Duchess of Cambridge baby economic boost

The birth of a baby to the Duchess of Cambridge (former Kate Middleton) is expected to bring a boost to the UK economy on the order of 1/3 billion US$.

I am not sure how they calculate that figure. I doubt that anyone is going to have a baby, just because one of the royals are pregnant. It does seem obvious that people will purchase clothing, and baby items designed to copy those of the Duchess. But presumably they would have bought those items anyway, they will just change styles and colors.

The birth of Princess Elizabeth in 1926 started massive runs on the color yellow in London and America. The Queen Mother wanted everything in yellow (a color which was relatively rare 87 years ago).

If the bookmakers are taking bets on the gender/name/weight/etc., there will be economic value for the bookmakers.

The direct expenditures on the royal family are roughly 1/3 of 1% of international tourist receipts. The UK consistently draws more international visitors than Germany (although Germany is slightly higher in receipts). But Germany has considerably more land area and population.

Most people believe that the expenditures on the royal family are more than justified by tourism receipts alone. Many others believe that the cost of maintaining the palaces and a president would be higher, and the benefits of a president would be smaller than having a royal family. In Europe, Prime Ministers and Chancellors are perceived as heads of government, not heads of state. Europe eschews the Western Hemisphere idea of having one person for both duties.

I suppose if international consumers purchase British products simply because the Duchess has them, then there is a benefit. But it seems to make little difference if British people purchase yellow baby prams or blue baby prams simply because they are copying the Duchess.

Quote: Pacomartin

Most people believe that the expenditures on the royal family are more than justified by tourism receipts alone. Many others believe that the cost of maintaining the palaces and a president would be higher, and the benefits of a president would be smaller than having a royal family.

Perhaps so. But does the Royal family have to be hereditary? I know that's the custom for royalty, but it hasn't always been that way. You coudl have an alection, say by the House fo Lords, for a new Monarch whenever the old one passes away or abdicates. They could elect, for life, anyone from the current royal family or the "nobility," or anyone at all for that matter. The Romans (come on, you were expecting this) did something similar when they were a kingdom.

Another good Roman practice whioch could be adopted is to ahve the monarch chose a successor not necessarily related, or not necesarily in line for the throne. It does bear saying that Roman emperors did this only when they had no sons of their own to pass the throne to.

Quote: Nareed

They could elect, for life, anyone from the current royal family or the "nobility," or anyone at all for that matter.

The Scottish system was called Tanistry, where the Lord's elected a new king, but the candidates were drawn from a small group of people with tight hereditary bonds with the former monarch.

The Parliamentary decision in 1701 to write a law that would cover not only the next monarch, but all future monarchs, after King William, and his sister in law died, was the final affirmation that Parliament could select the monarch. As they fully expected conflict (which there was with Bonny Prince Charlie), the made the rules of succession non-negotiable.

If you are going to elect someone, then you might as well elect a president. Germany replaced their monarch with a President in 1919.

When Hindenburg died in 1934 Hitler abolished the office pf President entirely, and replaced it with the new position of Führer und Reichskanzler cementing his dictatorship. Hitler has been Chancellor of Germany since January 1933.

The problem with the elected president is that they are almost unknown internationally. There have been 6 German presidents since Germany was re-united in 1984, and most people outside of Europe couldn't name one. But many educated people know the name of at least one of the chancellors in this time period.

Quote: Pacomartin

There have been 6 German presidents since Germany was re-united in 1984

Buh, buh, wha...? Surely you mean 1990, sir.

Quote:

and most people outside of Europe couldn't name one. But many educated people know the name of at least one of the chancellors in this time period.

I would hope people could at least name Adenauer or Brandt since they were the ones who had the most impact (even though Kohl presided over unification).

The only president of Germany worth knowing is Theodor Heuss. The other office-holders are largely irrelevant, much like the president of Italy.

Quote: Pacomartin

If you are going to elect someone, then you might as well elect a president. Germany replaced their monarch with a President in 1919.

If you're going to have a popular election, then yes. But for a limited election by a few highly placed people, then no.

This is entirely hypothetical, but I'm handling something along these lines in an SF series still in the planning stage.

Quote: Nareed

This is entirely hypothetical, but I'm handling something along these lines in an SF series still in the planning stage.

Then I would use the Scottish Tanistry as your guide.

Thanks.

But it is a relatively minor point mostly handled in background and exposition. For example, in the current story I'm working on, all it's good for is explaining why the planet's governor is affectionately referred to as "Prince" rather than "Governor" by the people. And why the title does not imply a desire for an absolute monarchy.

This young lady was so happy to get a camera shot of the princes, that the photograph of her has become the media sensation.