Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Fast work
- Thread starter lawros left foot
- Start date
Dick Swiveller
Well-known member
- Sep 9, 2011
- 9,537
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I'm sure Paris Match would say something if their magazine cover had been photoshopped or airbrushed. The Mail is owned by Murdoch who is an Autralian republican who just uses the royals to keep his readership which is dropping rapidly.
You have disappointed me, this morning, Simster. You haven't once referred to me as a lickspittle. You are losing your touch.
A simple, "no I can't" would have done. Incidentally, nobody at Paris Match would have given it a second look. Why on earth would they point out something like that? Oh and The Mail is owned by Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere - the clue is in the name.
I don't need to keep telling you you're a lickspittle. You will never question your own position with regard to the royal family, regardless of the fact that some of them will forever do whatever they want and not be called to account for it.
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 16,068
Have a look at @DMReporter on Twitter and you'll find hundreds or thousands of people who lose their $hit over pretty much anything. In fact, scratch that – just look at Twitter in general: the majority of it is a cesspool of hatred!
Hmmmm ..... Elected Head of State versus Royal Head of State ..... let me think what I might prefer ( high costs of running either by the way ) :
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v ...... I'll admit this could be Hiney in which case the argument is reversed !
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I stand corrected. I confused the owners of the newspapers.
There are two arguments in play here.
Firstly - and by far my biggest annoyance - is not so much that we have a royal head of state, it is the cost of all the other hangers on. Plenty of countries support a royal family, but they are not revered or excused in the same sycophantic way that they are here. This culminates in all manner of minor royals being indulged at a cost to the taxpayer. Last week's wedding is case in point. If we must have a royal family, then the cost needs to be fully transparent and there should be clear boundaries on who we are supposed to support.
Secondly, there is a debate to be held over whether to bother having a royal family at all. I can see the benefits of a non-partisan head of state and wouldn't suggest the Queen has failed in her role. But we really don't know how much it all costs, and the argument against a king or queen is always ridiculously polarised - where we are force-fed this nonsense about the alternative being an unpalatable individual - Trump, Blair, Farage, whatever. Why would it have to be like that? Why couldn't we just elect somebody unaligned to a political party for whom we collectively have respect?
Well, yes. Meanwhile, you have failed to come up with any further evidence of Harry looking like the DoE, which says it all.
I'm with you on most of what you've posted on this thread - but not having this bit.
1. The picture of Philip really does look VERY like Harry. Not 'similar', but pretty much a doppelganger. The chances of those two people not being related, I'd say would be very slim.
2. The idea of The Mail airbrushing the image, is a possibility. The idea that The Mail could airbrush the image, and it not be debunked on social media within minutes, by somebody with a copy of the original, is beyond possibility.
Sir David Attenborough?
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,277
It made me laugh hearing Prince Andrew's comment that "it was very much a family affair". I don't remember the homeless being removed from the streets of East Grinstead when I got married.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-money-prince-andrew-labour-mp-a8497221.html
He/they also invited another 50% of wedding guests over and above Prince Harry's wedding. Prince Andrew is a **** who takes it all for granted. A genuinely unpleasant prick.
[MENTION=14365]Thunder Bolt[/MENTION] in particular should read that article to understand why the Royal family in their current guise upset so many of us who are sceptical over their worth.
Knocky's Nose
Mon nez est retiré.
It's not quite that clear cut. The revenue which the Royal Family generate in tourism, goodwill, business links, foreign trade, diplomatic relations and so on are rarely taken into account when the anti-royals wheel out their abacus ready for an argument. Our Royal Family are respected and revered the world over, and when they visit somewhere it's a big thing. They are an excellent 'front' for a country which is a political mess, and they do restore a little credibility in the eyes of the world. Some countries more than other, I'll grant you - but I can't remember one single royal visit to a country where nobody has turned out to see them.
I'm no Royalist, but I'm a realist - and I don't think ditching them to save money will do the country an ounce of good. Even if we saved £250m a year and sent them all to a council estate in Reading our shit-pot government would just find a way to piss it away on nothing anyway...
Anyway, back on subject, they're a young couple in love - and I wish them all the best, no matter who the Grandad may or may not be..
Inigo Calderon.
I don't think we'd be allowed to pick a FOREIGN, sadly.
Great choice otherwise, obvs.
Spot on. I was wondering why personally I was actually quite ambivalent about Harry's wedding, but really pissed of with Andrew's daughter. It came to me that Harry actually comes over as a decent bloke with a high level of humility who is keen to use his privileged position to help others. Andrew on the other hand is (and always has been) a total parasite with extremely dodgy friends and a huge sense of entitlement. His sole concern is to use his royal status to make sure that he and his family have an extremely comfortable life. Out of all the royals he is undoubtedly the worst. His comment about "as befits the granddaughter of the queen" to justify the additional expense from the public purse really got my back up. Wanker.
FatSuperman
Well-known member
- Feb 25, 2016
- 2,928
It might surprise you but I agree with you on this point. The Royal Family spreads far too far. I'd certainly support only those in the direct line of the throne getting public money. So in this case HM The Queen ( and by connection old Phil ), Charles, William ( plus Catherine and the children ). In practicality it would be difficult for any of these to work in a 'normal' job. The rest of the family less so. There was nothing to stop Harry continuing in the Army and Megan to continue her acting.
The challenge being, how to keep politics out of the vote ? I obviously listed divisive individuals to make a point but there aren't many people without some sort of political preference which they have show publically.
Some obvious names that would possibly come to the fore ( one has already been mentioned ) :
Sir David Attenborough - has advocated the Green Party ( unsurprisingly )
Sir Robert Winston - Labour
David Beckham - hmmmm .....
Richard Branson - tax evader
James Dyson - moved British jobs abroad
Michael Caine - Doesn't live here
Tom Jones - serial adulterer
Almost everyone has either a political alignment or a skeleton or two. I've just named some people at random. Happy to hear of some other suggestions though. I'm not adverse to the idea of a Head of State but just can't see how it wouldn't become political.
FatSuperman
Well-known member
- Feb 25, 2016
- 2,928
It's not quite that clear cut. The revenue which the Royal Family generate in tourism, goodwill, business links, foreign trade, diplomatic relations and so on are rarely taken into account when the anti-royals wheel out their abacus ready for an argument. Our Royal Family are respected and revered the world over, and when they visit somewhere it's a big thing. They are an excellent 'front' for a country which is a political mess, and they do restore a little credibility in the eyes of the world. Some countries more than other, I'll grant you - but I can't remember one single royal visit to a country where nobody has turned out to see them.
I'm no Royalist, but I'm a realist - and I don't think ditching them to save money will do the country an ounce of good. Even if we saved £250m a year and sent them all to a council estate in Reading our shit-pot government would just find a way to piss it away on nothing anyway...
Anyway, back on subject, they're a young couple in love - and I wish them all the best, no matter who the Grandad may or may not be..
Absolutely agree with this. I am really not that bothered by them individually, and I personally wouldn't go to any event to see them*. However, I am actually rather proud that we have a Royal family that have a decent outward appearance and are a big draw to many tourists. They might be a bit dysfunctional but they are nowhere near as bad as they could be. I think we do rather well in the Royalty front.
The money they cost, whilst eye-watering in a way, is really a pittance when you consider the absolute nonsense that the government waste everywhere else. Government / public sector projects are an infinite hole of waste. The money spent on the Royal family would be frittered away in seconds. Probably on designing a new logo for the Government Office of Fruit & Snacks for Meetings.
*My mum went to the Princess Diana memorial / funeral parade thingy. She didn't know her. So bizarre.