Some sugestions on here that the royals should pay for their own boat - not much of a present if you pay for it yourself.
On the tourism arguement, it's pretty much proven that people would come with or without a current royal family. I wouldn't advocate turning Buck House into a Holiday Inn though because they do come for the history and historical buildings.
How much would the alternative be - we'd have an elected president - how much does that cost in comparison?>
typical ... not the principle, the cost .. if a Hitler or a Stalin were 'cheaper to maintain' than the 'royals', would you be in favour of either ?
Some sugestions on here that the royals should pay for their own boat - not much of a present if you pay for it yourself.
On the tourism arguement, it's pretty much proven that people would come with or without a current royal family. I wouldn't advocate turning Buck House into a Holiday Inn though because they do come for the history and historical buildings.
How much would the alternative be - we'd have an elected president - how much does that cost in comparison?>
typical ... not the principle, the cost .. if a Hitler or a Stalin were 'cheaper to maintain' than the 'royals', would you be in favour of either ?
No, nobody would. You're twisting what was said. I know naff all about politics and the whole tourism vs public cost debate, but I know a daft question when I see one.
Build it, make sure a British shipyard gets the contract. A great opportunity to show what we can build in the UK. The Royals will make good use of the new yacht, serving the nation and promoting Great Britain world wide.
Our monarchy is very special and something we should cherish.
Some sugestions on here that the royals should pay for their own boat - not much of a present if you pay for it yourself.
On the tourism arguement, it's pretty much proven that people would come with or without a current royal family. I wouldn't advocate turning Buck House into a Holiday Inn though because they do come for the history and historical buildings.
How much would the alternative be - we'd have an elected president - how much does that cost in comparison?>
typical ... not the principle, the cost .. if a Hitler or a Stalin were 'cheaper to maintain' than the 'royals', would you be in favour of either ?
No, nobody would. You're twisting what was said. I know naff all about politics and the whole tourism vs public cost debate, but I know a daft question when I see one.
why is my response 'daft' .. most responses on here indicate that the old cliché is true: i.e., most people know the cost of everything but the VALUE of nothing .. I dont care a fig if the 'royals' didn't cost a penny, the social VALUE they reflect is of a society keen to tug the forelock, to bow, scrape and curtsy to a bunch of unelected and inbred scroungers and elitists .. it's time the English grew up and chucked the concept of 'royalty, aristocracy' and the remnants of the Norman Invasion' into the dustbin of history .. and relevantly .. IF the government wants to support a 'yacht' for supposed 'training and propaganda purposes', why grant free use to the 'royal' rubbish, how about a free week's cruising for some of those who excel in public service, a nurse, a teacher or two, reward a few who give to the country and not a few 'royal' reprobates
Build it, make sure a British shipyard gets the contract. A great opportunity to show what we can build in the UK. The Royals will make good use of the new yacht, serving the nation and promoting Great Britain world wide.
Our monarchy is very special and something we should cherish.
I like my mum, but I wouldn't buy her a £60 million boat.
The concept of "a royal family" with privilage by nothing more than birth right is just an affront to democracy and I fail to understand how it has remained so popular in this enlightened age. we are subjects of the crown and as such have no rights enshrined because we have no bill of rights. I am not advocating this as a solution but IMHO it would have been better if the British had followed he French in ridding themselves of the parasite class.
A meaningful bill of rights that reflects the rights of the common man and not a rewrite of the magna carta to partially curtail the omnipotence of previous monarchs.
A meaningful bill of rights that reflects the rights of the common man and not a rewrite of the magna carta to partially curtail the omnipotence of previous monarchs.
I just don't accept that we are somehow being crushed under some mighty Aristocratic class because we do not have a modern Bill of Rights and have retained a Monarch. Support for a Republic has remained at only around a fifth for the last half century and long may that continue.
A meaningful bill of rights that reflects the rights of the common man and not a rewrite of the magna carta to partially curtail the omnipotence of previous monarchs.
I just don't accept that we are somehow being crushed under some mighty Aristocratic class because we do not have a modern Bill of Rights and have retained a Monarch. Support for a Republic has remained at only around a fifth for the last half century and long may that continue.</
Astonishing to me that the royals are so popular still. Agree we are not subjugated by the aristocracy anymore although I think that given half a chance they would revert. My objection is mainly one of the stupidity of honouring one family. Giving them outlandish and comical titles. Dressing them up in uniforms with more medals than a Ghuka could dream of and throwing taxpayers cash at them, their family, all the hangers on and their multiple homes all under the pretense that they do a good job and are cost effective. If it wasn't real you couldn't make it up.
