Royal Yacht

As per Mike-B, +1

The kite flying Michael Gove seems tied up in 19th C ideas of empire, when this is the 21st.

Chris

Exactly . If I had the money I'd buy myself a luxury u-boat and go on chase after luxury yachts with paint ball torpedos. This would be fun! 

Trade missions establish relationships that can be beneficial to international commerce. I don't necessarily see how the boat comes into it. Perhaps in Abu Dhabi in the seventies, there were no other suitable venues? In that case the boat served a (very expensive?) functional purpose.  It is also possible that in the seventies, Abu Dhabi businessmen with inherited or otherwise (ill?)gotten oil interests were craving Western approval and endorsement so much that the "royalness" of the whole thing was a factor in their decision making. Maybe it was the other way round. Perhaps British businessmen felt they needed the pseudo-credibility of royal endorsement to have the confidence to talk to the infinitely wealthy oilmen, many of whom would presumably lay claim to some princeliness of their own.

At the end of the day, we all like to feel important and having the royals tour the world on our coin making us and others feel that way is perhaps worthwhile in getting businesses interacting. I'm not convinced, though. The best business decisions are rational ones. That "relationships" matter because trust cannot otherwise be assumed is a flaw in the human system, not a benefit. The relationships are great, but I should be able to do business with someone I haven't had cocktails with.

How much use would she and Phil get out of it?

By the time it was built they wil both be pushing up Daisy's.

I would just borrow the last super yacht Steve Jobs had built.

Or even finish the new one he had on order when he died.

Only a few billion.

At least she would have some where to plug her iPod in.

...and paint ball depth-charges?

If there is a real case for a Royal Yatch, then the case was lost when the Britannia was moth-balled, but if some reason were to be forthcoming for Royal Yatch in today's climate then surely the old Britannia could be re-commissioned far quicker [and she is rather elegant] than any new project could be finished. When Charlie-boy comes to the throne, then we shall be a Republic in less than a year ...

I have never heard such nonesense spoken in times of economic austerity in my entire life ...

ATB from George

George,

Thank you very much. Most politely and succinctly put.

My prediction is Charles will never be king. He will stand aside in favour of William. The Royal tub is a good idea and it will benefit the nation. It is a small price to pay. Calling the Royal family useless is simply cretinous. They are not perfect (who is?) but the queen has always been a great asset to the nation. 

I've often wondered how much the USA spends on electting a President every 4 or 5 years and how much they spend during each term to support said President.

I'm not entirely certain of the relative costs of a Monarchy v a President, nor for that matter, the relative benefits - and i'm not particularly focusing on George W Bush.

Perhaps we should ust vote in some President, a bit like (say) Putin, and leave it at that. Let him/her swap with being Prime Minister every 10 years if that makes us feel better. Probably a lot cheaper than a Monarch or a US style President.

Perhaps.

Cheers

Don

Ok Tom, "wind-up" is an apt description, although I would (slightly) prefer "thought-provoking"

I have a leaning towards a new (or re-furbished) Royal Yacht, mainly because I think it would be a commercial/economic benefit - but as I said in my opening post, I don't know if there is a buisiness case.

As for the Maonarchy (*) itself, I guess I would prefer to stick with it simply for the sake of tradition, if nothing else. However, I think it brings a degree of stability and economic advantage as well, despite its frequent negative eccentricity.

I also think its a good idea that in addition to the hard-politics and business side of our State Affairs we retain an independent, "friendly, hand-shaking, alliance-building" department, free from politics.

Cheers

Don

(*) a genuine mis-spelling, but I thought the Republicans might like it, so left it in. 

AS proposed a few years ago, the main body of people to lose out are the youngsters that would have gone on sail training cruises.

Good opinion piece in The Times today by Libby Purves supporting the concept of the ship as a multi use training, marketing and bigwig home from home. And not funded by the state.

Not being funded by the state doesn’t mean the public wouldn’t be paying for it.

Big corporate companies would simply use bucketfuls of tax evasion money that should have gone to the state in the first place.

This is what happens in this day and age of elitist corruption.

And ‘those youngsters’ are so lucky to be missing out in the mind-shrinking patronisation of the stinking class ridden system that has no moral right or dignity existing in 21^st Century Britain.

Lets replace the monarchy with millions of pointless civil servants, each paid more than their private sector equivalents, plus a two-thirds final salary pension after a 35 year (non-) working life.

Sod it. lets abolish the monarchy and make everybody a civil servant, paid more than the average wage, with a two thirds final salary pension after a 35 year non-working life.

Or am I talking bollocks at last, because somewhere in my mind, I kanda think there's a catch in there somewhere.

Cheers

Don

The average Civil Service pension is between £4,000 to £6,000. Seems like a bargain.

errr......

not for doing nothing it isn't

Cheers

Don

Why do you say they do nothing? Where is the evidence?

