Best name suggestion I've seen for the newborn drain on the taxpayer...

[SolidGoldBrass]

I popped into a pub this afternoon for a wee and a pint and they had a Royal Baby Name sweepstake board behind the bar.

Someone had suggested 'Dodi.'

Little things...

Bunt: TBF, you needed to be pulled up on the rainbows, though, didn't you.. Even if you'd like to move on now.

Surely, you must be able to address an earlier post on any thread, or else demand everyone put their RLs on pause and follow each one live from start to finish, in order to not disturb the " flow"..

Rainbows... My bad :(

Thank you Toys .

"fgs get real" is hardly an incisive and intelligent argument Bunt.

Will head back to the Republican thread with the sensible people now.

It is my understanding that the revenue from the Crown Estates - which used to go directly to the Crown, and now goes to the State - more than covers the cost of the civil list. So it isn't the tax payers who fund the civil list.

Not to forget the many people who are employed directly by the royal family, and those whose employment depends on the tourists that the royal family attract to the UK.

And the decades of knowledge and wisdom that the Queen brings to her interactions with the politicians of the day. I am willing to bet she has forgotten 20 times more about politics and government in Britain than Dave and his chums will ever know.

Just something to point out... while yes, the royals are financially well off, and the country is dealing with austerity... it's the politicians and government that are making all the cuts and chirping on about cutting back... (the politicians that, I might add, are mostly very well off themselves!!) ... the royals have never ever stepped in and said anything contemptible in that regard. The Queen IIRC has made comments here and there about her concern for how certain policies will hit the poor, but it's not like she's wafting about a la Marie Antoinette saying "let them eat cake.."

(although to be fair it's questionable that Marie Antoinette said that either tbh)

No, MA said the equivalent of Let them eat brioche - not quite the same thing.

Royalists can't have it both ways though SDTG - either the royal family never express any opinions on politics or the queen provides the Pm of the day with her "wisdom" (don't buy that!). If she does the latter then she shouldn't be - she is unelected and should not interfere in any way.

The tourism argument has been debunked repeatedly by anyone but the Buck House PR department too.

Well - she has weekly meetings with the PM, and I don't think it is just so they can discuss the weather or the corgis' haemorrhoids. They discuss government, and given that the Queen has been meeting with PMs and reading government documents for over 60 years, I suspect she is pretty knowledgeable. Things I have read imply that she doesn't offer direct advice, but expresses her opinions.

She can express her opinions, which the PM can listen politely to and then ignore if he wants. She has just as much a right to her opinions as anyone else. Granted, she meets with the PM, but I suspect it's more of a "keep her informed of what's going on" and listen to her feedback than him asking for any guidance from her. I doubt she has any sway in that regard.

I know they meet weekly. But why? Why bother with the meetings? Of course she's entitled to her opinions - so am I, but I don't have the huge political privilege of a weekly meeting with the PM to share them.

I don't get why the baby would be called Dodi? He was never married to Diana was he? Am I being a thicko?

Also, while I'm at it, I still can't fathom how people can actually believe that Harry was fathered by James Hewitt. That's just madness - you only have to look at him to see his resemblance to his uncles on both his mother and Charles' side.

I agree about Harry/James Hewitt-utter nonsense.

Yes you ate being thick

Are

Because she has spent over 60 years learning about the governing of Britain, reading government papers that you and I have neither access to, and has been immersed in government in a way none of us are, so has a depth of knowledge that few other people do, PeoplesRepublic.

That doesn't make her smart, STG. She doesn't do much with her knowledge. The old bat means well but they didn't breed for brainpower in the first place, and she's far more interested in horseracing and corgis than sorting out the economy.

This could be a bit of a circular argument! What I am arguing is that as an unelected head of state she shouldn't have that level of access and influence - and actually many royalists argue that the royals hold no power or influence so why worry about them. They do and we should.

at didn't breed for brain power!!

The royals are as thick as two short planks. intelligence is strongly inherited and I think you will struggle to find a royal ancestor who had any.
Trinity gave Charles a desmond out of pity and that's about as good as they get. They are Hanoverians - thick, very long lived, good at reproducing. And perfect constitutional monarchs, therefore, but things have come to a pretty pass if we are actually interested in such people.

The way they handled Diana's death very nearly put paid to the monarchy! They somehow managed to claw their way back though - and the Kate thing has definitely sorted them for a few more years yet .

About the only time I felt much sympathy for Liz and Charlie was when Diana died. Having an attention-seeking, self-obsessed whinyarse in the family is very hard work, and if the fucker goes and dies then it becomes even more so because you have to pretend you're sad.

Oh your saying crap for attention now.

Yes, that's totally it, Angel. You've well and truly rumbled us.