A bit sad

[Godot]

King's Troop fires Jubilee starter gun as it decamps | News

Losing one of the early morning sights of London, as they exercised their horses around the streets.

[Palfrem]

Don't start me off...

[WesLangdon]

The last British Army cavalry charge was in the course the battle of Omdurman in 1898; today it is a complete military irrelevance and an enormous waste of public money.

[GordonTarling]

Surely it helps the balance of payments by attracting tourists to the country?

[Godot]

Originally Posted by WesLangdon

The last British Army cavalry charge was in the course the battle of Omdurman in 1898; today it is a complete military irrelevance and an enormous waste of public money.

What is ?

The Dervish Army, approximately 52,000 strong, suffered losses of 20,000 dead, 22,000 wounded, and some 5,000 taken prisoner--an unbelievable 90% casualty rate! By contrast, the Anglo-Egyptian Army, some 23,000 strong, suffered losses of 48 dead, and 382 wounded--an equally unbelievable 2% casualty rate, thus showing the superiority of modern firepower!

[Beno]

Originally Posted by WesLangdon

The last British Army cavalry charge was in the course the battle of Omdurman in 1898; today it is a complete military irrelevance and an enormous waste of public money.

according to army records: The last British Army cavalry charge was at the Battle of El Mughar, near Jerusalem, on 13 November 1917. The Buckinghamshire Hussars, supported by the Dorset and Berkshire Yeomanry Regiments, overran a Turkish position

[WesLangdon]

Originally Posted by GordonTarling

Surely it helps the balance of payments by attracting tourists to the country?

This is the daft "royalty brings in tourists" argument, below is detail of the real cost of the monarchy.

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

[WesLangdon]

Originally Posted by Beno

according to army records: The last British Army cavalry charge was at the Battle of El Mughar, near Jerusalem, on 13 November 1917. The Buckinghamshire Hussars, supported by the Dorset and Berkshire Yeomanry Regiments, overran a Turkish position

Not much now though are they? And the cost needs weighing against equipment shortages and inappropriate vehicles used in the Sand Pits. Given that we are an island why do we need an Army at all?

[Palfrem]

The Wermacht still used a lot of horse-drawn kit as late as 1942

[Beno]

Originally Posted by WesLangdon

Not much now though are they? And the cost needs weighing against equipment shortages and inappropriate vehicles used in the Sand Pits. Given that we are an island why do we need an Army at all?

Its a hard question to answer like you say living on an island, however should we stand by and watch the oppression of people in other country's? Maybe would could say what does it have to do with us, why get involved, however if you look back through history there's some pretty sh*ty things have happened when country's army's have done nothing. A good quote ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

[TDE1]

Speaking off the cuff here, but I think the financial argument has it's flaws. Yes, £200m per year is a lot of money. However the cost of disassembling the monarchy would be huge. The link that Wes put in shows the annual cost to France for their Head of State runs to £90m, so let's say a saving of £110m pa, once the transition took place. Couple of Eurofighters' worth? Selling off the Crown estate may pay for the costs of obesity in the UK for year or two, but then what?

Now - I'm far from being a Royalist. Oh no no no. But the old costing-the-taxpayer-money argument is not strong enough. There needs to exist a stronger sentiment, such as the validity of the claim to sovereignty, or it's part in a democratic, modern society, or the cultural diversity of our population. I am sure many would not swear allegiance were they to grasp than no member of the Royal Family obtained their privileges other than by birth / marriage.

However, they are there. It's an outdated birthright, historically won by the sword, but at least nowadays they do go someways towards justifying their existence. I would not trade places with a single one of them.

That's probably put me in the doghouse now, but just wanted to say my piece. (Wes, my father was a Welsh Nationalist, my mother an Irish Republican. Doesn't give me any authority to speak on the matter, just my own perspective having been raised in England!)

My longest ever post too - sorry!

[WesLangdon]

Originally Posted by TDE1

Speaking off the cuff here, but I think the financial argument has it's flaws. Yes, £200m per year is a lot of money. However the cost of disassembling the monarchy would be huge. The link that Wes put in shows the annual cost to France for their Head of State runs to £90m, so let's say a saving of £110m pa, once the transition took place. Couple of Eurofighters' worth? Selling off the Crown estate may pay for the costs of obesity in the UK for year or two, but then what?

Now - I'm far from being a Royalist. Oh no no no. But the old costing-the-taxpayer-money argument is not strong enough. There needs to exist a stronger sentiment, such as the validity of the claim to sovereignty, or it's part in a democratic, modern society, or the cultural diversity of our population. I am sure many would not swear allegiance were they to grasp than no member of the Royal Family obtained their privileges other than by birth / marriage.

However, they are there. It's an outdated birthright, historically won by the sword, but at least nowadays they do go someways towards justifying their existence. I would not trade places with a single one of them.

Neither would I but that is not really the issue. To me its about principle, you can't be a complete democracy with a hereditary head of state. I quite like the German, Israeli, or Irish type of President, almost entirely ceremonial, so it could come at a fraction of the cost of the French "Napoleonic" type of leader. Add up the £200 million a year over Mrs Windsor's tenure and its £12 billion.

[Harrythedog]

Originally Posted by WesLangdon

Neither would I but that is not really the issue. To me its about principle, you can't be a complete democracy with a hereditary head of state. I quite like the German, Israeli, or Irish type of President, almost entirely ceremonial, so it could come at a fraction of the cost of the French "Napoleonic" type of leader. Add up the £200 million a year over Mrs Windsor's tenure and its £12 billion.

I don't think the cost was £200m in 1952, you're just making up figures to strengthen your point of view.

[MOCAŠ]

Originally Posted by WesLangdon

Add up the £200 million a year over Mrs Windsor's tenure and its £12 billion.

That calculation's flawed on two counts: a) the annual cost wasn't £200m 60 years ago , and is rather less than that now; and b) even if it had been £200m for the past 60 years, it would only amount to £12,000m, not £12bn. (Remember, we're talking about Pounds, not US Dollars.)

[balge]

All changing anyway

BBC News - Royal funding changes become law

"The Sovereign Grant Bill introduces a single payment given to the monarch based on 15% of the Crown Estate's revenue from two years previously.

Starting from 2013-14, this funding arrangement will last seven years before it is reviewed.

The Crown Estate has a property portfolio which includes, among other things, Regent Street, Windsor Great Park and much of the UK coastline.

The grant is expected to be £34m in the first year, in line with recent royal spending, our correspondent added."

ps...
How many is a billion? - Oxford Dictionaries Online