Posted on 07/22/2013 1:37:51 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
Edited on 07/22/2013 1:42:50 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Kensington Palace source: Prince William remained at Catherine's side throughout her labor, and the baby was born vaginally.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Where did you hear that?
I heard a reporter say today that more public money was spent on the Obamas last year than was spent on the entire royal family.
no
I vote for Louis! After me.
>>James is a no no<<
How about Shecky?
Wonder why they didn’t go into details, then, of how she conceived? I’m calling it ‘coarse’ -
Yeah!!!!! Lol.
It was at night. I might have heard it on radio which I think i did; or I might have dreamed it. I keep radio on at night - helps me sleep
oh Nooooooooo! Please, not that, file that under I DON’T WANNA KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You miss having a baby in the house, don’t you. LOL!
1. They're a tremendous cash cow for the British tourism industry. Their very existence, and the system of historic houses, castles, and palaces that the royals and the traditional nobility of England support, bring in millions of tourists. Those tourists leave their dollars in the UK without requiring what other industries do, like roads, schools, social services, water and sewer infrastructure, etc. It's nothing but gravy for the British economy.
2. The royals, nobility, and landed gentry, and those close to them, support a vast economic network of provisioners. The small company that has held the royal warrant to make the upholstery for the royal coaches, the lady who hand-weaves the historic bed-hangings on display at Windsor castle, the farm that breeds and trains the Queen's team of Fells ponies and her household's Cleveland Bays--these people buy refrigerators and that keeps the appliance dealers in business so they pay their staff who buy new furniture and clothes, and the economy goes round and round. Believe me when I tell you that half the economy of England revolves around horses, hunting, and hounds, and supplying the transport, vet services, tack, feed, training, facilities, TV coverage, clothes, lessons, et cetera and endlessly cetera. You have no idea of how important it is over there. The whole lifestyle, from flower shows to the Horse of the Year show to beagling and minkhunting--it is entire national culture, based in ancient tradition. But if the royals and aristocrats stopped providing leadership, a lot of this activity would begin to peter out.
And if you've ever been to a communist country, you know that if government took over these institutions, it would be really crappy by comparison.
But really the most important contribution the royals make--at least, the well-liked ones like William, Harry, HRH Kate, Anne, and the Queen--is to give the British people a sense of continuity and tradition. They help the exhausted Brits, beseiged on all sides by out-of-control immigration, crime, regulation, and economic problems--a sense that English culture still exists, fundamentally unchanged through the centuries, and is something beautiful and important, something worth protecting.
Tear down the monarchy and nobility as the Commies would have them do, and then the British are no different or better than any wretched, degraded Eastern European country, forgetting the faded, tacky, slightly ridiculous history and people of the past. They have nothing to take pride in anymore, no unique Englishness. They have no one to love as a nation. So the Royal Family is a unifying force and helps the British preserve their history. Since the Queen herself--not the British taxpayer--foots the bill for all this stuff, the small outlay is worth it to Britain.
i would think desmond or leroy would be eminently serviceable names.
Thank you. Same here.
If they're smart, and some are, royals have the power to set examples for the people to follow. During WW2, the royal family stayed in LOndon, while many "commoners" sent their children to the country, far from harm.
Teenaged Elizabeth, now queen, gave talks on the radio that were actually quite uplifting. They joined in efforts to give the bombed and beleaguered Brits comfort during the wartime effort by joining in Red Cross activities, etc. Holding hands of and being there for the people. Brave of them and appreciated by the people. .
I saw an exhibit of these activities and heard Elizabeth's speeches at the museum in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada about 10 years ago. Unforgettable.
What would Barry do? Not anywhere near as well as the royals. WE heard him mumble thru his Trayvon speech and watched the rioters gather to pursue his dream.
I hope Kate will raise brave, strong children. Bet she will. The Welsh are extraordinarily tough.
Edward is still fine (among the family the ‘abdicator’ was always known as ‘David’). Perhaps the greatest of them all was King Edward III. Henry is fine too (Prince Harry) but I fully take your point about the others.
Although, at the moment, James is riding quite high with the bookmakers.
Solid old George might fit the bill. ‘Albert’ is apparently Prince Charles’s favourite, but could there be a ‘Philip’ surprise?
What a thoughtful post. That was refreshing. Thank you for it. Getting rid of the monarchy is very unlikely anyway considering the large popularity they enjoy with the general population. Queen Elizabeth II has an approval rating to make President Obama writhe in envy.
I’m going with George. So it’s decided.
(Somebody had to end the speculation.)
‘Believe me when I tell you that half the economy of England revolves around horses, hunting, and hounds, and supplying the transport, vet services, tack, feed, training, facilities, TV coverage, clothes, lessons, et cetera and endlessly cetera. You have no idea of how important it is over there.’
Bit of an exaggeration methinks, squire.
‘then the British are no different or better than any wretched, degraded Eastern European country, forgetting the faded, tacky, slightly ridiculous history and people of the past. They have nothing to take pride in anymore, no unique Englishness. They have no one to love as a nation.’
Oh, the British would still be better. If you think the Royals and their history are all the history we have, you are mistaken. If you think royal-aristo based culture is all we have to reflect on, again you are mistaken. If you think minus the Royals, then Britain is no greater than Serbia or Bulgaria, you are deluded.
Britain built the modern world. Britain gave the world the Industrial Revolution. Britain has given the world much of its great culture, from serious literature to pop culture. Britain has given the world much of its great science, from Napier and Newton to the MRI and Dolly the Sheep.
And it had the greatest empire the world has ever seen. Supported and enforced by what was the greatest military power in the world.
And the British military itself is still something that the British people rightly are immensely proud of. In fact the one organisation that is even more popular than the Royals.
Not to mention the beauty of Britain, and yes still, the greatness of its people.
Call all that part of a ridiculous history?. Say that that isn’t worth celebrating?. There is still much, Royals aside, that is worth being proud of in being British. The Royals don’t define us, never have.
Very much. Maybe if we babysit regularly, I won’t have to have another of my own!
Should you receive a call from the White House, and the Pres__ent should offer Congratulations, please note that this is the same man who returned a bust of Sir Winston Churchill when he took office, and who sent a gift to Her Royal Highness of a stack of CD's which could have been purchased at a kiosk somewhere near Piccadilly Square.
theDentist
I do wish you both all my best wishes at the birth of your son.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.