Hard News: Any excuse for a party
196 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
Danielle, in reply to
That’s fucking horrifying.
Yes, but in 30 years it's going to be kitschily AWESOME.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
I don't think that figure bears any rigorous relation to the value in tourist dollars of having a monarch that's included in the UK constitution.
Did the revenues from stately homes drop when most of their inhabitants lost their right to sit in the Lords? Do less people go to National Trust properties than ones still owned by aristocrats? (Longleat vs Stourhead)
It's possible that tourism to the UK might actually increase if you could walk around Buckingham Palace gardens, for instance. It might not, but the figures are pretty indeterminate. If the UK became a bit less shit infrastructurally, it might make a bigger difference than any number of royal weddings.
(Also, that Civil List number is a bit bogus. It excludes the income from various lands, including the Duchy of Cornwall, that the royals insist are personally held, but which were acquired through their positions as monarch and could reasonably be held to be state property. It also excludes a lot of the costs of the royals use of the military, for instance. How much did it cost to put William through every form of military training he was interested in? )
-
Has to be done, doesn't it?
And of course, this... dweam within a dweam.
-
Please, please reassure me that there will be other people here NOT watching. Just when I thought PAS might be a royal wedding-free zone.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Also, that Civil List number is a bit bogus. It excludes the income from various lands, including the Duchy of Cornwall, that the royals insist are personally held, but which were acquired through their positions as monarch and could reasonably be held to be state property.
Hum... I see a rather interesting argument that the British Government and the Windsors owes the Catholic Church compensation (and 465 years of interest) for goods and property alienated (or destroyed) during the Dissolution of the Monasteries.
-
anth,
The Herald seems (unusually) to have uncovered a few slight overestimates around the Rugby World Cup (TM) for instance.
The RWC being the "third biggest sporting event in the world" is apparently for cumulative attendance at a competition between national teams, and for the 2.2 million who went to matches at the last one. The "national teams" bit gets rid of a lot of competitions where the winner would be an individual, or a club or trade team, not to mention various national (rather than international) competitions. I'm not sure that cumulative attendance is all that good a measure either; it would make the upcoming RWC (1.65 million assumming that all tickets are sold) less important than the Super 14 (2.02 million).
-
recordari, in reply to
Geoff, you are safe in my respect. I'm watching the Breakers become the first NZ team to win an Australian sports league in 15 years of trying and then going to see David Kilgour & the Heavy Eights.
-
This is IMHO the funniest item of royal wedding memorabilia:
"Founded in London, England's historic capital, Crown Jewels Condoms of Distinction is the proud purveyor of an exclusive range of heritage love sheaths.
England boasts some of the finest lovemaking in the world, with a tradition of coitus going back generations."
-
Sacha, in reply to
please reassure me that there will be other people here NOT watching
Gouging my eyes out with a souvenir teaspoon seems more likely. Well, unless someone were to invite me to a party, naturally.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Please, please reassure me that there will be other people here NOT watching. Just when I thought PAS might be a royal wedding-free zone.
But Geoff: as an Associate Professor of Media Studies, surely it's your duty to watch the coverage? ;-)
-
Sacha, in reply to
surely it's your duty to watch
I did wonder
-
Sacha, in reply to
with a tradition of coitus going back generations
roflnui
-
Danielle, in reply to
Yes, I actually guffawed at that, Lilith!
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Only the English could find dingers romantic.
-
Islander, in reply to
England boasts some of the finest lovemaking in the world, with a tradition of coitus going back generations
One wonders what they did before they discovered coitus? Fissioned?
O, and Geoff - wedding and RWC-free zone at my place...
-
Fooman, in reply to
Also, that Civil List number is a bit bogus. It excludes the income from various lands, including the Duchy of Cornwall, that the royals insist are personally held, but which were acquired through their positions as monarch and could reasonably be held to be state property.
As far as I am aware, the Civil List (in the UK) is a payment from the UK government to the royal household, in return for the income generated by the Crown Estate - this started in 1760, with various adjustments since.
Wikipedia has the payment to the household at 7,900,000 pounds per annum, plus a cash reserve of ~35 million pounds - is the source of the 37 million pound figure?
As rentals from the crown estate have grown somewhat over the past 350 years, the UK government now gets (according to Wikipedia) 210 million pounds per annum (gross) from this arrangement - a net return of ~2600% on "investment", before any nebulous tourism figures are included.
In fact, there was some discussion as to increasing the civil list to help with the maintenance of some of the residences recently - it was set at 7.9 million since 2001 - see british gutter press. Actually, this has the total cost of the house as being ~40 million pounds, plus security - civil list is not the full cost then but still significantly less than the income received.
Other property held outside the crown estate is unaffected , as noted previously
FM
-
Russell, when you say you'll be conducting "a sort of telepresence experiment" at your house, is that like what we used to call in my day "channel-surfing", except with the fun of ending up on a random channel taken out? And is 'telepresence' an actual word?
-
The Prime Minister's wife will be there as "Mrs John Key" (better than "John Key +1", I guess).
I had a good look at the invite list and have figured out the naming conventions. It's all down to whether the partner of the dignitary is a woman who has taken her husband's surname.
Bronagh Key = Mrs John Key
Bronagh Dougan-Key = Ms Bronagh Dougan-Key
Bronagh Dougan = Ms Bronagh DouganIf Bronagh was the PM and John was her invited partner, they'd be listed as "The Prime Minister of New Zealand and Mr John Key".
Is it a bit sexist or charmingly old fashioned? If a woman changes her surname to that of her husband, should she be prepared to sometimes be referred to Mrs [husband name]? Also thinking about Kim Deal's tongue-in-cheek credit as "Mrs John Murphy" (her married name at the time) on the first two Pixies recordings.
Meanwhile, after William and Kate are married, unless the Queen gives them a duchy, Kate will be Princess William of Wales.
-
But Geoff: as an Associate Professor of Media Studies, surely it’s your duty to watch the coverage?
I will watch the Breakers and then go out to see In A Better World (a highly recommended Danish film). That is doing my duty.
When they televise the Royal Divorce, I might watch ;-)
-
Paul Rowe, in reply to
Looks big enough for easy conversion into a coffin.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
One wonders what they did before they discovered coitus? Fissioned?
They may have been too polite to mention it. :-)
-
If a woman changes her surname to that of her husband, should she be prepared to sometimes be referred to Mrs [husband name]?
As someone to whom this happens even though I never fucking changed my name in the first place, may I say: NO.
You have to call people what they want to be called, I reckon.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
This is IMHO the funniest item of royal wedding memorabilia:
Brilliant. Though, given:
Includes a collectable portrait of the Royal Couple as they might appear on their wedding day
I think William and Kate might have... I was going to say "got off lightly".
I am a bit tired of the insistence that I must have strong feelings either way on this. Either I must want to guzzle down lead wedding stories on the news every night, or I must be swearing off the idea of watching a single second. Equally tiresome, either way. The more I see of "ew, god, how could you" the more I want to get out all my grandmother's coronation badges and drink some fucking Pimms.
-
3410,
One wonders what they did before they discovered coitus? Fissioned?
Something about the mother sitting on a chair that had recently been vacated by the father, if memory serves.
-
Sacha, in reply to
drink some fucking Pimms
Now you're talking. I similarly just don't care much either way, though I'm definitely averse to putting myself through hours of turgid dress-ogling and horse-spotting.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.