It's a girl!!!

Another benefits scrounger reproduces herself - again. Ah well, at least she's married huh?

Thought a spare.

G

I say best wishes to this new baby and her mum and dad.

I think its a much better arrangement we have here in the UK with a pre-defined line of succession for the non-political smile, meet and greet requirements as Head of State, even if it has a somewhat chequered history. Better than some five yearly Presidential election where each candidate seems to have a chequered history anyway and can interfere with the wishes of the wider elected caucus.

Best wishes again.

Another parasite to add to the group of parasitic worms that masquerade as a 'royal' family.

Heir and spare complete, Kate better start looking over her shoulder when William's eyes start wandering. There is a bit of form in this area with this family.

Roll on a republican state and the consignment of these fools to where they belong. 

Uncharitable but true.

+1

steve

Agree with above. Couldn't care less. Just another mouth to feed.

Probably doesn't mean much coming from an American but I have always kind of admired this "old world" tradition of royals mostly removed from politics and connected to history.  I can see it has little "purpose" now but perhaps the world could use a little less purpose. I might think differently if it was my tax dollars but having so many of mine going toward US aggression ever since I was born certainly hasn't been a wonderful experience or produced a better world.

The one good thing I can point to with the current US President is that generally speaking he seems to be a decent human being (in the day to day sense) to me, at least outside his current impossible job.  And I can't say that about any other president during my lifetime save Jimmy Carter.

The checkered moral history doesn't have to go on endlessly.  Perhaps this will be the couple to end that cycle.

Sorry for intruding on a society I am so distant from, but the level of cynicism in several of these responses shows me at least that the contributors are probably little better than their target.  In our hatred we often see just a little too much of ourselves.  People can disagree with something without the overt hatred and contempt.  But I don't know the individual histories involved in the posters.

But like I have said it is not my place (save ancestrally) so I will go now.  Have your fun (?).

Jeff A

Jeff,

I have copied out part of the Wikipedia description of how the Monarchy is funded. My interpretation is that the Monarchy hands over much of its personal income (from the Crown Estates) to the State. This income more than covers the cost of supporting the Monarchy and the Monarchy's duties.

The Civil List, which is what this article refers to, was superceded in 2012 by new arrangements. But so far as I can tell, the general picture is unchanged.

The last British monarch to receive Civil List payments was Elizabeth II. The Civil List for her reign lasted from her accession in 1952 until its abolition in 2012. During this period the Queen, as head of state, used the Civil List to defray some of the official expenditure of the monarchy.

Only The Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen Mother ever received direct funding from the Civil List.^[3] The Prince of Wales and his immediate family (Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and Prince Harry) received their income from the Duchy of Cornwall. The state duties and staff of other members of the Royal Family were funded from a parliamentary annuity, the amount of which was fully refunded by the Queen to the treasury.^[4] The Queen's consort (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh) received £359,000 per year.^[when?] The Queen was permitted to claim these amounts as a deduction against her gross income from personal investments and other sources—the net amount, after deductions, was subject to normal income tax.

The last two decades of the Civil List were marked by surpluses and deficits. Surpluses in the 1991–2000 Civil List caused by low inflation and the efforts of the Queen and her staff to make the Royal Household more efficient led to the accrual of a £35.3 million reserve by late 2000. Consequently the Civil List was fixed at £7.9 million annually in 2001, the same amount as in 1991, and remained at that level until its abolition. The reserve was then used to make up the shortfall in the Civil List during the subsequent decade.^[5] The Civil List Act 1972 forbade parliament from reducing any of these payments.^[6]

The abolition of the Civil List was announced in the spending review statement to the House of Commons on 20 October 2010 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne. In its place, he said, "the Royal Household will receive a new Sovereign Support Grant linked to a portion of the revenue of the Crown Estate". The Crown Estate is a statutory corporation, run on commercial lines by the Crown Estate Commissioners and generates revenue for HM Treasury every year (an income surplus of £210.7 million for the year ended 31 March 2010).^[7] This income is received by the Crown and given to the state as a result of the agreement reached in 1760 that has been renewed at the beginning of each subsequent reign. The Sovereign Grant Act 2011 received Royal Assent on 18 October 2011. Under this Act, the Sovereign Grant now funds all of the official expenditure of the monarchy, not just the expenditure previously borne by the Civil List.