Interesting that people here hate Charles so much when actually he seems to be the only one of them with anything interesting or relevant to say.  For example he frequently speaks a lot of sense on architecture and design and GM food etc which are all causes I and a lot of others feel strongly about.  He leads the Princes Trust which seems to do so much good for the young through many projects and I don't really mind if he is in favour of talking to plants or homeopathy because I actually think there's a great deal to be learned about medicine in that area.

I can't even blame him for the whole Diana situation either because he didn't want to marry her in the first place - he wanted to carry on dating supermodels and Debutantes and the only person he wanted to marry was Camilla many years before Diana.  The problem lies firmly at the door of the Queen and Queen Mum who wanted him to marry a virgin and orchestrated the whole Diana marriage.  Frankly it's the Queen and Queen Mum who were so out of touch with modern life they should have been shot 20 years ago for making him marry Diana.

As for William and Harry frankly they're both more interested in having a good time, playing with expensive military toys, getting pissed up on expensive champers and going on holiday than doing anything to improve the lot of the country so I can't see what good passing over Charles in favour of William or Harry would do...

Many moons ago Charles came to open the BA HQ when I was on the core BA project team so I spent a bit of time in the same room as him.  He actually came over as very intelligent, grounded, witty, engaging and charming.  To be honest I rather liked the guy. 

Jonathan

I have seen figures of £7,632 pa for civil servants and £7,841 pa for all public servants, both of which are higher than the private sector average of £7,467 pa. I doubt if these figures are truely reliable to the nearest £100, but they are substantially higher than the £4k to £6k refered to above.

I personally consider the Royal Family to represent pretty good value, (compared to our civil service), but whether this stacks up against the USA or Russian type of Presidential systems, I am waiting for others to provide enlightenment.

Cheers

Don

Jonathan, I agree with much of what you say about Charles - i think he is a mis-understood man, but he does seem to draw bad press. Which isn't helpful.

As for William and Harry, well many other serving officers enjoy a priviliged life-style, but I accept that it appears that Harry does overdo things.

Cheers

Don

PS are you still on Dash 8s ?

Don,

Please provide some evidence of all these fantastic public sector salaries. The traditional story was that the public sector was lower paid but that paid for their so-called free pensions (just like the health service is free). I'm sure you're as aware as anybody that there are no free lunches.

I work in the public sector and can assure you that neither my salary nor those of anybody who has ever worked for me supports the myth that the public sector is higher paid than the private. And I have no fantastic free pension because I couldn't afford to join the college scheme. My pension relies on me dying prematurely, something I'm well on the way to achieving with the aid of Messrs Tennents and Grouse and a spiteful obnoxious wife.

So please put up or shut up.

Don,

It's interesting you ask that because after 5 years on the Dash I have been offered a place on the Embraer 195/175 fleet from the end of May which I'm really thrilled about.  It's a really lovely aeroplane and will be my first full jet plus it will expand my destinations to some places further afield - Spain, Portugal, Croatia etc.  The other benefits are that it pays better (being a jet) and offers a much improved lifestyle over the Dash fleet (who seemingly do most of the work at the moment!)  I'm expecting the written offer letter only today so you chaps are amongst the first to know!!

I also think that my salary might finally just exceed what I was earning in IT in 2002 when I quit to train as a pilot!  (I think people get the wrong idea about pilot salaries as well as the civil service!) 

Best regards,

Jonathan

The problem is that Charles "feels strongly" about these things too but knows little. He is eminently unqualified to speak at all on any of these things. His "feelings" are irrelevant. I re-iterate my previous point about his ridiculous, unfounded, ignorant and damaging support for homeopathy and other alternative so-called medicines. This shit kills a lot of people.

The question you have to ask yourself is whether at the highest levels in authority really knows anything about anything - when Kennedy said we will go to the moon he said it to galvanise hearts and minds in that direction without ever knowing the technicalities of how or whether it could be done.  I would argue that the eminent economists who set up the European Union or the ERM didn't understand the operation of financial markets and nor indeed do the bankers seem to have made millions from financial instruments most of them simply don't understand.  I don't know to what extent Charles has spoken in favour of homeopathy but I doubt he is denying that anyone in need of conventional life saving medical treatment should ignore it, but if someone can improve their hay fever or whatever by taking plant supplements then good luck to them.

I'm merely suggesting that Charles has used his profile more effectively than other royals to highlight the appalling travesties that architects have perpetrated on cities in Britain and I congratulate him for that.  Over the Summer we visited Poundbury in Dorset which is a quite astonishing achievement - a new town sponsored by Charles that people actually want to live and work in - http://www.duchyofcornwall.org...ury_architecture.htm

Despite my anti-monarchy stance earlier in this thread I seem to have found myself defending Charles which is ironic!

Jonathan

You are closer. From the Hutton Report: "The average pension paid to pensioner members is around £7,800 per year, while the median payment is around £5,600."

Now all we need is your evidence that Civil Service employees "do nothing" - Hutton did not go so far...