DYK

Ultimately yes.1998 when I joined,but I still to this day have the bible that was given to me during my attestation ceremony.kind of reminds me the first step I had taken on joining,and when I was crapping my pants on the train heading towards Bassingbourn barracks the first day. 😄

hodgy0_2

I drove passed Bassingbourn barracks about 3 hours ago

I live just up the road!,,

DYK

I was only there first few weeks and then sent to Catterick.
Only slight regrets I have was not following in my dad's brothers footsteps and trying for the sas,but there you go it is what it is.job I do now have ex forces guys here that were in during the first Iraq war and nothern Ireland and automatically there is that bond and p1ss taking no matter how long ago you served.so yea it is really about your mates.its not the same as having mates on the outside its a totally different bond.

dpb

my first year secondary

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

try not to be silly, Martin, (I know that's hard for you).

miggers are the migrants trying to get into the UK, causing havoc around Calais at the moment and POSING as refugees...as you well know.

Those I have spoken to are either already here, or abroad.

Geezer

"It is a long established convention that the Queen is asked by parliament to provide consent to those bills which parliament has decided would affect crown interests. The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers."

So despite your concerns, she does what she is told, as does Charles.

Tidgy

what a load of tosh hahahaha

I would be highly surprised if she did block anything that got as far a her.

Not doing and having the ability to are two very different things

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

Like the British military trained personnel Saddam Hussein used against us in Op Grandby. Many were still in UK training establishments when the balloon went up.

Or the Saudi's using British equipment against our British Allies and us?

Or the American equipment used against us in all areas of the world?

The Royals bring kudos to the UK that no other nation has. The Royals also bring in more in tourism than we pay out, many of the Royal estates also produce revenue.

Besides the article is 3 years old but I wonder why people would bring it up or have one of their more left wing socialist buddies gave them something to take their minds of real world problems?

Bring back FI_Fan or PSL I say

Things have changed hugely in the Army since I joined in 1980

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Plenty of nations have royal families, but most work for a living and don't expect every last member to be fed by the taxpayer

This is arrant nonsense. France has no Royal family, yet THEIR tourism of the ex-royal estates is FAR higher than ours.

Yes, and the royals take it....wouldn't it be nice if the country benefited?

Geezer

Every last member? Only the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen mother received money from the civil list. All other members of the Royal family receive expenses incurred in carrying out their duties, and some of are either paid (as in the case of William and Harry) or take income from their estates like Charles.

As for the old chestnut of other expenses they rack up, exactly what difference do you think it would make if we had a president? Funnily enough, they have to undertake lots of official duties which require exactly the same amount of set up and security.

It's true that some historical tourism is attributed to the Royal family but in reality people would still carry out that tourism, like in France. But there is also a lot of tourism that is based on us still having the Royal family.

The amount of income generated by weddings, coronations etc. is estimated to be in the hundreds of millions, and that is gong directly into businesses, not the crown.

I for one would not like to have to undertake all the engagements the Queen does, nor most of the immediate Royal family. They are underpaid if anything.

As for the thing about power, you cannot win that argument for or against. Politicians seek power, that should concern us. But I agree that someone who has been given power through birth (albeit having no real power despite that silly article) is also not desirable. You can vote a government out, but all you do is vote in someone else who seeks power then breaks all their promises!

neil-h

Careful, that almost sounds like you're trying to tell Alcazar he's wrong.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

LOL, I'm not though.

I like the bit about Royal weddings etc generating income. There speaks a true royalist. The nett cost to the country doesn't get a mention.........

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

Income far outways the cost.


But why are you right?

All the nations I have worked with (which is quite a few) hold the British aristocracy in high esteem and reverence with the US of A being almost obsessional and Japanese fanatical. Many of the Royals have actually served their country and placed their lives on the line. They have even been victims of terrorism. How many of the great loyal British citizens can say that?


The royal estates also provide jobs = local and national revenue. Charles may be a bit alternative but his concerns are genuine.


Sadly, as typical British we like to be self deprecating and deny when we are on to a good thing.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Oh, sure, ALL nations revere our Royals...but ask them if they want them or to pay for them, they dissolve into gales of laughter. "No thankyou!" doesn't even start to describe their response.

As for serving their country, yeah, sure...in safe havens. William never went anywhere near, harry was supposed to be in the front line, but was frequently photographed here in the UK.......go figure.

They have all gone to top unis and top schools, yet got in with grades that no other student would have even been looked at with.

Charles was supposed to have served too, but was again, safe jobs. The only one REALLY doing much was Andrew. And as for Chooky during the war........

Jobs on Royal estates? Sure, but those would exist if the income went to the taxpayer, wouldn't they?

And your assertion that income exceeds cost for royal do's? does it really? Income to the TAXPAYER, who foots the bill? I think not.

If it were up to me, I'd keep the queen and fund her. Everyone else would work, in proper jobs and fund themselves. After the queen dies, disband the lot. open the royal palaces and estates to the public and watch the money roll in...plus not have to pay out for the royal list.

Won't happen in my lifetime, because people believe the incredible lies about the royals that keep them going, but I can dream.

Geezer

Sorry, that's just rubbish. The estimated (and conservative figure) of the last one was £160 million extra income. If the cost was one tenth, which is fair amount to stage an event like that and provide sufficient security, we are still quids in. Let's be ludicrous and say the cost of staging it was 50%, £80 million pounds, we're still quids in.

