Cancellations...

[Pat ex]

In this discussion about the Royals in general, I do think there is room for compromise.
Looking at other Royal families in Europe:
Budget for UK Royals: £102M
Monaco: €43M
Denmark: $13M

The major part of UK's expenditure is on upkeep of property. If those costs were excluded, and the buildings allowed more public function (or some of them), the UK's Royal budget would be about £40M. Perhaps a tad more palatable.

 

[transam]

So all she provided was a boat. Which is gone.
So that's what's irrelevant. The queen was irrelevant.
What were these supposed productive meetings and visits you speculate about?

The "what if " King Plonker is an unavoidable possibility in the system we have.
Recently we've been lucky, perhaps. We've had awful monarchs in the past.
Once you have one, then can be there 70 years .
It's a crap system.

Well we will agree to disagree

 

[Odds]

Why would I have a problem?

Demographics may not be helpful to the monarchy or monarchists and it's probably that which will spell the end for them.

A recent poll shows pretty good support for the monarch in the 50+ age groups as expected but it's the figures in the 18-24 group which will be a worry for them:

. When asked 'do you think the institution of the monarchy was good or bad for Britain?'
24% said Good.

. When asked 'Do you think Britain should continue to have a monarchy in the future, or should it be replaced with an elected head of state?'
33% said 'Should continue to have a monarchy'.

I wonder how those figures will start to look after King Charles Spaniel has been working his magic for a while.

We'll see I suppose.

I was reading Marina Hyde in the Grauniad at lunchtime and she mentioned the poll you talk about.
It seems you missed out the end of the question: 'Do you think Britain should continue to have a monarchy in the future, or should it be replaced with a strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliament or elections (my itallics).
Source: Twitter.com

What kind of 'strong leader' do they mean?
Bolsanaro? Mussolini?

 

[wellyfish]

I was reading Marina Hyde in the Grauniad at lunchtime and she mentioned the poll you talk about.
It seems you missed out the end of the question: 'Do you think Britain should continue to have a monarchy in the future, or should it be replaced with a strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliament or elections (my itallics).
Source: Twitter.com

What kind of 'strong leader' do they mean?
Bolsanaro? Mussolini?

There's no reference in that article to the poll I quoted.

 

[Justin Passing]

Know what you mean @big-all . They'll still be telling us up until Wednesday that Charlie's doing King now.
They're also very good at sending some reporter to some irrelevant bit of pavement to give you "news from the palace" or whatever, to repeat what they said 12- 24 hours ago and could have repeated from the studio.
Then if you get London local TV you get it exactly the same, all over again.

 

[Justin Passing]

Well we will agree to disagree

No, you can't tell someone what they will agree to. Who do you think you are, the king?!!

 

[FlatulentFreddie]

As expected, sporting/music/cultural events are being cancelled/postponed...

Let alone the business of government...

Lots of disappointed people!

Pay your respects of course, but how does 10 days of cancelling/postponing events show respect? A minutes silence is surely a better way to go?

We're told that 'life goes on', and we got a new King the second she died...

The Monarchy goes on immediately, so why not the same for us?

Cricket hasn't been cancelled and there are rugby matches being played. Strange to cancel football but allow other sports to carry on

 

[Odds]

There's no reference in that article to the poll I quoted.

The article references the quote you took from the poll and is shown in the link to Twitter.

 

[wellyfish]

The article references the quote you took from the poll and is shown in the link to Twitter.

Nope.
Completely different poll.

 

[noseall]

She is the queen she does not sign said contracts

did she not marry?

 

[transam]

did she not marry?

Dunno did she

 

[transam]

No, you can't tell someone what they will agree to. Who do you think you are, the king?!!

Ok

We both have different opinions and
Disagree on the subject

 

[Justin Passing]

Ok

We both have different opinions and
Disagree on the subject

Not that either. You're imagining "unpublished" good things worth billions of £.
I'm saying prove it and you can't.

It isn't a difference of opinion, you're being called out.

 

[fillyboy]

So all she provided was a boat. Which is gone.
So that's what's irrelevant. The queen was irrelevant.
What were these supposed productive meetings and visits you speculate about?

