Who cares if the Dutchess of Cambridge is having a girl.

I can thoroughly recommend her autobiography absent, the title is 'Everybody Matters' which just about sums up her attitudes and actions. I felt even more of a soft spot for her when I learned that she came from the same area of Ireland as my FIL, sadly long dead. I like to think he might have known her family

nightowl No, it wasn't a rhetorical question although I rather suspected she was a fairly "ordinary" woman. I keep mentioning her because I too admire her and think the model of a president in her mode would be a Good Thing. So, thank you for that information.

Sorry absent if your question was rhetorical, but I really admire this woman.

Not at all absent. I am reading her autobiography and she came from a fairly wealthy Irish family, but no political dynasty. In her words 'mine was a privileged family living in a community that had its share of grinding poverty.....' Her parents were both doctors. Fascinating woman.

Was/is Mary Robinson very rich or from a political dynasty?

See my last post!

I see that Danny Boyle has suggested J. K. Rowling for President of the UK.

You may not know and probably don't care but a lot of revenue comes into the UK because other countries do like our Queen. My sister and her friends in Germany buy memorabilia and take it back, they have parties to celebrate every royal event. DD in Belgium has friends who have walls covered in pictures of the royal family. Tourists time their visits to coincide with events, can't see that happening with a president.

No Barrow, I don't think a president would 'do the dishes'. What I don't like is the adulation and false 'love' that people seem to have. For example , I'm sure the Duchess of cambridge is a perfectly decent person ( though none of us really knows her) but suddenly she is is elivated to some super being just because she is married into the royal family. The same happened with Diana. It was tragically sad when she died so young but the grief outpouring from much of the public leads me to wonder how they cope when somebody close to them that they actualy know dies.

No, I wouldn't want the Queens job any more than I would want many other jobs, but I wouldn't mind some of the perks.

And do you think that anyone who wasn't from a very rich and privileged background, or someone who had become very rich, would end up as president? Look around! Whole dynasties of 'democratically elected' heads of state all over the world.

ginny do you think that a president would go to the office work 9 - 5 and then go home to do the housework? I don't have strong feelings one way or the other regarding the royal family but am a strong believer in if it aint broke dont fix it.

'To have to visit somewhere you do not particularly want to go must be a chore in itself '

Thousands of people do this 5 days or more every week and then go home to wash the dishes, hoover up, do the laundry look after the children and cook the tea and hope they have enough money to get to the end of the month.

The rent is £336,000 a year.

I believe that Charles sold Highgrove to the duchy estate for a huge sum and he was the only beneficiary. He then rented it back to himself for a peppercorn rent. Could be wrong ?

Don't be fooled into thinking the royals pay tax willingly because they do not. They will also have the best accountants money can buy shifting assets around like nobody's business .

Lilygran I think the Duchy of Cornwall is inherited by each Duke of Cornwall. In any case, it's just hair splitting in that the entire income goes to supporting the Prince of Wales – who, begrudgingly, agrees how much tax he will pay.

JessM Yes, the queen holds plenty of personal assets which are kept a fairly closely guarded secret and she also, begrudgingly, agrees how much tax she will pay. Also, when pops her bucket, no inheritance tax will be payable on her estate.

Wikipedia - "The duchy was created with the express purpose of providing income to the heir apparent to the throne; thus, it traditionally goes to the eldest son of the reigning monarch. Although the duke owns the income from the estate, he does not own the estate outright and does not have the right to sell capital assets for his own benefit"

And - " since 1993 Prince Charles has voluntarily agreed to pay income tax at the normal rates. Approximately half of this income was spent on public and charitable works"

And - "Since the passing into law of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall will pass to the heir to the throne, regardless of whether that heir is the Duke of Cornwall. In the event that the heir is a minor, 10% of the revenues will pass to the heir, with the balance passing to the Crown."

lily does that also apply to the Duchy of Cornwall? I thought that came under personal wealth? And does the queen not hold personal assets as well?

absent Charles doesn't own it! The Crown owns it! It isn't like Beckham's houses or Trumps mansions! Or my car! Crown property is now effectively owned by the state, not the sovereign. www.thecrownestate.co.uk/

Freedom of info act also covers private meetings between Charles and government ministers. Details were refused along with some flannel about his training to be a monarch. One assumes the health one is going to be along the lines of the country would be better off if we had homeopathic hospitals in every town and an NHS homeopath in every GP surgery. Dread to think what he might have to say on other topics. Or should we take face value that he was humbly asking questions to increase his understanding of the affairs of state.

Eloethan Prince Charles, as Duke of Cornwall, not only owns a huge chunk of Cornwall but also a huge chunk of London.

RecycledTeenager A monarch versus an American-style president is a very tired old comparison and remains totally false. There are all kinds of models for a president, not just the American one. Someone like Ireland's Mary Robinson would be wonderful and a lot less expensive than either the Queen or an American-style president.

We have no way of really knowing what difference the presence of the royal family makes to tourism figures. There have been countless polls and most of them come up with different conclusions. However, if you are inclined to believe statistics, there's an article in the Independent today reporting that a recent US poll demonstrates that if the UK were to become a republic it would not affect Americans' decision to come here on holiday.

I think it's a shame we talk this country down by implying that the only thing it's got going for it is a royal family. We have a wonderful capital city, which has a large amount of green space and beautiful museums, as well as many interesting, vibrant and different cities throughout the UK, AND beautiful and varied countryside - The Yorkshire dales, the Scottish highlands, the Cornish coast, Dartmoor, Exmoor, the Sussex downs, the Lake district, the Welsh valleys, to name but a few.

As for the royal family being "good value", the official estimated annual cost is £38.3m, but once "hidden" costs are included (such as round-the-clock security, lavish overseas visits and travel arrangements, the lost revenue from the Duchy of Cornwall - how can we justify Prince Charles owning most of Cornwall)?, it's estimated that the actual cost is more like £202.4m. Anyway, we'll never know because the monarchy's finances are exempt from the scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act.

JO8 you are winding us up again , aren,t you ?

thanks jo8 x

I think we should have David Cameron as President with Samantha as First Lady.

The touriests would flock in.