Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Help] His Majesty King Charles

How would you rate King Charles' first year as King?

  • 7

  • 8

  • 9

  • 10

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1


Results are only viewable after voting.


nicko31

Well-known member
Jan 7, 2010
18,711
Gods country fortnightly
The Times today is a right wing rag increasingly barely removed from a red top. Sorry. My opinion.
Still a good crossword though
Whilst I loath Murdoch the Times does try to give some balance. The Telegraph on the other hand has gone batshit
 




BLOCK F

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2009
6,750
One of the great sadnesses in life is having to give up my daily tryst with the Telegraph crossword but the paper has become unreadable/unbuyable.
Yes, as I said, I gave up a number of years ago. I used to love the sports coverage, especially the cricket, but heyho, things change and life moves on. We adapt and hopefully manage to plough our own individual furrows.
 


Blue3

Well-known member
Jan 27, 2014
5,853
Lancing
What about the amount of money they generate? I would imagine it dwarfs their cost?

They generate 5x their cost according to this Independent report.

"While the average annual cost for UK taxpayers in royal upkeep comes to around £500m a year, Brand Finance estimates the monarchy’s brand contributes £2.5bn to the British economy in the same timeframe."

I cannot see why that would change I am not suggesting we replace the monarchy quite the opposite but I do think they need to change and reduce the costs
 


Half Time Pies

Well-known member
Sep 7, 2003
1,593
Brighton
King Charles 3 He’s doing ok and it’s certainly better than any other options for head of state.

I hate the idea of a public vote for President the British electorate after thinking Brexit was such a good idea could easily make another a disastrous decision and make a clown like Boris Presiden.

No having having a constitutional monarchy is the safest option at least the poor sap whose born into the job will be trained for the role hopefully years and years before they actually get the gig.

What bothers me is its the cost to the public purse in todays world

By comparison in Denmark the new monarch signed an acceptable form in from of the PM who then steps out onto her balcony and proclaims the new king,……… that’s it job done …………..no huge street parties, no coronation, no marching bands, no fly overs, no making of new crowns the list goes on.
Not just Denmark all the Scandinavian Royals have jobs alongside royal duties but their cost to the tax payers must be a tiny fraction of our Royal family for example what on earth does Andrew do these days now he’s no longer doing any official duties I guess pretty much like he always did flying all over the world looking for young totty

What we need is a whole new society and wouldn’t it be brilliant if King Charles started the transion to a much smaller far less costly Royal family
You have reviewed all other options for head of state? What’s wrong with the Irish or the German heads of state for example? There are a ton of different systems we could replicate from around the world, or we could come up with our own, you don’t have to have the US presidential system where so much power is concentrated in the hands of one person.
 
Last edited:


Van Cleef

Well-known member
Jun 17, 2023
863
When I had mine checked the doctor said 'It's quite normal to get an erection during this'
I said I haven't got one.
He said 'I know but I have' :wink:
Excellent.
This reminded me of this vic and bob sketch for some weird reason. (Sorry, not related to the thread at all but what the hell).
 




crodonilson

He/Him
Jan 17, 2005
14,078
Lyme Regis
Hopefully he will be back to full fitness in no time at all. His poll ratings as this thread suggests are exceptionally high.
 




crodonilson

He/Him
Jan 17, 2005
14,078
Lyme Regis

The entire nation breathes a huge sigh of relief as His Majesty The King is released from hospital to recuperate fully at home.

:clap:
 






Cheshire Cat

The most curious thing..








Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
55,021
Surrey
Why? 500M to bring in £2.5Bn is pretty good business.
It's also complete bollocks peddled by a sycophantic media.

France for example has twice as many tourists as we do - and no royal family. Meanwhile, our head of state and his entire family remains unaccountable, as proven by the fact Prince Andrew got to pay off his alleged victim rather than see justice played out.
 


Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
It's also complete bollocks peddled by a sycophantic media.

France for example has twice as many tourists as we do - and no royal family. Meanwhile, our head of state and his entire family remains unaccountable, as proven by the fact Prince Andrew got to pay off his alleged victim rather than see justice played out.
Ha ha, but the head of state in France also lives in a Palace. France is also 2.3 times bigger than us, with a better climate, and more varied scenery.

