Why no royals in fast jets?
It may be a difference of culture.
provocative works.....judging by some of the responses!
Gentleman Aviator
I'm not sure if SASless (whose experience I also respect) is aware, but the "money given to the Royals" ain't for their private pockets.
Unlike POTUS, their staff(s) are not Civil Servants/Government employees, but employed by "The Firm". Our red-tops are guilty of this misunderstanding too. Any increase in the Civil List (the "Royal Dole") brings headlines such as "X% Pay Rise for the Queen" when it really means X% pay rise for a host of (relatively poorly paid) drivers, silver polishers, cooks, maids etc.
Were we to count up how much POTUS' staff costs, it would be lots more I'm sure. And of course the US have to pay for the upkeep/support/protection of a number of ex-Presidents too. I saw the other day that - in an excellent gesture - George HW Bush (the first one) had shaved his head in support of one of "his Secret Service detail" who was undergoing chemo-therapy. He was pictured with all "his Secret Service men" who had done likewise, and there were 25 of them! One time in the Clinton era I happened to be strolling around DC when a huge motorcade came from the White House to the grass by the Washington Memorial so that Bill C could climb onto his S-61. I stopped counting at 17 vehicles.........¿quanta costa?
As to inherited property and/or wealth, you are entitled to agree with it or not. I don't think the amount/extent is relevant (but you may disagree). I "inherited" half a shop in Sarf Landan, the proceeds of which bought me a second hand car! But if it had been a Palace or 3 - so what. As to the argument that some Royal property might have been illegally obtained - well, so might my Dad's shop when he started it in 1936. But very difficult to prove nearly 50 years later, let alone 500.
I'm sure - like FL - I would enjoy similar discussions with SASless over curry and beer into the small hours, but I do have this bad habit of spoiling arguments with facts (and I've only got about 800 hours on Hueys!)
Unlike POTUS, their staff(s) are not Civil Servants/Government employees, but employed by "The Firm". Our red-tops are guilty of this misunderstanding too. Any increase in the Civil List (the "Royal Dole") brings headlines such as "X% Pay Rise for the Queen" when it really means X% pay rise for a host of (relatively poorly paid) drivers, silver polishers, cooks, maids etc.
Were we to count up how much POTUS' staff costs, it would be lots more I'm sure. And of course the US have to pay for the upkeep/support/protection of a number of ex-Presidents too. I saw the other day that - in an excellent gesture - George HW Bush (the first one) had shaved his head in support of one of "his Secret Service detail" who was undergoing chemo-therapy. He was pictured with all "his Secret Service men" who had done likewise, and there were 25 of them! One time in the Clinton era I happened to be strolling around DC when a huge motorcade came from the White House to the grass by the Washington Memorial so that Bill C could climb onto his S-61. I stopped counting at 17 vehicles.........¿quanta costa?
As to inherited property and/or wealth, you are entitled to agree with it or not. I don't think the amount/extent is relevant (but you may disagree). I "inherited" half a shop in Sarf Landan, the proceeds of which bought me a second hand car! But if it had been a Palace or 3 - so what. As to the argument that some Royal property might have been illegally obtained - well, so might my Dad's shop when he started it in 1936. But very difficult to prove nearly 50 years later, let alone 500.
I'm sure - like FL - I would enjoy similar discussions with SASless over curry and beer into the small hours, but I do have this bad habit of spoiling arguments with facts (and I've only got about 800 hours on Hueys!)
TH.....Lots of us are questioning the need for a Hundred Million Dollar trip to find his Roots or whatever he was doing in Africa....along with the Seven Million Golf Lesson with Long Dong Woods in Florida.....and dozens of other royal galas, trips, night outs, and vacations done one right after another.
We at least admit the Royals are Kings and Queens.....which the Obama's surely must think should be their lot in Life by observing their penchant for the extravagant.....paid for at great expense by the Taxpayer.
Getting this back to the original intent of the thread.....I would like to remove Odumbo from a Jet.....and put him onto the top of a very large Rocket and repeat the first NASA trip to Mars.
We at least admit the Royals are Kings and Queens.....which the Obama's surely must think should be their lot in Life by observing their penchant for the extravagant.....paid for at great expense by the Taxpayer.
Getting this back to the original intent of the thread.....I would like to remove Odumbo from a Jet.....and put him onto the top of a very large Rocket and repeat the first NASA trip to Mars.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500N:
I think the corresponding figures should be included showing
how much they bring in to the economy of the UK.
