NFR: Kate's up the duff with the next one

[Forever Fulham]

I don't have a dog in this fight, as a North American.  But I have good amount of English, Welsh, and Scottish ancestry, so I have followed the monarchy out of a kind of curiosity.  Curiosity from afar, I guess.  I recall reading how the Royal Family brings in tourism revenues equal to or in excess of the amount of stipend they are given annually.  Can anyone confirm the accuracy of that?  Do they, in a sense, pay for themselves?  Also, we all know they are powerless to effect any change or action by decree.  Their power, such as it is, come from representational attributes.  Rallying a nation in a time of crisis.  Setting a cultural tone.  Being a link to history, tradition, handed down behaviours, and all that.  Figureheads in the truest sense of the word.  I think the Charles/Diana/Camilla progression of unfolding history must have left a sour taste in many mouths.  A queen who hangs on and, though in her 80s, won't abdicate to her son, the fodder of so many comedians on both sides of the pond.  What a strange and isolated life it must have been for him.  I see William and Kate as so much more normal, modern, at ease with themselves.  The public might be split on how it sees the monarchy and its continued place in British society, but no one seems to hate William and Kate.  They get a pass.  Why is that?  The likeability factor, I suppose.  Americans don't want to see anyone getting special, favoured, treatment because of the accident of his birth.  You have to earn what you get.  At least, that's what we tell ourselves.  But there's still a fascination--probably because of the 'otherness' of having actual royalty.  Seems to me the monarchy is in a time of transition, that most people on the island kind of care, but not that much.  Is that a fair assumption?

[dannyboi-ffc]

I don't have a dog in this fight, as a North American.  But I have good amount of English, Welsh, and Scottish ancestry, so I have followed the monarchy out of a kind of curiosity.  Curiosity from afar, I guess.  I recall reading how the Royal Family brings in tourism revenues equal to or in excess of the amount of stipend they are given annually.  Can anyone confirm the accuracy of that?  Do they, in a sense, pay for themselves?  Also, we all know they are powerless to effect any change or action by decree.  Their power, such as it is, come from representational attributes.  Rallying a nation in a time of crisis.  Setting a cultural tone.  Being a link to history, tradition, handed down behaviours, and all that.  Figureheads in the truest sense of the word.  I think the Charles/Diana/Camilla progression of unfolding history must have left a sour taste in many mouths.  A queen who hangs on and, though in her 80s, won't abdicate to her son, the fodder of so many comedians on both sides of the pond.  What a strange and isolated life it must have been for him.  I see William and Kate as so much more normal, modern, at ease with themselves.  The public might be split on how it sees the monarchy and its continued place in British society, but no one seems to hate William and Kate.  They get a pass.  Why is that?  The likeability factor, I suppose.  Americans don't want to see anyone getting special, favoured, treatment because of the accident of his birth.  You have to earn what you get.  At least, that's what we tell ourselves.  But there's still a fascination--probably because of the 'otherness' of having actual royalty.  Seems to me the monarchy is in a time of transition, that most people on the island kind of care, but not that much.  Is that a fair assumption?

I dont hate the royal family, I dont approve of them or particularly like them either but I really like will and harry. I guess its because their mum was a special women and I see her human being qualities in her sons. Qualities I dont see in the rest of them.They seem normal and by that I mean they seem proud to be english and live their everyday lives as normal as they can.

I think probably most people that dislike the royals feel that way. Really pleased for him. Those lads make me proud to be english.

[GloucesterWhite]

Am I paying for this one too?

About a penny each year at a guess.

[epsomraver]

Congrats to two people having unprotected sex.

I am sure the body guards were close by :005:

[crazycottager]

Crickey! I thought you meant Kate Bush!

thats better than me. I thought he was on about katie price aka jordan 

How do ya think I felt, my mrs is called kate and yes shes pregnant but you still dont expect to see it on a fulham forum.

Can you imagine if she wasnt already up the duff, id probably of fallen off my chair!

064.gif 064.gif 064.gif :005: 077.gif

[absent cottager]

http://www.theshovel.com.au/2014/09/08/family-reliant-on-government-hand-outs-to-have-second-child/

[RaySmith]

I don't have a dog in this fight, as a North American.  But I have good amount of English, Welsh, and Scottish ancestry, so I have followed the monarchy out of a kind of curiosity.  Curiosity from afar, I guess.  I recall reading how the Royal Family brings in tourism revenues equal to or in excess of the amount of stipend they are given annually.  Can anyone confirm the accuracy of that?  Do they, in a sense, pay for themselves?  Also, we all know they are powerless to effect any change or action by decree.  Their power, such as it is, come from representational attributes.  Rallying a nation in a time of crisis.  Setting a cultural tone.  Being a link to history, tradition, handed down behaviours, and all that.  Figureheads in the truest sense of the word.  I think the Charles/Diana/Camilla progression of unfolding history must have left a sour taste in many mouths.  A queen who hangs on and, though in her 80s, won't abdicate to her son, the fodder of so many comedians on both sides of the pond.  What a strange and isolated life it must have been for him.  I see William and Kate as so much more normal, modern, at ease with themselves.  The public might be split on how it sees the monarchy and its continued place in British society, but no one seems to hate William and Kate.  They get a pass.  Why is that?  The likeability factor, I suppose.  Americans don't want to see anyone getting special, favoured, treatment because of the accident of his birth.  You have to earn what you get.  At least, that's what we tell ourselves.  But there's still a fascination--probably because of the 'otherness' of having actual royalty.  Seems to me the monarchy is in a time of transition, that most people on the island kind of care, but not that much.  Is that a fair assumption?

The English monarchy has survived by moving with times, and portraying a phony 'ordinariness.'

You make a good point about Americans not wanting favoured treatment because of birth - we English are still living in the past centuries, and favour an archaic class system, where those who run the country come from the same small clique, and went to the same schools and universities - and it's not what you know, but who you  know, and where you went to school that is important in getting on in life.

The Monarchy is a symbol of this rigid class hierarchy, though I have nothing against them personally, and they probably do a lot  for tourism-'come to ye olde Englande, where everything now is privately owned from abroad.'

Though, from what I've read -in the novels of Tom Wolfe for example-America is  by no means completely free from class distinctions and prejudice, but we don't even pretend to have  equality of opportunity  these days.

Sorry -getting a bit political here. Just my opinions , of course.