Why Do We Pay for Harry's Visit?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Why Do We Pay for Harry's Visit?

Bluntj

556 posts

Ultimate Geek

#242313 21-Oct-2018 12:16

I have just been reading about how much this visit by Harry and his wife is going to cost us the NZ taxpayer and am wondering why should we?

Harry is not anywhere near to being our head of state or in fact anything to do with our democracy. All I can conclude is that he and his wife are a couple of celebrities with close royal ties that the Government is supporting. Shouldn't this million dollars be spent where it is needed?

I do support our current method of democracy over a republic because it does seem to work well and costs a lot less than a republic would. But should we really be supporting children of a future King to visit our shores?

Look forward to your views.

1 | 2

3525 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2111825 21-Oct-2018 12:28

In the bigger scheme of things it's not all that much public money and I don't mind a few of my taxpayer dollars going to this.

I can take or leave the royal family myself, but Harry and Meghan seem nice enough and a lot of NZers will get pleasure out of seeing them here and potentially even shaking their hands.

Did Eric Clapton really think she looked wonderful...or was it after the 15th outfit she tried on and he just wanted to get to the party and get a drink?

throbb

675 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2111826 21-Oct-2018 12:35

A huge number of people still love the royals and it brings them enjoyment. Really no different from the government funding arts, culture and sporting events that only a portion of the population would see or enjoy.

l43a2

1779 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2111828 21-Oct-2018 12:43

its a pretty cheap deal to expose New Zealand to the world.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18668 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2111882 21-Oct-2018 15:42

Interesting points above. I have no interest whatsoever in the 'royal' family or any of their doings and I feel my gorge rise every time some fawning sycophant starts gushing over them on the TV and I rush to change the channel as quickly as possible, but I do also think they are relatively harmless and if they do bring pleasure to some people, though I can't imagine why, what is the problem with that? But I don't think we should be paying for it. They have enough money of their own.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

gehenna

8521 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2111887 21-Oct-2018 16:04

Why do we talk about this every time it happens? https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=48&topicid=143433

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2111889 21-Oct-2018 16:08

He is the son of our Head of State and it is orders of magnitude better than the alternatives, reference USA.

gehenna

8521 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2111890 21-Oct-2018 16:09

MikeB4:

He is the son of our Head of State and it is orders of magnitude better than the alternatives, reference USA.

Grandson?

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2111902 21-Oct-2018 16:13

gehenna:

MikeB4:

He is the son of our Head of State and it is orders of magnitude better than the alternatives, reference USA.

Grandson?

I was preempting just in case things changed while I typed. I am a very slow typist

Dingbatt

6760 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2114378 26-Oct-2018 12:54

Barrack Obama's visit cost the taxpayer $30K and he's not even 'part of the family'. (According to NZHerald, Stuff, RadioNZ websites in case I get asked for references).
As said above, cheap international publicity, as long as we don't embarrass ourselves.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2114417 26-Oct-2018 13:10

MikeB4:

gehenna:

MikeB4:

He is the son of our Head of State and it is orders of magnitude better than the alternatives, reference USA.

Grandson?

I was preempting just in case things changed while I typed. I am a very slow typist

She's still alive (AFAIK).

If she reaches the age her mother did and doesn't abdicate, at the coronation of Charles, he'll be about 78 years old, and planning to devote the next 70 or 80 years of his life promoting the virtues of homeopathy.

Bluntj

556 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2114488 26-Oct-2018 15:19

Fred99:

MikeB4:

gehenna:

MikeB4:

He is the son of our Head of State and it is orders of magnitude better than the alternatives, reference USA.

Grandson?

I was preempting just in case things changed while I typed. I am a very slow typist

She's still alive (AFAIK).

If she reaches the age her mother did and doesn't abdicate, at the coronation of Charles, he'll be about 78 years old, and planning to devote the next 70 or 80 years of his life promoting the virtues of homeopathy.

Would it be such a bad thing if our head of state skipped a generation? Thats what I would like to see as I have no time for Charles at all.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2114511 26-Oct-2018 16:07

Bluntj:

Would it be such a bad thing if our head of state skipped a generation? Thats what I would like to see as I have no time for Charles at all.

I believe that's entirely up to him, peasants don't usually get to choose the fate of kings - at least not without bloodshed.

I'm actually quite happy about the prospect, I think many people share your view - and that has to be good for the republican movement in Aus and NZ.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2114533 26-Oct-2018 16:36

I am neutral on Prince Charles. I don't think he will be bad but also not good.

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2114705 26-Oct-2018 21:16

Fred99:

Bluntj:

Would it be such a bad thing if our head of state skipped a generation? Thats what I would like to see as I have no time for Charles at all.

I believe that's entirely up to him, peasants don't usually get to choose the fate of kings - at least not without bloodshed.

I'm actually quite happy about the prospect, I think many people share your view - and that has to be good for the republican movement in Aus and NZ.

I'm not a particular lover of the monarchy but seriously, do you want a President instead (I'm thinking Trump/Putin/Maduro here) and probably a written constitution with all the grief that would cause.

Staying with a monarchy that costs us pretty well nothing is a much easier option IMO.

gzt

17165 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2114710 26-Oct-2018 21:50

Bluntj: Would it be such a bad thing if our head of state skipped a generation?

Imo yes. Charles has 50 odd years preparing to be head of state. Better Charles for 20 years then let him give it up if he wants to. The younger chap can gallivant around saving stuff and being nice to people and finding out that Africa is not a country for a few more years instead of being burdened with the affairs of state..

1 | 2