New Prince

not quite situpstraight

The word “wonderful” and me just don’t go together .

Sounds as though you looked wonderful without a stylist then.

Not beautiful mind you, that would be stretching it toooooo far

I gave birth to my son and walked out of hospital in my jeans situpstraight ( I didn’t wear maternity clothes) . I was 18 and looked about 14 . No make up either .

* gillybob* I think, going from memory of myself and DD it would have taken more than 7 hours and a stylist to get me out in public after giving birth and looking so good.
I’m not for or against the Royal Family per se, but credit where credit is due.
Good genes and lifestyle helps of course, I had a house to run and a toddler to look after too.

how wonderful the new Mum looked just hours after giving birth

No wonder Nanny41 considering her “personal stylist” was one of the first people to visit after the birth.

Come off it Jalima1108. Please keep up! I've already corrected that error. Have a look.

Your batteries may have gone flat (they don't work too well when cold-a bit like people) but your opinions appear to be fully charged.
"Your" is meant in the plural, by the way, to cover all the GNs who braved the elements, but I can't remember seeing any umbrellas on the TV.
I'd still like to read about your impressions, though, of your first glimpse!

I'll miss the snaps; I'd bought a new album for this very purpose.
Good Health

Congratulations to Prince William and Catherine, how wonderful the new Mum looked just hours after giving birth.

Any woman who marries the heir or spare is going to be a social climber. Kate would not be where she is now without the Middleton tenacity but thank goodness for it because I think they're absolutely right for each other and she's an asset to the RF.

We'll have to wait and see about Meghan. Harry is besotted and it all seems a bit rushed whereas Kate was more of a slow burn with William.

The taxpayer actually funds very few of the Royal Family these days, Jaxie

A bit of history - Once upon a time, monarchs were personally responsible for all the expenses of running their country, and personally received all the taxes raised, the gifts and loans from loyal citizens, and the fines levied on those who broke the law or displeased their majesties. They also, like all landowners, received rents etc on the estates and properties which they owned outright - the "Crown Estate".

Sorry this is so long, but it does cover several hundred years of head-of-state expenses - "Following the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, the expenses relating to the support of the monarch were largely separated from the ordinary expenses of the State managed by the Exchequer. This was a reaction to the reigns of Charles II of England and James II of England (also known as James VII of Scotland), whose large revenues had made them independent of Parliament.

In 1697, Parliament under William III and Mary II fixed The Crown's peacetime revenue at £1,200,000 per year; of this about £700,000 was appropriated towards the Civil List. The Sovereigns were expected to use this to defray some of the costs of running the civil government (such as the Civil Service, judges' and ambassadors' salaries) and the payment of pensions, as well as the expenses of the Royal Household and the Sovereign's personal expenses. It was from this that the term "Civil List" arose, to distinguish it from the statement of military and naval expenses which were funded through special taxation.

The accession of George III in 1760 marked a significant change in royal finances. As his predecessor, George II, had failed to meet all of the specific costs of the civil government in accordance with the previous arrangement, it was decided by the Civil List Act 1760 that George III would surrender the hereditary revenues from the Crown Estate to Parliament for the duration of his reign, and in return Parliament would assume responsibility for most of the costs of the civil government. Parliament would continue to pay the Civil List, which would defray the expenses of the Royal Household and some of the costs of the civil government. George III, however, retained the income from the Duchy of Lancaster.

On the accession of William IV in 1830, the sum voted for the Civil List was restricted to the expenses of the Royal Household, removing any residual responsibilities associated with the cost of the civil government. This finally removed any links between the Sovereign and the cost of the civil government. On the accession of Queen Victoria, the Civil List Act 1837—which reiterated the principles of the civil list system and specified all prior Acts as in force—was passed. Upon the accession of subsequent monarchs down to Queen Elizabeth II, this constitutional arrangement was confirmed, but the historical term "Civil List" remained even though the grant had nothing to do with the expenses of the civil government.