Just because I can see the benefit of having them doesn't make a royalist. I don't believe in a monarchy per se, but I do see the cost benefit. Petty envy is what drives most republicans.

Dr Hu

I'm quite happy to pay for the Royals, the monetary cost to me personally is trifingly inconsequential, yet the benefit to the country (even the world) is incalculable.

hodgy0_2

imo the argument for / or against a monarchy on simple economic grounds is, as you say a non starter

especially now since the civil list has been trimmed - maybe there was an argument when it seemed to be subsidising a whole host of hangers on

any head of state would require financing, conversely I suspect tourism would not be affected

Geezer

This is true, and if you had a president to replace the monarch, then they would have executive power, not even requiring the majority in the commons. That's a whole lot more worrying than some 89 yr old woman who knows her place!

hodgy0_2

but we have no guarantee that her successors (by birth right, so zero control over who it is) would "know his/her place"

I totally agree, and said earlier in the thread - The current Queen is like kryptonite to any republican cause

as it happens I think Prince William (genuinely had to google that lol) would be too I,e a good king - in so far as there is such a thing (being a republican)

and you are right to point out that a lot of the power/processes tied up in the Monarchy is all "precedent and convention" and power comes from Parliament

but I personally don't think the "precedent and conventions" are strong enough to obstruct a truly interventionist Monarch

and I fully understand that an alternative head of state is not all roses and cake - it too comes with issues etc

in essence to me the argument IS about "birth right" - it sets an entitlement philosophy that permeates right through our society

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

But you, like others, seem to forget that the TAXPAYER funds these royal beanos, but it's NOT the taxpayer that benefits, so there is a nett loss to the country.

As for envy, not at all. I believe in hiring the best person for the job, and the best person is NOT necessarily born into their job.

I'm with Hodgy on this one: until we get rid of the entitlement society that permeates the UK, we will never have much equality.

Geezer

Mmmm, who own the businesses that profit? Oh, taxpayers! Also, they are all paying tax on the income it generates, which goes back into services for, yes, you guessed it, taxpayers.


Alas you cannot get away from entitlement. The families are rich because they earned it, at some point, no matter how distant past that was. If you become a millionaire, good luck to you. But your progeny may be useless, and when you kark it, they will inherit your wealth and privilege without having lifted a finger.

As for best person for the job, does anyone really believe that most Prime Ministers have been the best person for the job? No situation is ideal, unfortunately.

Blue by You

iTrader: (23)

We will never have equality, and perhaps we never should. It's a Utopian dream that won't work in the real world.
When we are all 'equal' in our social and economic standing what will happen to ambition and aspiration if there are no higher goals to achieve? Or do we just aim for 'enlightenment'?
Fair enough you can't aspire to Royalty, except in the most unlikely scenario where you marry in. But who wants to be a Royal? Not me. Sure I would like a slice of the pie, I'm not mad enough to deny it. Do I want to work they way they do for it and commit my life to a bunch of (mainly) ungrateful subjects. No way Jose.
So let's just have a share out of the fiscal asset then.
Take the Duke of Westminster as an example. His net worth is said to be around £9 Bn. Ok I know there are more than one wealthy landowners and industrialists out there. But just as a crude example let's divide the DoW's booty up between each man and child in the UK so that we're all 'equal' and what do you get. Less than £200 each.
And where are you going to spend it? Down the shops? There won't be any shops because we're all equal and we all have the same amount of money so nobody wants to work for anybody else.
Except the shopkeepers (industrialists) that make more money.
And then they will be unequal, won't they?
See where equality gets you?
Wake up. Life's not at all fair. If it was we'd all have 600bhp Subarus and there would be no such thing as excellence.

neil-h

See the thing is for that to work you'd have to do away with currency all together. So people would have to be motivated to do things for the good of the population. You ultimately end up with something that looks very similar to communism.

Blue by You

iTrader: (23)

Exactly, and we know how well that works in reality.

neil-h

Yup, it's fine in principal but as soon as you factor in human greed and natural competition then it all goes a bit pear shaped.

hodgy0_2

I agree, and would never suggest that it is possible or even desirable to have true equality (whatever that actually means)

however the levels of inequality we have are simply bad, at almost every level, both social and economic

what we do need is equal opportunity, which imo we don't

we need to move to a meritocracy

Blue by You

iTrader: (23)

That's about the best you can hope for.

Devildog

No one can accurately predict what the Royal Family's current existence generates in extra income. Its always going to be a best guess.


On top of that, its London that benefits the most. That much is clear.


Buckingham Palace suggests that the cost is about £35m a year, or 50p per person per year. However, opposing information puts that figure at about £200m a year, or £3 per person per year.


Inbound tourism (ie visitors to the UK) generates appx £26billion a year for the UK economy.


So if any more than 0.8% of that is due to the Royal family (using the higher of the two "cost" figures) then we are quids in.


Even if it does cost me and the wife £6 a year, personally while I'm no royalist, I recon that's good value for the comedy gold that is Phil the Greek

Paben

iTrader: (5)

Just as a matter of interest, what was your contribution in our various conflicts? My apologies if you're a secret military veteran of course.

hardcoreimpreza

Don't forget the Buckingham palce gift shop, not sure what current figures are but that bought in £41.7 million in 2012