The royal baby alone will add an estimated 240 million pounds.
I take it you are getting that from the Centre For Retail Research here:
The Royal Baby - Retail Estimates - Centre for Retail Research, Nottingham UK
I suggest you go read that properly. Never seen so much drivel in a supposed business document. I work in Business Intelligence and the second you start seeing words like 'Expect', 'Likely', 'Around' in a forecast document with no supporting evidence (Why is the supporting evidence not shown) you have to be suspicious. Here is a bit from that press release about Festivities:
Festivities. We expect £25 million to be spent on food for 4.8 million people, who will join in the mostly local and informal festivities and parties, including those in back gardens. Increased spending on alcohol is expected to amount to £62 million. Three million bottles of champagne and sparkling wine will be opened to celebrate the new baby. Few organised local events will be held, but there can be plenty of informal celebrations, both barbeques and in public houses. We expect plenty of people, not necessarily fervent royalists, to welcome the happy event in a demonstrative way.
I suggest, that without any supporting evidence the increase in retail sales as a result of the baby being born will be in the region of £500.
I think the corresponding figures should be included showing
how much they bring in to the economy of the UK.
The royal baby alone will add an estimated 240 million pounds.
I take it you are getting that from the Centre For Retail Research here:
The Royal Baby - Retail Estimates - Centre for Retail Research, Nottingham UK
I suggest you go read that properly. Never seen so much drivel in a supposed business document. I work in Business Intelligence and the second you start seeing words like 'Expect', 'Likely', 'Around' in a forecast document with no supporting evidence (Why is the supporting evidence not shown) you have to be suspicious. Here is a bit from that press release about Festivities:
Festivities. We expect £25 million to be spent on food for 4.8 million people, who will join in the mostly local and informal festivities and parties, including those in back gardens. Increased spending on alcohol is expected to amount to £62 million. Three million bottles of champagne and sparkling wine will be opened to celebrate the new baby. Few organised local events will be held, but there can be plenty of informal celebrations, both barbeques and in public houses. We expect plenty of people, not necessarily fervent royalists, to welcome the happy event in a demonstrative way.
I suggest, that without any supporting evidence the increase in retail sales as a result of the baby being born will be in the region of £500.
TTN:
"Puzzled there. What was wrong with the existing facility to carry a 6th and 7th seats? "
It wasn't about seating capacity - but about the age of the aircraft and its components...replacing engines, control jacks, undercarriages, filters, VCCP, etc. All and more for the sake of one request for a rear seat jolly.
"Puzzled there. What was wrong with the existing facility to carry a 6th and 7th seats? "
It wasn't about seating capacity - but about the age of the aircraft and its components...replacing engines, control jacks, undercarriages, filters, VCCP, etc. All and more for the sake of one request for a rear seat jolly.
I don't understand why the concern over the possible demise of the Man....after all....the Royal System has redundancy built into it to take care of such events. It is kinda like the Para Regiment and Hercs.....one just shuffles towards the door until it is your turn.
Gentleman Aviator
SASless - we appear to be in "violent agreement"!
Basic problem is that Heads of State don't come cheap. Should we one day - God forbid - have a Pres in the UK, I don't imagine it would cost any less.
But what we get from Royals just being Royals, makes them - IMHO - better value for money on account of the income they generate.
Basic problem is that Heads of State don't come cheap. Should we one day - God forbid - have a Pres in the UK, I don't imagine it would cost any less.
But what we get from Royals just being Royals, makes them - IMHO - better value for money on account of the income they generate.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should we ever have an elected head of state (President Beckham or Jordan?) then I am sure they would feel entitled to a level of financial support that would make the present Royal Family blush.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bert
And with less to show for it as well !
Maybe one or two appearances a month,
paid for on top of what they already get !
And with less to show for it as well !
Maybe one or two appearances a month,
paid for on top of what they already get !
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
According to this report the Royal Family is valued at a great deal more than its annual cost:
The Queen gets a £44bn valuation for family 'Firm? - Telegraph
As well as likely costing a great deal more whilst bringing in considerably less tourist interest (& money) a democratically elected President for the UK would probably also expect to wield some real power rather than be just a figurehead with the right to question.
