kaz7
Well-Known Member
Another one who doesn't understand what a feminist is and how the royal family works,she is also a millionare in her own right
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
smudgedj
Well-Known Member
Of course I do. It’s a woman who doesn’t know their place in life.Another one who doesn't understand what a feminist is and how the royal family works,she is also a millionare in her own right
When she steps out of line as a wife of a member of the the royal family she will be be firmly put back in her box, no matter how much cash she has in the bank.
Which is why the marriage won’t last.
kaz7
Well-Known Member
Poor effort that post mate,up your game lolOf course I do. It’s a woman who doesn’t know their place in life.
When she steps out of line as a wife of a member of the the royal family she will be be firmly put back in her box, no matter how much cash she has in the bank.
Which is why the marriage won’t last.
smudgedj
Well-Known Member
Best I can do. I’m on a lot of prescription meds today lolPoor effort that post mate,up your game lol
kaz7
Well-Known Member
I can tell lolBest I can do. I’m on a lot of prescription meds today lol
johnmc
Well-Known Member
Oh look he’s back. Hello mate.
The above poster said it’s not the Royal Family but the land, estates, events etc. that bring in the tourism.
Can you see why I brought up your post?
My argument is that it pays for itself, it’s very easy to understand.
All the figures that portray the royal family not to cost the taxpayers anything or even to be beneficial do not include security. One of the biggest costs I’m sure you would agree. It also includes a lot of money with regards to rent of estates that would be not be effected if there was a royal family or not, again I’m sure you would agree.
The royal family is a tradition and heritage of this country. I get that. But the argument it doesn’t cost the taxpayers money is frankly a myth.
All the figures that portray the royal family not to cost the taxpayers anything or even to be beneficial do not include security. One of the biggest costs I’m sure you would agree. It also includes a lot of money with regards to rent of estates that would be not be effected if there was a royal family or not, again I’m sure you would agree.
The royal family is a tradition and heritage of this country. I get that. But the argument it doesn’t cost the taxpayers money is frankly a myth.
I’m well aware that it costs the taxpayer, that’s not my point, it is that it is worth it due to the revenue it brings in, which makes up the costs and then some.
Apologies for having a life and not waiting with baited breath for you to post.
My original point was correct then and still is now.
And good luck with going down to London for a mooch around their free house with all the other tourists, i'm sure the happy couple will gladly give you a guided tour...
Oh get you.
I love how you and the other anti-royal poster are making the opposite points.
You’re argument was extremely specific to a certain building and didn’t factor that it’s been under royal ownership for centuries anyway.
Your wider point held absolutely no ground at all.
johnmc
Well-Known Member
I’m well aware that it costs the taxpayer, that’s not my point, it is that it is worth it due to the revenue it brings in, which makes up the costs and then some.
But it doesn’t is my point.
But it doesn’t is my point.
An independent consultancy called Brand Finance estimated in 2017 that the monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy to be around £1.8bn a year.
If true or even close then that’s over double what the sternest Republican groups claim they cost per annum.