As you know, I have always been a monarchist but KC III is making a hash of it, his wife is a hariden, Andrew should be nowhere near public life, the Duchess of York, although divorced is back in the frame, and the family is very dysfunctional.
 




Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
55,021
Surrey
Ha ha, but the head of state in France also lives in a Palace. France is also 2.3 times bigger than us, with a better climate, and more varied scenery.

As you know, I have always been a monarchist but KC III is making a hash of it, his wife is a hariden, Andrew should be nowhere near public life, the Duchess of York, although divorced is back in the frame, and the family is very dysfunctional.
The head of state in France does indeed live in a Palace. But his/her extended family don't live in palaces. Nor demand huge security, live above the law free and from accountability, only pay tax optionally and help themselves to the estates of people when they die from large swathes of the country.

KC3 is simply a product of the system. He's doing what he wants, predictably. It was only luck that the Queen was the sort of woman she was. Her mother was an awful snob, and there are some pretty horrible rumours surrounding her husband too. As for Andrew, "should be nowhere near public life"? Really? How about "should stand trial for rape of a minor or the attempted theft of state property"? Yet these things seem to be conflated for royalists.

The royals do nothing for this country.
 




cjd

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2006
6,322
La Rochelle
It's also complete bollocks peddled by a sycophantic media.

France for example has twice as many tourists as we do - and no royal family.
I suppose that would have nothing to do with the fact that it is significantly warmer here. Has the Mediterranean. Cheaper wine, the French Alps for skiing, a more relaxed environment outside the big cities and...oh. The rest of Europe mainly merely needs to get in car and drive here.

But apart from that....yes, I suppose you have a point.....a very small one.
 
Last edited:


Half Time Pies

Well-known member
Sep 7, 2003
1,593
Brighton
I suppose that would have nothing to do with the fact that it is significantly warmer here. Has the Mediterranean. Cheaper wine, the French Alps for skiing, a more relaxed environment outside the big cities and...oh. The rest of Europe mainly merely needs to get in car and drive here.

But apart from that....yes, I suppose you have a point.....a very small one.
I think the point that its not the current monarchy that attracts tourists to the UK is a valid one, the palace of Versailles is one of the most visited tourist attractions in the world, something like 15 million visitors a year, and they got rid of their Monarchy in 1848! Do you think that people would stop coming to Windsor castle or Buckingham palace, or London in general if the royals weren't there? I would argue that more of these venues could be opened up to tourists. Buckingham palace has one of the most extensive and impressive art collections in the world and could be a world class tourist attraction if the Royals moved out and the palace opened up as a gallery and museum.
 
Last edited:




Half Time Pies

Well-known member
Sep 7, 2003
1,593
Brighton
Why? 500M to bring in £2.5Bn is pretty good business.
None of these types of figures take in to account what earnings would be from royal assets without the monarchy in place. The crown estate and the duchies belong to the nation, not the royals, as do the palaces castles and crown jewels. We could sell and/ or continue to generate revenue from any of these assets if we were to become a republic.
 


cjd

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2006
6,322
La Rochelle
I think the point that its not the current monarchy that attracts tourists to the UK is a valid one, the palace of Versailles is one of the most visited tourist attractions in the world, something like 15 million visitors a year, and they got rid of their Monarchy in 1848! Do you think that people would stop coming to Windsor castle or Buckingham palace, or London in general if the royals weren't there? I would argue that more of these venues could be opened up to tourists. Buckingham palace has one of the most extensive and impressive art collections in the world and could be a world class tourist attraction if the Royals moved out and the palace opened up as a gallery and museum.
I'm not remotely interested in joining the IN/OUT bollocks that most of you spout. I was merely pointing out the nonsense of Simsters reply.

Please carry on talking all the shit you want.....which a number of this forums posters do all day and night. Fortunately, what gets said here has virtually no relevance in the real world.

I enjoy this forum mainly for the football info and the often very amusing replies to other subjects.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here