Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
15 September 2010
06:3870771Vic
I posted the news about the change of date of the Queens Speech on the "did u vote Tory for this thread" on the 13th Sept post #35...but I suppose you only read your own threads....
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
15 September 2010
08:3470784Thank you for the remarks still having ago at me I see, I am realy looking forward to us meeting up mate.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
15 September 2010
08:4270785Vic
Not having a go you must stop being paranoid but you have a distinct knack of repeating yourself on thread after thread.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
15 September 2010
09:0270788That is down to old age mate I easy forget what I am doing and saying at times it comes to as all at some point,But I do feel very srong about trying to save our royal family ,I think they should play a bigger part in what is happing to the UK and talk out about what they think is going wrong. We all can say what we are thinking so it should be the same for them,after all the Queen is still head of the nation and could stop some of what is going on.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
15 September 2010
09:2670796Vic - I too am a Royalist but you are on totally the wrong track on this thread.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
15 September 2010
10:4270822Blimey this thread is getting heavy.
So lets widen it a little more
So are we all happy at the cost of the Royal family
bearing in mind we also pay for 96th aunty 17 times removed lol
Others have gone on about the popes one off visit on other threads which is a view,
but what about the cost of the royal family just for one year
bearing in mind how far that stretches.
What is the cost by the way.
And what do we get in return in financial terms?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
15 September 2010
11:4670833Keith, the Queen puts in a 16hour working day each day of the week not bad at 8o+ years.
15 September 2010
12:1170844Am I totally happy about the cost of the Royal Family? Yes. There is no 96th Auntie.
One of the single biggest attractions for the American tourist is our Royal Family, ergo, they bring lots of dollars to our shores. Unlike Union pariahs who try to destroy our good industrial name, the Royal Family promote British interests across the globe. Then we have the Prince of Wales Trust and the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme benefitting th youth of this country Royal patronage of several charities, and company products and so on and so on. I am sure others can add to the list.
I heard somewhere the Royal Family costs each of us .60p per annum. That's a good investment in my view.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
15 September 2010
13:5670871Yes indeed Sid. They are excellent value for money in every respect, specially as the revenues from the Royal estates paid to the government are far in excess of what is paid out fro the Civil List.
they also have an important constitutional role. Its great that even the most powerful Prime Ministers, Mrs T included, have to bend a knee in front of HMQ.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
15 September 2010
14:0870877I do read, but very rarely comment on political posting`s, this one being an exception. With you 100% Sid on the royal family. Let`s be honest, we`ll never be able to calculate the true balance between what the royal family costs and what amount of revenue comes into the country because of them. That`s not to mention also their various work in this country. They represent Britain, and it`s one thing we`ve got that many other countries haven`t.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
15 September 2010
14:4370886Mr Perkins, Mr Barry W,Mr Matcham all in agreement this must be a record
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
15 September 2010
14:5170887I'm surprised at you Vic. Forming your own opinions based on what you read in the Sun, I mean. I can never get beyond page 3.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
15 September 2010
15:0370889I do not buy it, my mate puts it in the door each morning,The Sun in the pass have done storys about myself and not good ones at that,but behind the headlines they do print some very good news and alot of it is true. I must say I only buy the local papers and before some one puts it in a post yes I like to see what and if they are talking about me.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
15 September 2010
16:0970901Who would you rather have as head of state someone like Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair or even worse Gordon Brown,
, Cameron hasn't been there long enough to judge.
The Queen is harmless and as Colin says they create a lot of tourism money.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
15 September 2010
16:1270902i doubt that tourism would be affected without any royals, people love to see the buildings, palaces and the bling.
countries like france and russia that have got shot of those still make a small fortune from their royal past.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
15 September 2010
16:2770905Howard - there is a big difference between a 'live' monachy and empty palaces and historic artifacts.
In the USA they designed the architecture when they built Washington to impress and awe foreign leaders with their prestige.
Here we have HMQ and in that we have an advantage, a coach and four to Buck House, The Brigade of Guards to attention, a formal dinner hosted by HMQ, the glitter (real glitter not the artificial Hollywood tat), ceremony - the sheer perfection of the occasion and 1000 years of history to back it up. No country can do it better, remove HMQ and all is different, it loses its heart and spirit. Even POTUS can be struck with awe and be made to feel 6 inches high at such times. I bet he does not feel that way meeting Sarcky.
15 September 2010
19:5470977Ask the tourists at Buck House what they are hanging about for. It sure as hell won't be to see if the palace moves. They are all waiting to see anyone from the Royal Family. They are THE attraction, not bricks and mortar. How many millions visit Russia? Nowhere near as many come to London.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
15 September 2010
21:1971006Cor!!
the alternative view is that the Royal family actually cost you a lot more than is being quoted.
SID
I was being flippant on the 96th aunty
but you know what I mean, if we were paying just for the immediate family thats enough, but the list of people we pay for is very very long.
It hasn't been proved liked COLIN admits if the costs can be justified.
As for having a president I'm not in favor of that either.
But in these days of cost cutting, should the royal family be excluded?
Maybe not the the immediate family
but maybe look at all the hangers on also costing us lots of dosh.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
16 September 2010
00:2671061Republican hogwash. More assumptions and no facts, just Sun style pot stirring.
Labour did a huge amount of damage to our national heritage during their 13 years in office and they should all be ashamed of themselves. They did their damndest to undermine the very things that make this country of ours different, superior and great, in the name of what? Well, Stephen Byers was a confirmed Trotskyist, so let's start there eh?
Not far short of traitors to their country, but what the heck, they didn't care and now we pay the price.
Funny how being British and proud of our armed forces reached the lips of every war-mongering Labour MP in support of the two war criminals Blair/Bush, when earlier they were decrying our militaristic grabbing of Empire.
Hypocrits as well as financially inept, at every level of government.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
16 September 2010
08:2671071Jimmy,
Of course I share your view, and I think a lot of people are watching and concerned for the future.
But 18 months time will soon be here
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
