Bill Walker
Well-Known Member
your not supposed to just agree...:)
Its why Ive no time for Royalty, at least Trump was voted for by US citizens.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Royal Wedding
- Thread starter kaz7
- Start date
Its why Ive no time for Royalty, at least Trump was voted for by US citizens.
your not supposed to just agree...:)
Its why Ive no time for Royalty, at least Trump was voted for by US citizens.
Ha! Sorry. That's what I meant by saying cost isn't a brilliant argument against the monarchy. Yours above is.
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
Because we would need a Head of State. Don't want a monarch, then it's a President.
Prime minister?
Prime minister?
No. See above. PM is Head of Government. Need a Head of State too.
But it is all ceremonial nowadays - Head of State is not a 'practical' title now.
We accept paying money to maintain Stonehenge and the Tower of London - there is just a seeming sense of 'born lucky' to this is people's minds understandably
But when children are born to rich families and enjoy the trappings for the rest of their lives - without having to perform the 'duties' the Royal Family do.
I am no misty-eyed royalist, but I think that the balance is right now all the extended family on the public purse has been culled - they likely bring far more revenue into the country than they cost through tourism - what's not to like?
We accept paying money to maintain Stonehenge and the Tower of London - there is just a seeming sense of 'born lucky' to this is people's minds understandably
But when children are born to rich families and enjoy the trappings for the rest of their lives - without having to perform the 'duties' the Royal Family do.
I am no misty-eyed royalist, but I think that the balance is right now all the extended family on the public purse has been culled - they likely bring far more revenue into the country than they cost through tourism - what's not to like?
Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 20,521
In my view we are extremely fortunate to be alive during the reign of Elizabeth 2. She has done a great deal to enhance the Uk including modernising the royal family, expanding the commonwealth and overseeing all of the charitable initiatives she and her immediate family sponsor. That doesn’t touch on the tourist revenue she generates. I genuinely believe it will be a sad day when she goes. If you look at what went before her and what will come after, I doubt I will be as supportive.
Oh, and I do not give one flying fuck about Beatrice bloody wedding. If that was funded by taxpayer it’s wrong.
Oh, and I do not give one flying fuck about Beatrice bloody wedding. If that was funded by taxpayer it’s wrong.
M
M
mat
Guest
I read this post with the national anthem playing in my head spoken in the voice of a retired Colonel.In my view we are extremely fortunate to be alive during the reign of Elizabeth 2. She has done a great deal to enhance the Uk including modernising the royal family, expanding the commonwealth and overseeing all of the charitable initiatives she and her immediate family sponsor. That doesn’t touch on the tourist revenue she generates. I genuinely believe it will be a sad day when she goes. If you look at what went before her and what will come after, I doubt I will be as supportive.
Oh, and I do not give one flying fuck about Beatrice bloody wedding. If that was funded by taxpayer it’s wrong.
Couple of points... What do you mean by “ modernising the Royal Family” , has Charlie ditched those 60’s crombies he walks around with his hands in his pockets. Or, are you now saying you can text Will or Harry for a meet up at the local wine bar.In my view we are extremely fortunate to be alive during the reign of Elizabeth 2. She has done a great deal to enhance the Uk including modernising the royal family, expanding the commonwealth and overseeing all of the charitable initiatives she and her immediate family sponsor. That doesn’t touch on the tourist revenue she generates. I genuinely believe it will be a sad day when she goes. If you look at what went before her and what will come after, I doubt I will be as supportive.
Oh, and I do not give one flying fuck about Beatrice bloody wedding. If that was funded by taxpayer it’s wrong.
As regards the Commonwealth your a fool if you believe the vast majority of countries are staying in because they like Queenie. They are in there because of the Perks they get from the UK.
Without sounding like Corbyn, they can be summed up in 3 words, Wealth, Priviledge and Class. They are all there due to an accident at birth and not on merit.
The wedding WILL have been funded by the taxpayer. She comes from a family of scrounges who pay as little as possible in life. Do you honestly think any of them will have offered to stump up the £2 million to cover the costs.
The Queens done a good job, I admit, if you like that sort of thing, but as regards Charlie and the Aldulteress taking over and offering value for money, forget it.
The tourists would still come in their droves,particularly if the Royal Palaces with access all areas, were opened on the death of the Queen.
Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 20,521
I wrote only about the Queen who on a personal basis I admire. If you can’t see the modernisation that she has delivered to the Royal family then you don’t know the history of post war Uk and I have no inclination to teach you.Couple of points... What do you mean by “ modernising the Royal Family” , has Charlie ditched those 60’s crombies he walks around with his hands in his pockets. Or, are you now saying you can text Will or Harry for a meet up at the local wine bar.
As regards the Commonwealth your a fool if you believe the vast majority of countries are staying in because they like Queenie. They are in there because of the Perks they get from the UK.
Without sounding like Corbyn, they can be summed up in 3 words, Wealth, Priviledge and Class. They are all there due to an accident at birth and not on merit.
The wedding WILL have been funded by the taxpayer. She comes from a family of scrounges who pay as little as possible in life. Do you honestly think any of them will have offered to stump up the £2 million to cover the costs.
The Queens done a good job, I admit, if you like that sort of thing, but as regards Charlie and the Aldulteress taking over and offering value for money, forget it.
The tourists would still come in their droves,particularly if the Royal Palaces with access all areas, were opened on the death of the Queen.
Gremlin
Well-Known Member
your not supposed to just agree...:)
Its why Ive no time for Royalty, at least Trump was voted for by US citizens.
Trump is a perfect example of why having an elected head of state may not be as great an idea as people think. One of the purposes of a head of state is to act as a figurehead and rise above the differences across the country - a lot harder when they are elected and automatically have a polarising effect.
They had a referendum in Australia a couple of years ago where the options were to keep the Queen or become a republic and have an elected head of state. They took one look at the available candidates for an elected position and said 'Nah mate, we'll stick with Liz'.