
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68601344
Peter Loo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 12:02 pmThere all heart aren't they![]()
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68601344
I misread your post and I thought it was 'the grifter business of public duty.'TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 2:27 pm"There will have been a sense of relief from Prince William to get back to the grittier business of public duty
![]()
Absolutely agree with this.bfcjg wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 6:05 pmI suppose we need a head of state and if so I'd sooner have what we have as opposed to a Putin, Trump,Biden Macron etc. It's all ceremonial they have no actual power and wouldn't have a hope of standing against parliament.
That said the antiquated House of Lords needs scrapping, a load of daft old fart lords, ladies, bishops and cronies playing ping pong with the sitting government of noth parties whilst drawing a fortune in expenses is tiresome.
Well if that is her at the farm shop then she looks an awful lot better not dressed up.
Princess Anne ,she is visiting the local community centre,the community shop and the Trawden Arms. Plus other places. Well done to Trawden public and all involved for their hard work on the community spirit..
Don't have him pegged as a good egg, personally, but each to their own.
So you would keep an unelected bunch of people receiving large amounts of public money for doing very little but scrap the second house that is part of our governmental process (and stops or at least puts a break on extreme policies). The only thing that needs changing is making the House of Lords (or our second house) elected. The monarch doesn’t need to be there as head of state and their replacement doesn’t have to be anyone like Trump et al. It should be just the prime minister and as bad as some are or have been I don’t think this country has ever produced anything like Trump or ever will. We don’t have gun toting hoards of rednecks with the brain power of a gnat.bfcjg wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 6:05 pmI suppose we need a head of state and if so I'd sooner have what we have as opposed to a Putin, Trump,Biden Macron etc. It's all ceremonial they have no actual power and wouldn't have a hope of standing against parliament.
That said the antiquated House of Lords needs scrapping, a load of daft old fart lords, ladies, bishops and cronies playing ping pong with the sitting government of noth parties whilst drawing a fortune in expenses is tiresome.
Now imagine how much more money the Castles, Palaces & Estates would bring in if they were opened up for visitors for a fee?
We would demand that they were sold off to build houses or fund the reckless and feckless in our countryCoolClaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 2:53 pmNow imagine how much more money the Castles, Palaces & Estates would bring in if they were opened up for visitors for a fee?
Those 18 were prime ministers chosen by parties - I didn't vote for a single one of them, but their constituents did. If the UK was a republic, the people would elect a president, however, we would still have a prime minister.mdd2 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 2:23 pmBe careful what you wish for when it comes to a Monarchy or Republic. Presidents Atlee, Churchill, Eden, MacMillan, Home, Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak & Starmer. All in the time of George, Elizabeth and Charles PERISH THE THOUGHT of those 18 as heads of state
Really? what do you think of Prince Andrew's conduct then ?
I love this line. They should be feted for paying taxes that everyone else would be sent to prison if they didn't pay.mdd2 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 2:23 pmRecent attempts to measure the size of the impact of the royal family on UK tourism have estimated the capital value of UK monarchy as a business to be £67.5 billion (up from £44 billion in 2012) and the annual contribution to the UK economy to be £1.766 billion.
And then both the monarch and Duchy of Cornwall have paid capital gains tax and income tax voluntarily for past 32 years.
Be careful what you wish for when it comes to a Monarchy or Republic. Presidents Atlee, Churchill, Eden, MacMillan, Home, Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak & Starmer. All in the time of George, Elizabeth and Charles PERISH THE THOUGHT of those 18 as heads of state
In what way do they “put a shift in” ?mdd2 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 6:52 pmReally? what do you think of Prince Andrew's conduct then ?
Appalling
As was Lloyd George and I expect many other politicians we tax payers fund none more than Boris when he was PM.
On the plus side, and I know the tax payer pays alot out, Duke of Edinburgh Award, Princes Trust and their name attached to many charities helps to swell their coffers.
Already stated i am not a "Royal" but I think many put in a shift far more than many in this country.
But Andrew and his behaviour-not good-but then "an erect penis has no conscience."
And we better not go there with our male politicians-from Lloyd George, Profumo, Ron Davies, Jeremy Thorpe, Cyril Smith and beyond.
They do what they're told by the Tory party, (ie in their complicity over suspension of Parliament) in the full knowledge that theyd have been given the bum's rush decades ago without them.
Not just in theory. If we get a Putin head of government, or any leader who decides to abolish free elections, then the Head of State has the power to chuck him out. The Army swear allegiance to the head of state, so do the police and the courts. The beauty of our system os that most of the power, especially the power to be a dictator, are in the hands of someone who can't use it - but while the King has the power that he can't use, no=one else can use it either.Big Vinny K wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2024 10:40 amAs for the point about it’s better for royal family to be “head of state” than some of the PMs we have had. Whilst in theory this may be ideologically correct - in practice the head of state is powerless in terms of any decisions that matter. The PM is effectively the head of state - their powers are little or no different to the president of a country without a royal family
So you want a quick £292.30 each, versus putting £1.766 billion into the economy every year?
Paris doesn't seem to have a problem with tourist numbers, despite the lack of a Royal family.box_of_frogs wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 10:37 amSo you want a quick £292.30 each, versus putting £1.766 billion into the economy every year?
Seems like a great deal.