In 1931 George V decided to eschew the £50,000 due to him from the Civil List as a result of the Great Depression. As Keeper of the Privy Purse, Sir Frederick Ponsonby wrote to Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald to say that George had felt it was possible to reject the grant by "exercise of the most rigid economy" and that Queen Mary and other royal family members were "desirous that reductions in these grants should be made during this time of national crisis".

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. The Prince of Wales and his immediate family (the 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.

On 1 April 2012 the arrangements for the funding of The Queen’s Official Duties changed. The new system of funding, referred to as the ‘Sovereign Grant’, replaces the Civil List and the three Grants-in-Aid (for Royal Travel, Communications and Information, and the Maintenance of the Royal Palaces) with a single, consolidated annual grant.

The Sovereign Grant is designed to be a more permanent arrangement than the old Civil List system, which was reign-specific. Funding for the Sovereign Grant comes from a percentage of the profits of the Crown Estate revenue (initially set at 15%). The grant will be reviewed every five years by the Royal Trustees (the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse), and annual financial accounts will continue to be prepared and published by the Keeper of the Privy Purse. Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_list

I certainly wouldn’t like my daughters (if I had any) or my granddaughter to grow up like her.

Hm99 would like Meghan to be a role model for her DDs and GDs. I think she is alway acting and it has been a success up to now, but I would be disappointed if my DDs or Gds grew up like her.

I know Harry means well but he seems boring to me and not such a catch if you want an interesting partner for life.

Harry and Meghan?not Kate and Meghan

I'd prefer the Royal family to be drastically pruned. (Look at the line of succession now!)
But we're not supporting them all - the finances have been pruned although money is needed to renovate neglected buildings which belong to the state anyway. And I suppose the line of succession is only that - a line in case the worst happened. The more children William and Kate have the better and hopefully Kate and Meghan, pushing the Yorks down the line.

"I am a Socialist" is fast becoming an expression of imagined superiority, isn't it?
Well, I had hoped that that particular expression of virtue signalling had disappeared now but apparently not, Day6.

I would term it 'socialism in chaos' rather than socialism in action unfortunately.

I agree Jalima, and that's a good point.

I'd prefer the Royal family to be drastically pruned. (Look at the line of succession now!)

However, I would much rather have a monarchy than a President. And supporting monarchy does not indicate that people lack compassion and have no awareness of hardship.

"I am a Socialist" is fast becoming an expression of imagined superiority, isn't it?

I am not a socialist and never will be if the present Labour Party is an example of socialism in action. I care deeply about injustice but don't need to be a 'Red' to care.

Probably one too many nots in the above post but I am quite

Actually Jalima I'm a life- long socialist who believes in supporting the less fortunate in our society.
And actually, Jaxie that is just the kind of remark which annoys posters - just because people think that having the Royal Family and HM as Head of State is preferable to having an expensive presidential system does not mean that people do not believe the less fortunate in our society should not be helped.

That is a very narrow-minded view.

I bear no I'll will to the new prince but I object to dopey people salivating over every detail of the royals' lives.
salivating - what a strong word to use for people who are just posting on a chat forum!

Unless you mean the dotty folks dressed in Union Flag outfits, waving the flag and waiting outside the hospital for hours - but even then, the British have always had their eccentrics and British life would be less colourful without these people.

In the photos the baby looked very clean. My expectant dd recently told me the new advice is babies shouldn't be bathed until the umbilical cord has dropped off incase of infection!!

Purplepoppies - yes, he does look clean, but perhaps only his face was washed as we couldn't see much else .

DIL was astonished when DD was born to be told that it is not hospital policy to bath babies or even to show the new parents how to do so.

Actually Jalima I'm a life- long socialist who believes in supporting the less fortunate in our society. The tax payer is expected to fund the royal family and their hangers on; they own dozens of residences when there are poor people, including new babies, living in mouldy accommodation through no fault of their own. I bear no I'll will to the new prince but I object to dopey people salivating over every detail of the royals' lives.

I’m beginning to think that they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t!!

YAWN

there'd

"but that aside it’s absolurtely not any of our business"

No it's not Bluebelle, but given we are writing on a forum and expressing our opinions.....

If we didn't express what we feel there's be no forum, would there?