. Take note of some of the posts on this thread. On the other hand she will not have to worry about getting a place in a local school or wondering if she will get a job when she leaves or, if she gets a job will that job pay enough so as she can save up for around twenty years to get a Mortgage. And then if she marry's will she be able to give up work so as to bring up the kids or will Gran Ma and Gran Dad take the strain. And then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 According to the news this morning the new baby will generate an estimated 250 billion pounds to the British economy. Good or bad? I'm not sure how they quantify these things...possibly by sales of commemorative tea towels and the like....I hardly think it's the rebalancing of the economy that the Chancellor was thinking of. However judging on past pronouncements from Osborne, the baby's birth will no doubt prove a useful scapegoat for the chancellor when looking for an explanation for poor growth figures! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) And then if she marry's will she be able to give up work so as to bring up the kids or will Gran Ma and Gran Dad take the strain. And then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hadn't even considered or looked that far forward but now you mention marriage this has given us something to look forward to A ROYAL WEDDING in the future. Think of all the pages of posts on SF about that. Edited May 7, 2015 by nikki-red Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 I'm not sure how they quantify these things...possibly by sales of commemorative tea towels and the like....I hardly think it's the rebalancing of the economy that the Chancellor was thinking of. However judging on past pronouncements from Osborne, the baby's birth will no doubt prove a useful scapegoat for the chancellor when looking for an explanation for poor growth figures! It's probably a bit more than tea towels and the like. You have to think of airlines, hotels, tour groups, railways, restaurants, retail stores, car hire all employing thousands of people connected with tourism. Not everybody comes to Britain with the hope of seeing the royals, but the pageantry and the sightseeing of the royal palaces connected with royalty is probably part of the itinerary of most tourists and they do spend money in the process, lots of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) You have in UK something very few countries can compete with, pageantry on a scale unmatched anywhere. A young wife has her second baby, and the world waits in awe for a name for her. If it was the Prime Minister's daughter, do you think the world would give a damn? A royal wedding drives London into a frenzy, a massive crowd outside Buck house all the way up the mall as far as Admiralty Arch. They can't all be republicans. I've lived a long way from it for a long time so don't have to worry about what kind of strain it is on the economy, but the alternative might not be all SF would like. Presidents don't come cheap. Edited May 5, 2015 by buck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommo68 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 ...........but the pageantry and the sightseeing of the royal palaces connected with royalty is probably part of the itinerary of most tourists and they do spend money in the process, lots of it After the treasury has taken and regained possession of all the wealth of the royals send them in the clothes they stand up in back to the germans who can do as they please with them. Obviously we'd have to close the door to all immigrants ..we do not want the royals creeping back in wanting housing and claiming benefits. Replace all the pagentry with paid actors, it would be much cheaper than using expensively trained members of the armed forces, who it appears can't even keep unarmed untrained intruders out, some people might even play some of the various roles for nothing. Open up all the then vacated homes palaces buildings etc to paying visitors as we do with a number or other old buildings Some people will no doubt be freting, even wailing, about what we will replace the royals with; actors for ceremonies and for anything else there really is no need to replace them nor do we need a president we did not have one when we did away with charles. Just be careful in future to avoid any and all inheireted titles or roles. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now