Tweet
He is your future king too butters... dont make me come over there and decolonise you.... leaving just the french...
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
-
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
-
Hahahahaha, why not? Then I can send cigars with no hassle!Originally posted by cigarsam View Post
Buying a cup of tea in pounds instead of dollars seems much more legit anyways!
Sent from my BlackBerry 9100 using TapatalkComment
-
I don't mean to be off topic but don't want words put in my mouth. I never thought once about either of those guys. It was said that:Originally posted by butternutsquashpie View PostI don't think Hitler or the Kaiser counts as Germany Ricky
Sir Churchill says: keep calm and carry on!
"It is an interesting dichotomy on how hard the US fought for independence and yet have such love for the Royals."
I gave an example on how it could happen, and a like one at that.Comment
-
sigpicVaya con Dios, Amigos! -
don TJ and the 
CorosComment
-
See, i took you a tad more literally.. and the only ones i could think of that matched your descriptions were WWI and WWII.. the Vikings came to mind too and even the French but those seemed a tad far removed..... Or maybe a relevance to the Germanic Royalty of the Anglosaxon Race, but i couldn't relate it, hence the two WWs came to mind.Originally posted by RickMG View Post
But yes, i'm gonna go with bag boy here and agree with you as well. Methinks it's just the historical aspect as well as the fact that everyon talks about it when they're over there. and the bloody media hype. the usa general public (as well as many parts of the world, don't get me wrong) seems to enjoy shiny things. And when a historical aspect comes up that's so widely covered by the media is embezzled in shiny things, live in shiny things, and owns all sortsa shiny things, then they gotta eat it up, no? (we canucks sure seem to here......
)
Comment
-
Easy answer really..
USA, Canada....new history..
England, Germany....old history
We all want what we haven't got...
& Shsss! don't mention the war!
Comment
-
Just another little drain on UK tax payers' money.........Comment
-
Well if you believe the numbers the royals generate somewhere between ?0.5 and ?1.5 billion per year for uk plc so not really a tax drain.Originally posted by Nightwingvyse View PostOriginally posted by Simon Bolivar
Originally posted by RyanComment
-
Considering my last visit to Her Majesty's Summer House was upwards of ?50, then that figure is quite believable!Originally posted by monkey66 View Post
Sent from my BlackBerry 9100 using TapatalkComment
-
Meh. Good point.Originally posted by monkey66 View Post
So our monarchy serves their country best as a tourist attraction. Figures.Comment
-
They serve their country best by providing a non-political head of state with a sense of duty as opposed to a sense of self-aggrandisement seen in politicians and Presidents around the world...
It's also worth remembering a couple of key points (never mind the thoughts of what the Royals generate in terms of tourist revenue)...
The Monarch's personal estate is the Crown Estate. Since 1760, ALL profits from the Crown Estate have been deferred to the Treasury. No other land owner does this. Annual profits amount to ?200m-?250m. The Queen now receives 15% of this profit. So, in a sense, she pays 85% tax, and then with the money she does get, she has to pay for all expenses related to her work. (That is to say, out of this, she has to pay for all of her staff, travel, expenses, building maintenance etc. A slightly fatuous comparison, I admit, but it's a little bit like being paid by your company and then being told that you need to pay for the building you work in, its security staff, and pop coins into a slot to use your work computer too... Oh, and that conference your boss needs you to represent the firm at... You've got to pay to get yourself there...)
The Queen also 'refunds' the Government for all expenses incurred by other members of the Royal family in the line of their duty.
Further from the expenses scandals suffered by politicians of our own country, and many others you could not imagine...
(I remember reading, a few years ago, an excellent article, comparing the cost of Presidents to those of Monarchies. Generally the former cost the state considerably more money).Comment
-
Bloody good luck to the Queen & her family, I wouldn't fancy her job, poor old dear could have retired by now except she couldn't face putting that chap that talks to plants on the throne...we have enough of those in parliament...
As to what she costs versus benefits...no contest..
I have a humidor that was made especially for Joseph Ejercito Estrada the Ex-President of the Philippines, now have a little look on the web...there's a corrupt money grabbing git for you...we are lucky to have the Monarchy in it's present form...
And besides all that...at least the Queen knows how to behave in public & puts on a smashing spread for tea at the palace...Comment
-
In a way, the sooner he accedes the throne the better. I'm getting a bit tired of hearing about his meddlesome lobbying of politicians, especially after hearing he's been making representations over homeopathyOriginally posted by Puff Scotty View Post
As king there would be no way he could get involved like this without provoking a 'constitutional crisis'.Comment
-
Comment