The other funny thing is that some people think that their views are 100% correct and everyone else's views are born from what they read in a fuckin news paper......
Bit touchy, aren't we? All you have been asked to do is to explain why on earth any private investor would want to spend 60 million quid - probably nearer 100 million - on putting a floating hall of residence in Portsmouth Harbour that gets used for the Saxe-Coburgs Royal jolly ups - and you can't, can you?
You think that the yacht would be "in the best interests of the country" - all you need to do now is explain why apart from the faintly expressed hope that the building of the yacht will "safeguard hundreds or maybe thousands of jobs" - which seems doubtful at best for what is a one shot deal.
Bottom line? Unless you are Roman Abrahmovich and can afford to shell out 100 million of your own dough on building a yacht then you probably should not build one as there is no way in hell you are going to get your money back and the bill would be footed by the taxpayers, as per usual.
If you can think you can prove me wrong then go for it.
Why do I need to prove YOU wrong OA? None of what anyone has said above are cast iron facts, they're just opinions, including your posts. In MY opinion as long as it is built using British labour, I'm behind it as I feel it would ultimately benifit the whole Country.
Let me ask you something OA, do you really think it would be exclusively for The Queen and The Royals to holiday on while being moored in Monoco? Come on, get a grip....
Build it, make sure a British shipyard gets the contract. A great opportunity to show what we can build in the UK. The Royals will make good use of the new yacht, serving the nation and promoting Great Britain world wide.
Our monarchy is very special and something we should cherish.
I like my mum, but I wouldn't buy her a £60 million boat.
Bloke in Australia having a row with a bloke in France on what British taxes might be spent on.
Only on CL
Fair enough chief, you've got me there.
The other funny thing is that some people think that their views are 100% correct and everyone else's views are born from what they read in a fuckin news paper......
Bit touchy, aren't we? All you have been asked to do is to explain why on earth any private investor would want to spend 60 million quid - probably nearer 100 million - on putting a floating hall of residence in Portsmouth Harbour that gets used for the Saxe-Coburgs Royal jolly ups - and you can't, can you?
You think that the yacht would be "in the best interests of the country" - all you need to do now is explain why apart from the faintly expressed hope that the building of the yacht will "safeguard hundreds or maybe thousands of jobs" - which seems doubtful at best for what is a one shot deal.
Bottom line? Unless you are Roman Abrahmovich and can afford to shell out 100 million of your own dough on building a yacht then you probably should not build one as there is no way in hell you are going to get your money back and the bill would be footed by the taxpayers, as per usual.
If you can think you can prove me wrong then go for it.
Why do I need to prove YOU wrong OA? None of what anyone has said above are cast iron facts, they're just opinions, including your posts. In MY opinion as long as it is built using British labour, I'm behind it as I feel it would ultimately benifit the whole Country.
Let me ask you something OA, do you really think it would be exclusively for The Queen and The Royals to holiday on while being moored in Monoco? Come on, get a grip....
How could it be moored in Monaco? They've already said that they will use it as a semi-permanently moored Halls of Residence for University students and moored in Portsmouth.
I think you'll find the accomodation demands of 120 quid per week students in Portsmouth and the uber-rich clientele in the South of France might just be on different ends of the scale.
My posts are not opinions, they are facts, its a plain fact that no serious private investor would get behind this nonsense because they simply could not get an ROI.
Want another fact? If its such a golden commercial opportunity for the commercial world to build the Saxe-Coburgs a yacht then why has nobody done it for the last 15 years since Brittania was decommissioned?
Please, please explain how it would "benifit the whole Country" to spend 60 million - which is on the low side - on this yacht? What possible purpose would it serve? How could it actually - or my pertinently how would it - be financed by private investors?
You are still failing to answer the most basic questions, most likely because you can't.
You don't have to prove anything to me if you don't want to but it does look a bit odd for you to make assertions about this project without in any way being able to back them up.
I agree they should buy it themselves , they can certainly afford it, but i guess its all part of the cost of having a royal family, i'd sooner have what we've got rather than a dictator , the lesser of 2 evils i think, how much does Air Force 1 cost to run a year just out of interest?
