well i wouldnt say the royals are everything british. i hate the perception of the British people, you know the one about the royals, the stereotypes thought by non-british (no offence to non british). i have nothing against the royal family because they were born that way so they cant help their heritage.
Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
£1 a year is what it costs everone to keep the Royals. Thats it £1 pound not £100 not £200... £1 pound. You can't buy a 99 Ice Cream for a pound so they are pretty cheap to keep.
Clearly missed the part about "Those who don't wish to contribute to them shouldn't have to".
£1 or £100, it's too much for a family of inbred leeches that cost ANYTHING for doing NOTHING at all. Oh...oh, they provide us with an image. Great. Not an image I want.
-AC
As said on the previous page, Mist, most of the time the tabloids are the only reason anyone remembers them.
They share the pages with David Beckham and "Posh" Spice...and lose the fight for interest. People would rather read about those two than the royals, but when the question is raised as to removing them, people are up in arms because they feel they have to love them. Our country is pathetically obsessed with nobodies, it's depressing.
-AC
I doubt it'd ever happen here, purely because of people viewing them as something essential for a reason only God must know and shared with only them.
Mech complained about paying for people on the dole (dunno if you know what that is), ironically the monarchy really aren't that much different. They "look nicer" though, allegedly.
-AC
Make public appearances now and then.
Yes that's it. If you mean what do they do with the benefit to our country, people tend to claim that they generate tourist revenue. I can only assume this revenue is create by idiots who come here thinking they'll actually see a monarch. However, even that is arguable, but we'll never know just how much revenue they create until they're gone. I don't believe we'd suffer in their loss, to be quite honest.
Then of course there's the donating of money to the treasury, which they take from other people and don't give it back. Yet people are willing to pay it, pay for their upkeep. That's what I found funny about Mech's statement. People on the dole are people on benefit, unemployed. He doesn't want to pay for those, but he'll pay for famous people doing the same thing just because they contrive a false image for our country.
I say if they are willing to pay then they should pay more. If they're so worth keeping, pay the way of those who wish not to have them.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As said on the previous page, Mist, most of the time the tabloids are the only reason anyone remembers them.They share the pages with David Beckham and "Posh" Spice...and lose the fight for interest. People would rather read about those two than the royals, but when the question is raised as to removing them, people are up in arms because they feel they have to love them. Our country is pathetically obsessed with nobodies, it's depressing.
-AC
Thats why a picture of Diania or or The Queen on the front page sells more copies than any that have Wayne Roony or Posh&Becks dressed up in coyboy out fits ever will. Please do your research when making such bold stements, you can't speak for the country when you TELL people that no rememers them but for the Sun or Daily Star or whatever paper you choos to read.
They definately are more of "novelty" now as far as I can tell. I do believe that they still are an attraction to many who aren't British.
Funniest thing is with Charles and Andrew..they have buckets full of money..and still can't score hot chicks. Guess this only goes to show one that wealth can't get them everything in life.
Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Thats why a picture of Diania or or The Queen on the front page sells more copies than any that have Wayne Roony or Posh&Becks dressed up in coyboy out fits ever will. Please do your research when making such bold stements, you can't speak for the country when you TELL people that no rememers them but for the Sun or Daily Star or whatever paper you choos to read.
Spelling obviously not a strong point. Nor is reading posts, apparantly.
If you have facts to back up that claim, then please state them. My claim was based on the fact that "Posh and Becks" are in the papers more often than the royals.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Spelling obviously not a strong point. Nor is reading posts, apparantly.If you have facts to back up that claim, then please state them. My claim was based on the fact that "Posh and Becks" are in the papers more often than the royals.
-AC
You've told me before you don't read tabloids AC, I'm still not convinced 😉
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You've told me before you don't read tabloids AC, I'm still not convinced 😉
Oh, you're not? Whoa is me, how will I get sleep tonight?
I don't read them regularly with the belief that they are good. People I know buy them and occasionally I'll flip through them. I read The Guardian if anything, The Mirror if I ever buy it.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Oh, you're not? Whoa is me, how will I get sleep tonight?-AC
Your usual way? 😖hifty: I believe a tabloid called the sport helps j/k
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't read them regularly with the belief that they are good.
-AC
🙄 I believe you
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I read The Guardian if anything, The Mirror if I ever buy it.
🙄 Enforcing you left wing credentials 😉
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
-AC
We know who you are, you're not as insignificant as Kid Rock makes out 😉