The Queen gets a £44bn valuation for family 'Firm? - Telegraph
As well as likely costing a great deal more whilst bringing in considerably less tourist interest (& money) a democratically elected President for the UK would probably also expect to wield some real power rather than be just a figurehead with the right to question.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by exRAFRadar
Festivities. We expect £25 million to be spent on food for 4.8 million people, who will join in the mostly local and informal festivities and parties, including those in back gardens. Increased spending on alcohol is expected to amount to £62 million. Three million bottles of champagne and sparkling wine will be opened to celebrate the new baby. Few organised local events will be held, but there can be plenty of informal celebrations, both barbeques and in public houses.
And I suppose that if Georgie hadn't been born none of those "4.8 million" people would have consumed food and drink "on British soil" on the days in question?
That is exactly your point I believe... that they are rolling spending that would have happened anyway into the "benefits of the Royal Birth".
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly GreenKnight. This is the best bit:
Few organised local events will be held, but there can be plenty of informal celebrations, both barbeques and in public houses.
So what they are saying is that this event is so momentous everyone is out putting Millions into the economy and yet "Few organised local events will be held". Then they go on to assert there will be plenty of informal celebrations without any possible way of measuring that. And thanks for telling us BBQ's and the local pub are the place where celebrations are normally held.
Few organised local events will be held, but there can be plenty of informal celebrations, both barbeques and in public houses.
So what they are saying is that this event is so momentous everyone is out putting Millions into the economy and yet "Few organised local events will be held". Then they go on to assert there will be plenty of informal celebrations without any possible way of measuring that. And thanks for telling us BBQ's and the local pub are the place where celebrations are normally held.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken :
This is by the people who gave that valuation:
The leading brand and intangible asset valuation agency predicts that William and Kate’s son will boost Britain’s economy by £521m (US$800m). A combination of; a short term boost to souvenirs, memorabilia, food and drink; a longer lasting uplift to related products such as pushchairs and clothing; and the benefit of improved consumer sentiment is behind the impressive figure.
The other one I mentioned above values the boost at £243million.
Seriously, a £278 Million difference?
We all need to start questioning the methodology these idiots are using instead of just quoting them and assuming fact.
This is by the people who gave that valuation:
The leading brand and intangible asset valuation agency predicts that William and Kate’s son will boost Britain’s economy by £521m (US$800m). A combination of; a short term boost to souvenirs, memorabilia, food and drink; a longer lasting uplift to related products such as pushchairs and clothing; and the benefit of improved consumer sentiment is behind the impressive figure.
The other one I mentioned above values the boost at £243million.
Seriously, a £278 Million difference?
We all need to start questioning the methodology these idiots are using instead of just quoting them and assuming fact.
Last edited by ExRAFRadar; 30th Jul 2013 at 05:31.
OH Bless Me......what have I done.....seems a Title Change (poor choice of words I know) is in order perhaps....as we seem to be arguing why Royals in the UK not just in Fast Jets.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Droitwich Spa
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royal Flight in Vulcan
In 1971 HRH flew in XL392, a 230 OCU B2, certainly a standard seat fit, all you have to do is google before you make fatuous, incorrect statements, rant off!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In view of the poster who said a whole load of things were changed
because HRH was flying it in, would you say that we are now less
protective of Prince William and Harry ?
Or would special attention still be paid to Fl Lt Wales's helicopters
that he flies ?
because HRH was flying it in, would you say that we are now less
protective of Prince William and Harry ?
Or would special attention still be paid to Fl Lt Wales's helicopters
that he flies ?
Son was over here with us with his Dutch wife for a few days holiday when the great event in the Lindo Wing occurred. The next day, DIL went out and bought souvenir copies of every newspaper she could find to take back to The Netherlands as souvenirs (I think she gave the Grauniad a miss!). Well, thats a few euros in the UK's coffers that it wouldn't have had without the royal family. Funny thing is back home she's no great supporter of the Dutch royals, but strangely is quite smitten with ours.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which Europeans royals have someone, a son who did well
in the services and specifically the Countries special forces unit ?
I think it was Denamrk OR Belgium.
Will have to look it up.
in the services and specifically the Countries special forces unit ?
I think it was Denamrk OR Belgium.
Will have to look it up.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
we seem to be arguing why Royals in the UK not just in Fast Jets.
Whatever they did would be unlikely to excite foreign tourists or indeed any of the population. The UK would save around £32 million a year (we currently borrow 10 times that every day) & we could get rid of all the trappings of a monarchy - Trooping the Colour, Changing the Guard at Buck House etc.