Prince George: How accountants reacted to the royal baby

The birth of Prince George Alexander Louis on 22 July was an historical moment. Rachael Power reports on how it was seen by AccountingWEB members.

The little 8lbs 6oz bundle is now third in line to the throne, meaning that the UK is not likely to have another queen for some time.

Unlike most new parents, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge  won’t have to worry about the cost of caring for and raising their child.

Prince George will eventually inherit his grandfather’s estate, the Duchy of Cornwall, which has been in the spotlight recently at the Commons Public Accounts Committee...

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments
Paul Scholes's picture

Dead Horse & flog come to mind    3 thanks

Paul Scholes | | Permalink

Not nice I know but come on enough already

ShirleyM's picture

I so agree, Paul    2 thanks

ShirleyM | | Permalink

There are many far more interesting things happening, but no matter how interesting a subject is, it gets boring when it is inescapable and you hear it morning, noon & night.

Flash Gordon's picture

Fully written off assets    2 thanks

Flash Gordon | | Permalink

I'm in the 'they're assets (loosely) that have been fully depreciated and should have been written off years ago' camp. And I'm a firm believer in the concept that nothing lasts forever - but if anyone can see into the future so clearly I'd appreciate knowing the lottery numbers for all the draws in the next 6 months. Then I'll have enough money to buy my favourite AWebbers a nice big castle each and we can take over the country :)

ShirleyM's picture

That's just your opinion ...    2 thanks

ShirleyM | | Permalink

... and the opinion of some experts. There are many many other experts who say the exact opposite.

I agree that this Queen is liked by millions. I really don't think anyone but her would get the same respect. While ever she reigns I doubt anyone would truly want to change, but as for the rest of them ........... the tide is turning. Why do you think she is hanging on for so long? She can see the change ahead, even if you can't. She knows that attitudes are changing, and not one of the rest could be a patch on the Queen. 

Anything would be cheaper than the British Monarchy, but you are entitled to believe whatever you like, as am I. 

 

BKD's picture

Don't preach to others about political bias    2 thanks

BKD | | Permalink

When your own is only too evident

Flash Gordon's picture

Work ethic    2 thanks

Flash Gordon | | Permalink

Maybe a large part of the admiration for the Queen is her work ethic - in that despite her age she's still turning out to do a lot of meet and greet, smile and look interested events? Okay she's now taking 2 months holiday but most people her age are retired so I don't mind that. You don't see the same work ethic from the younger ones. Kate has done a few (mainly fun) events since getting married and she's a darn sight younger. Given her long wait to snare William and the absence of a proper job she could have been doing something worthwhile, throwing herself into charity work so that when she married she could really make a difference. But it's easier to laze around and go shopping, then use pregnancy as an excuse.

Better alternative - abolish the monarchy, make all their palaces fully open to the public all year round to still bring in the cash to pay for the upkeep, keep our democratically-elected government (even if not everyone turns out to vote) and just put in place some rules (and enforce them) so that they don't get to claim anything they fancy. Put an accountant in charge of that side of things and you're sorted.

 

ShirleyM's picture

Tourism would still happen, D Weston    3 thanks

ShirleyM | | Permalink

Do British people visit Athens or the USA to see where their current Queen lives (if they had one), or do they go to see historic monuments and the wonders of nature?

The history would still be here, and so would the palaces. Some tourist attracting ceremonies would carry on, too.

Anyway, as in the last thread, I lose interest when discussion turns into rants rather than reasoned debate. Any future post I make in this thread will be in response to others.

Flash Gordon's picture

History    2 thanks

Flash Gordon | | Permalink

You're spot on Shirley, it's history and tradition that draws the crowds on a regular basis. Athens is definitely worth seeing (I went there - fabulous - though I'll admit to a lifelong passion for the Greeks and Romans anyway) and America has it's own fair share, though sadly that side of the US is still on my to-do list. And as for nature - well crowds flock to Yellowstone for the scenery and features and because it stands on top of a supervolcano, despite the volcano not having erupted for thousands of years. People may turn out to see the Queen or any member of that family but equally they'll turn out to see Kim Kardashian or any other so-called celebrity..... 

ShirleyM's picture

Yellowstone Park :)    1 thanks

ShirleyM | | Permalink

That appeals to me, too. I would also like to visit Monument Valley, but I guess I'll have to make do with viewing it on films and the internet because I hate travelling.

Yorkshire has some fantastic scenery, so I can enjoy the views close by.