Do you seriously see the alternative to monarchy as dictatorship ? Re Airforce One, how exactly would you expect the President of the United States to travel, Easy Jet ? Either way, this Royal Yacht nonsense is a complet vanity project suggested by an out of touch politican for an equally out of touch old lady.
Wait a minute. What if it is built in Britain, using a number of British companies that could employ hundreds of people and filling up the order books of companies and suppliers for months, if not years, to come. We still build boats and ships in this country and using govt money to build a yacht for the Queen could be no different to any other public money used to build civil projects.
This is a good point but a) why couldn't the RF still fund it themselves, and b) I'm fairly certain under EU regulations it's completely illegal for the government to award a contract to a British company just because they're British. Now if the RF funded it themselves, then perhaps it could be construed as a private project and they could choose anyone they wished which would mean there was nothing to stop them awarding it to a British firm to reward their loyal subjects (!)
Let's just hope she doesn't ask back for the £7 billion worth of property that is now managed and rented out for the benefit of Treasury coffers then. I understand it was run at a profit of over £200 million last year - enough for a couple of yachts - or yatchs - a year by my reckoning.
Act 1 scene 1 A middle-aged American couple eat breakfast in their kitchen.
Hank: You decided where you wanna go on vacation honey? Velma: I wanna see a queen H: San Francisco? V: No daddy,a place where they got a real live queen H: Spain V: Too many Mexicans H: Jesus,Holland? V: Did they find that Ann Frank girl? H: I guess V: Then no H: Give me strength,Sweden,Denmark,England... V: England have Queen Elizabeth! I wanna go to England daddy! H: But honey,the food stinks,the people are rude and it's cold as hell and twice as expensive V: I wanna see Queen Elizabeth. H: Ok ok,England it is V: I love you daddy H: Hey,don't start any shit now
Rob mate give up the left only deal in THEIR facts, anything else either didnt happen is a lie or comes out of the Daily Mail (must have 20million reading it).The World when they were in charge didnt have poverty,every one got at least a 10% wage rise a year, there were no strikes, and mass imigration(which didnt happen) was a good thing because even though they never even bothered counting how many came in they could tell us to the penny how much better off we were.
PS please bring your guns over with you when you pop over
Comments
Our monarchy is very special and something we should cherish.
Support for a Republic has remained at only around a fifth for the last half century and long may that continue.
Let me ask you something OA, do you really think it would be exclusively for The Queen and The Royals to holiday on while being moored in Monoco? Come on, get a grip....
Only on CL
I think you'll find the accomodation demands of 120 quid per week students in Portsmouth and the uber-rich clientele in the South of France might just be on different ends of the scale.
My posts are not opinions, they are facts, its a plain fact that no serious private investor would get behind this nonsense because they simply could not get an ROI.
Want another fact? If its such a golden commercial opportunity for the commercial world to build the Saxe-Coburgs a yacht then why has nobody done it for the last 15 years since Brittania was decommissioned?
Please, please explain how it would "benifit the whole Country" to spend 60 million - which is on the low side - on this yacht? What possible purpose would it serve? How could it actually - or my pertinently how would it - be financed by private investors?
You are still failing to answer the most basic questions, most likely because you can't.
You don't have to prove anything to me if you don't want to but it does look a bit odd for you to make assertions about this project without in any way being able to back them up.
Now for something completely different ..........
"If the Saxe-Coburgs want a new yacht then why can't they just pay for it themselves?"
Perhaps we should ask the Germans to pay for it rather than bailing out Greece, Italy etc?
A middle-aged American couple eat breakfast in their kitchen.
Hank: You decided where you wanna go on vacation honey?
Velma: I wanna see a queen
H: San Francisco?
V: No daddy,a place where they got a real live queen
H: Spain
V: Too many Mexicans
H: Jesus,Holland?
V: Did they find that Ann Frank girl?
H: I guess
V: Then no
H: Give me strength,Sweden,Denmark,England...
V: England have Queen Elizabeth! I wanna go to England daddy!
H: But honey,the food stinks,the people are rude and it's cold as hell and twice as expensive
V: I wanna see Queen Elizabeth.
H: Ok ok,England it is
V: I love you daddy
H: Hey,don't start any shit now
And fade.
PS please bring your guns over with you when you pop over