The "what if " King Plonker is an unavoidable possibility in the system we have.
Recently we've been lucky, perhaps. We've had awful monarchs in the past.
Once you have one, then can be there 70 years .
It's a crap system.

**** me do these lefty Country, Royalty hating trolls ever have a day off.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-10-11/debates/A35B4CBD-3DFE-4BB7-B9C4-BB9E99422890/RoyalYachtBritanniaInternationalTrade#:~:text=In%201993%2C%20on%20one%20trip%20to%20India%20alone%2C,sped%20up%20the%20negotiations%20from%20years%20to%20days.

In a post-Brexit Britain, we need our head of state now more than ever. She can uniquely portray a positive role for our nation around the globe, and a new royal yacht is vital in her doing that.



A royal yacht, unlike our recently acquired state plane, is a small piece of Britain that can move from international port to international port, showing the soft power and prestige of our nation. It is a floating royal palace that can be used to host meetings as a platform for our humanitarian mission around the globe, and a showcase for the best of British industry. No other country, if presented with such an opportunity, would have squandered it away in the court of public opinion and envy, as happened in 1997 with the decommissioning of the royal yacht Britannia.



It is true that the role of the royal yacht changed since its introduction with Charles II. I would like to concentrate on the contribution that Britannia made to trade at the end of her service. Britannia was decommissioned in 1997 after more than 40 years in service. She conducted 968 official visits and clocked up more than a million miles at sea. In her later years—between 1991 and 1995—she is estimated to have brought £3 billion of commercial trade deals to our country. In 1993, on one trip to India alone, £1.3 billion of trade deals were signed. It is acknowledged that those deals would have been signed in any event, but the presence of Britannia sped up the negotiations from years to days. To put that into the context of the renewal and running of a royal yacht, the deal signed on that one trip would have paid for a royal yacht in its entirety and its annual running costs for 100 years.



During those commercially profitable years, Britannia hosted business figures from across the globe on what were called sea days, on which opportunities were discussed and trade agreements struck. Sea days took place around the coast of Britain and abroad, and were always organised

Toggle showing location ofColumn 32WH
to coincide with an official visit by Britannia. The prestige associated with Britannia attracted prominent figures from commerce and industry to attend the sea days. Invitations were sent in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, with key decision makers in global companies targeted. On occasion, a member of the royal family would also attend. A royal invitation to conduct business on the most exclusive yacht in the world was impossible for even the most successful businesspeople to resist. It is my view that a renewed royal yacht could be used in just that way today.




Hon. Members do not have to take my word for that—they can take the word of Henry Catto, who was the US ambassador to the Court of St James’s between 1989 and 1991. He found himself in the lucky position of being chief of protocol in 1976 when Her Majesty the Queen visited America. He wrote in his book:



“I was literally besieged with people wanting invitations to the various functions on board. Corporate moguls would devise the most outlandish reasons as to why they should be invited; society matrons would throw themselves at me”—

 

[Justin Passing]

**** me do these lefty Country, Royalty hating

**** me will people ever not resort to eristics and more mistakes when logic fails them?

We haven't had a specific roving boat for 25 years, so others obviously don't share the perception of value. Perhaps they would say that the trade deals would have been done anyway, as above.
There are good arguments for a UK state boat, especially if the commonwealth including its many islands doesn't carry on falling apart. That's an entirely different matter.
The navy has a few boats left. Indeed one was required in any case, to accompany the RYB everywhere it went with family aboard. A hidden cost.

Transam's defence of royalty was that having a state boat is contingent on its existence. Non sequitur.
India, Turkey and others have state boats without royals.
Many have royalty (a couple of dozen iirc) in some form, without a boat.

So is it reasonable to claim, from one rambling illogical reference with no hard evidence, that the theoretical trade benefit of a boat justifies supporting a royal dynasty?

Or is it a hollow argument clutching at hollow straws?

A boat was proposed, supported by Boris, to support British values, to be used by prime ministers and as a floating embassy.
Proposed cost of 250m, but considered likely to be the thick end of 1bn.
For Boris' values?
Rather quiet now, funnily enough.