I suppose we should have a brief bit of applause for the fact that, although a girl, she will still take her place in the line of succession due to the changes in the law this last year or so. Before that any son subsequently born to Mr and Mrs Windsor would have supplanted her. 

Would have made British history rather different if it had been in place for a few centuries, and Wolf Hall would have been a dull book.

Bruce

More tax.

I disagree with both of you. I am by no means a monarchist and favour a Scandi-style slimmed down royal family (and I find the sycophancy of much of the media, Nick Witchell especially, deeply cringeworthy) but I have never seen any evidence that making the UK into a republic would save any money; make us any more mature as a democracy; enhance our standing within the world.If you can provide this, please do.

Added to this is the fact that there is - under the present Queen, at least, although Charles' reign, if and whhen it comes, may change this - very little appetite for republicanism within the UK. If there's one things the English (can't speak for the Welsh, Scots or Northern Irish) like it's continuity and stability

The Monarchy is just a distraction - if you're looking at parasitism, look further than unscrupulous individuals and vast multinationals who earn billions in profits here each year but pay virtually no tax. They are a far bigger drain on the public purse than Liz and Co. Tightening up the tax regime, scrapping vanity projects like HS2 and Trident and tackling the toxic orthodoxy of neo-liberal economics would save a good deal more than getting rid of the royals.

And I have to say that your comments, Nick from Suffolk, say more about you than they do about the monarchy. They might be uncharitable, but they're not true, unless you have evidence to the contrary - and if you have, I suggest you get on the blower to the Mail or Sun, as you have a real scoop there, and they'll pay handsomely for that.

Do you feel that way about all babies, or just royal ones?

Are these people Norman descendants? I could be feel some bitterness amongst the 'true' English.

It would just as interesting to consider what a true English person is!

What are the limits to calling someone truly English?

ATB from George

Better than some five yearly Presidential election where each candidate seems to have a chequered history anyway and can interfere with the wishes of the wider elected caucus.

Isn't a British general election exactly the same as you describe? In the British system, the legislative is in fact under the control of the executive - there are many ways in which the PM can and will influence Parliament, thus "[interfering] with the wishes of the wider elected caucus".I do agree, though, that having a head of State who appears to be above the fray - and rather powerless (Italy, Germany, Britain) - might not be a bad idea.

Hi Jeff,

My post wasn't intended to be critical, I simply thought you might be interested.

I hope I was right. Apologies if I was wrong.

The PM is part of the caucus. He only has one vote, just like any other member - and he has no veto.

Of course, anybody influential enough to be the leader of their Party, is going to be influential in organising the direction of that Party and hence the direction of the government if that party can form a government.

The Queen (or King) has no effective right to influence the government of the country.

Not really, because the UK Prime Minister is not head of state (the sovereign is), and cannot overrule the will of Parilament.

A recent example of this would be Cameron's desire to invade Syria, which was defeated by a (small) majority of MPs. In theory, he could have used the Royal Perogative to overrule this, but it would be completely unacceptable and would cause a constitutional crisis.

The PM can only influence Parliament through his or her party (and then only if enjoys a majority) and its whips, but on matters of conscience - war, death penalty, abortion, etc - MPs are given a free vote.

The system we have here is a bit odd and doesn't resemble anywhere else. We don't even have a properly codified constitution!

It was absolutely received in the spirit of information sharing, Don.  No apology needed but thanks for the courtesy.  Take care.

Jeff A

Kevin , Don,

I'm aware of all that, but there have been numerous examples of Prime Ministers effectively controlling Parliament - after all the PM is the leader of the majority party, and party discipline is very strong within the British system. I forget who coined the phrase "Prime Ministerial government" to describe the system under Margaret Thatcher and later, Tony Blair.

Some people are more persuasive than others.................

But Cameron, for example, has accepted that as PM in a coalition government he might not be able to persuade enough MPs to agree to a referendum on Europe. In such a circumstance, he has said he would resign as PM.

British PMs might be persuasive, but they are well removed from dictatorship. (I hope !)

British PMs might be persuasive, but they are well removed from dictatorship. (I hope !)

Indeed - Margaret Thatcher was ousted from the leadership by her own party when she came close to being dictatorial.

Actually I think the reason was the big beasts in the Tory party thought she might lose the next election.  You have to admire their ruthlessness.