William and Kate [Merged]

[Northern3]

dickie davies that is a bit gutter level,but it did make me laugh :)

 

[Seosa]

Maybe watching Emmerdale isn't that bad after all,my missus records Kyle everyday while shes at work,strange really as she is a intelligent person :(

Maybe she enjoys a laugh at the expense of the less wise

 

[stonerblue]

Re: Bill and Kate.

These 'scrotes' you mention....I'm sure if they were offered a life-swap with any prominent member of the Royal family the huge majority of them would jump at the offer.

Nah, they wouldn't be able to sit on their arses drinking cheap lager and watching Jermey Kyle all day.

True, it would be Chivas while watching daddy flog the servants.

 

[Matty]

After the Camilla debacle at least this ones a looker.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Dear me. A lot of anti royalists here. They are always the first ones to scream about how they are not interested, it's an anachronism, waste of money, blah blah. Sorry to piss on your chips but in every survey made over the past years the monarchy has always found favour with the majority of British people.
I can understand some of the arguments but every country has and needs a head of state.
If you go the republican route you will find yourselves forking out considerably more for the privilege, as Corky pointed out the French Presidency costs around 3 times the British monarchy and can everybody on here name the President? Heads of state including France's are traditionally used as representatives only and as such are a-political and the Queen has undeniably done a good job and is admired around the world for this. At least we have an instantly recognised figurehead, not some chancer like Blair who would kill to be European president.

 

[dannybcity]

Sorry to piss on your chips but in every survey made over the past years the monarchy has always found favour with the majority of British people.
.

Well presumable the majority of the British people wouldn't object to a referendum then, it would be a great way to prove to us "anti royalists" that the monarchy still has a place in British society.

 

[stonerblue]

I'd rather a "parasite" who brings money, stability and pride into the country instead of some benefit cheat.

Someones got to be 'in charge', and even though we have to elect our true democratic leader, its good to know we have a head of state who isnt a lying politician.We probably spend the same on our Royal Family as the Americans pay for the fuel on Air Force One. I know which I'd rather pay for

Although she hides her family finances and dodges tax as well as any MP.

Conservative estimates put the cost of the royal family to the tax payer at around £180 Million a year.
http://www.republic.org.uk/What we want/In depth/Royal finances/index.php

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Dear me. A lot of anti royalists here. They are always the first ones to scream about how they are not interested, it's an anachronism, waste of money, blah blah. Sorry to piss on your chips but in every survey made over the past years the monarchy has always found favour with the majority of British people.
I can understand some of the arguments but every country has and needs a head of state.
If you go the republican route you will find yourselves forking out considerably more for the privilege, as Corky pointed out the French Presidency costs around 3 times the British monarchy and can everybody on here name the President? Heads of state including France's are traditionally used as representatives only and as such are a-political and the Queen has undeniably done a good job and is admired around the world for this. At least we have an instantly recognised figurehead, not some chancer like Blair who would kill to be European president.

Yes,there are a lot of anti-monarchists on here,possibly because this is a thread about the forthcoming royal wedding,and many of us see them as a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere,especially during a recession.
I appreciate that the gravy train is even more expensive to run in France,but merely pointing out that others spend more money pointlessly than we do is not a justification for maintaining the status quo.
Personally,I don't see why we can't just vote to elect some respected,non-political figure who doesn't need the money and have them as an international ambassador,and cut the cost of having to maintain an entourage of royal hangers-on.
Of course the Queen is 'instantly recognised' - she's on all the currency and stamps,so she will be,but then David Beckham is instantly recognised the world over,and he is a prick - so that doesn't say much for instant recognition.
B'liar would never take the job of monarch,however,as he couldn't handle the pay cut.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Nice thought and not one I disagree with in principle, to have an ambassador but we may as well stick with what we've got as the other way will undoubtedly rocket in price with no real benefit. Agree with you about Tone as well. Grasping get.

 

[dannybcity]

Although she hides her family finances and dodges tax as well as any MP.

Conservative estimates put the cost of the royal family to the tax payer at around £180 Million a year.
http://www.republic.org.uk/What we want/In depth/Royal finances/index.php

Thanks for that stonerblue, just had a read of that site and agree with almost everything on it.