Flash Gordon's picture

Monumental    1 thanks

Flash Gordon | | Permalink

I'd be standing next to you Shirley, going wow, but like you travelling isn't my thing these days. Shame because I'd love to do Rome as well, and Everest (okay I'd need to be a bit fitter for that!) So many wonderful sights...

Flash Gordon's picture

Facts or fiction    1 thanks

Flash Gordon | | Permalink

You have an inclination to quote what takes your fancy and call them 'facts' as if giving them that title will make them so. It doesn't. You are entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. I disagree with you and I don't have a problem with that, each to their own. You sadly appear to take issue with anyone who has a differing opinion to yours so while you may well continue to insist categorically that you're right and I'm wrong, I'll not be wasting my breath any further. I prefer sensible reasoned discussions where both parties not only offer an opinion but also listen and respect what others have to say. 

ShirleyM's picture

A few more facts ....    2 thanks

ShirleyM | | Permalink

http://www.republic.org.uk/valueformoneymyth.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18673692

http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/royal-baby-riches-monarchy-costs-great-britain/

The following is an excerpt from the latter:

As for the claim that the monarchy stimulates the British economy by encouraging tourism, the comedian Mark Steel has a ready reply: "Do the tourists who visit Paris stand at the top of the Eiffel Tower and think 'Hmm, well it's quite a nice view, but the lack of a monarch seems to spoil it'?" Steel may be onto something: According to Travel + Leisure's July 2012 list of "Europe's Most-Visited Tourist Attractions," Versailles, the home of France's final king, is the continent's most popular palace, seeing more annual visitors than any site in Britain. In fact, all four of the British attractions on the list are museums; there's not a royal spot among them.

 

Flash Gordon's picture

Spot on again Shirley    2 thanks

Flash Gordon | | Permalink

I can honestly say that when I've been to the Eiffel Tower (and Notre Dame and so on) I didn't once think 'golly I wish they had a nice King or Queen for me to see'. Although when I went to Disneyland Paris I was incredibly chuffed to have a hug from Tigger! 

 

BKD's picture

Agreed, Shirley    2 thanks

BKD | | Permalink

Looking at the tourism stats for the UK, only London derives any significant benefit from a Royal presence. The South West has its beaches, further north you have the Peak and Lake Districts, Scotland has its golf, scenery and castles. As for Wales, well let's not go there (literally)  :¬)

Point is that what drives the vast majority of visitors to the UK has sod all to do with the monarchy. Fact.

taxhound's picture

The Royal Family may not come cheap

taxhound | | Permalink

But if we did not have them, we would have an equally costly president who would not be nearly as great.  President Blair anyone? 

mr. mischief's picture

very sneaky

mr. mischief | | Permalink

Very sneaky move to name the new boy after "Boy George" the Chancellor.  Will this shameless flattery work?  Will he preserve the royal list tab in his next round of cuts?

times will change the uk

sarah douglas | | Permalink

Hi 

As some may know I am Irish so I have mixed views.  My Husband is very Scottish and I have son who loves the Queen and Buckingham Palace.  I not sure we all agree in our family but we have decided to let our son find out for himself and have his own views. 

The Queen is well liked in Scotland and I admire her as an individual.  I do think the Royal family has a huge effect on Tourism and to be honest the last 3 visits to London have been because my son loves the whole Royal family thing  and  he loved the Pagent it was a moment in history he will always remember and probably not see again.

Yes people will visit London for other things but it all goes hand in hand. It was a bit like Scotland when for a while Scotland wanted to get rid of everything tweed.  The tourists love it, it was one of my main reasons for visiting Scotland was to see the Pipes and Kilts and it is clear that is what the tourists want as well.  I love the festival but I also love tweed like I love St Patrick in Ireland even if it is cheesy. 

  I am not sure we would have gone otherwise but we felt it was a part of history in the UK and if our son wanted to see it then we wanted him to. My family feel very strongly that everyone has their view and should be allowed to learn. 

I personally think unless the younger Royals starting working and gaining the same respect the Queen has the Royal Family will die out on its own anyway very quickly and I think they know this. There are lots of people who admire the Queen but who do not admire the younger ones. 

To me the biggest problem is 24 hrs news ,  the news channels have been bad for years. 

Please do pick on me as I am a fighter for equal education at the moment in my own area so I am a bit of socialist at the moment.  I do hope though that they are happy with their baby George.  The UK public will decide what happens in the future with the Royal family and that is is the way it should be.