How do you make profit from running a prison?

But more importantly, what the heck am I doing here at this time of day on June 30?

The Duchy will own the land underneath the prison and charge rents. In the good old days, there were intermediaries in fee between the Crown and the ultimate possessor of the land. So the nation of the British own the prison but have to pay rents to the Prince for the honour of its location on his land.<p>PS - pity me an hour behind.

We rail against the the poor Duke of Cornwall but apparently follow with salivation the exploits of the likes of Prince A-Rod of New York whose salary for 2005 was a likewise obscene $25,705,118 (US) for catching, throwing and hitting a small, white, firm orb? Where, pray tell, lies the sickness and in which society?

Maybe for getting that much for not catching, throwing and hitting a small, white, firm orb? Not basising the revenue on the market and millions paying small amounts collectively to see a person of great specific and entertaining skill.

Both being of little benefit to society - depending on your priorities.

From a baseball player I get entertainment as well as something I might aspire to as a child. I get to see, if I am lucky, the reflection of a physical gift meeting personal will and years of honing team work. It is pure meritocracy and perhaps best of all an unproductive one reminding us that life is not about doing through employment purposes but sometimes doing for the pleasure of excellence. Important values having nothing to do with knowing your place can be learned though baseball.

A nice sentiment, Al, but, dare I say (or naysay),unfortunately logically and intellectually inconsistent by vitue of the lack of proportionality involved.

I'd like to argue but I am in another land.

It is difficult for me to conceive of anything * more * boring than baseball but if people are willing to pay for it then I see no reason people in the sport should not be paid lots and lots of money. I have less reason to feel comfortable about a democratic decision to retain the monarchy, or a specific relationship of the monarchy to the public purse, because representative government has a less clear relationship to choice than markets. Even so, I could vote for a republican party if I was that bothered. Tony Blair's decision to save the monarchy in the days following the death of Diana is one of his greatest legacies and, while I was disappointed at the time, I know believe he was probably right to do so. Charles may not throw and hit a small, white, firm orb for a living but acts as a guarantor of the legitimacy and continuity of the sovereign power that no baseball player has been asked to play.

I cannot buy it, Master Flea, but I have only roots in Scots and nationalists at that and our Treaty of Arbroath for 677 years has confirmed the relationship with the monarchy as has been described in this way:<blockquote class="smalltext">Even today, the Declaration is of enormous constitutional importance as it sets out the Scots relationship with their monarch. Scots are not subjects; in Scotland, the monarch is merely "first among equals", only ruling the people with their consent and assent. Our present queen, therefore, is Queen of Scots, not Queen of Scotland. This differs radically from the constitutional position in England and Wales, where the people are subjects of the monarch who rules them whether they like it or not.</blockquote>Given that I can imagine a team of me's playing baseball against the Yankees not being "one among equals" I still am on the side of meritocracy.

Its not that hard a concept: Baseball players get paid millions because people are willing to pay to see them play. Is it fair that a few get paid that much to catch a few balls? No. But, if that's where people want to spend their money, that's the choices that are made. And the best at it, get paid the most. In relation to the monarchy, royals get paid millions because their ancestors were meaner and tougher and wanted their legacy of riches to live on in perpetuity. I might make as good a royal as Prince Charles, but I'm not given the chance. People might want to pay me millions of dollars to be a royal, but they don't have the choice. That's the fundamental difference. The whole baseball millionaire argument, though, is quite a red herring in relation to talking about why we preserve a monarchy system where a certain class of people syphon off millions from the public purse based only on the advantage of who their parents are.

My level of respect for royalty was further enriched today.