Royal Wedding 2011 Page 49

  • Page

    of 51 First / Last

  • Madder-Max 30 Apr 2011 19:29:20 11,641 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    the monarchy is a redundant thing that serves absolutely no purpose. the royals dont have a say in anything. Nothing to do with class and whatnot. its something that taxpayers pay for. What do we get in return apart from propping up an element of the tourist industry?

    99 problems and being ginger is one

  • Khanivor 30 Apr 2011 19:32:00 40,567 posts
    Seen 50 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I was thinking this the other day while talking with work colleagues taking the piss asking if I was going to dress up on Friday.

    If you figure the Royal Family costs taxpayers on average of a quid and change a year and there's a major wedding every 30 years, then for spending about forty quid you all get a paid day off. Even working minimum wage you're making a profit.

    So, ignoring all other possible financial benefits, it's worth it for the free day off.
  • Fab4 30 Apr 2011 19:39:49 6,019 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Madder Max wrote:
    the monarchy is a redundant thing that serves absolutely no purpose. the royals dont have a say in anything. Nothing to do with class and whatnot. its something that taxpayers pay for. What do we get in return apart from propping up an element of the tourist industry?

    So in one paragraph they've went from 'serving absolutely no purpose' to 'an element of the tourist industry'?

    Make up your mind.
  • Ka-blamo 30 Apr 2011 19:42:31 7,332 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Madder Max wrote:
    the monarchy is a redundant thing that serves absolutely no purpose. the royals dont have a say in anything. Nothing to do with class and whatnot. its something that taxpayers pay for. What do we get in return apart from propping up an element of the tourist industry?

    61p each they cost us a year.(lowest its ever been)

    They bring in a hell of alot more than that.....and I'm a fan of Royal history and interesting bloodlines etc.

    People act like they're playing dress up, or pretending to be a Royal family....but this is real whether you like it or not.

    If their popularity drops significantly, then who knows.....but it's high, and especially so after this....so haters might as well be talking to a brick wall, we hear you but aren't listening.

  • FWB 30 Apr 2011 19:52:24 44,353 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Not really sure what you mean by "real". As far as I'm concerned it is just a bunch of regular folk pratting about in stupid clothes. Now that does provide an economic benefit because moronic tourists come over and hang outside Buckingham Palace in the hopes of spotting Philip doing the Elizabeth. Whatever floats your boat, really. But the meaning behind it is a joke. I'd ask those buying into it to grow up, but since we're getting their money, best not.

    Ohh, and in case you didn't know, there is no santa, easter bunny or god.
  • matt6666 30 Apr 2011 20:04:39 2,620 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I fucking new this thread had a flame war in it, fucking new it..

  • FWB 30 Apr 2011 20:04:56 44,353 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Hehe. Clearly hit a point.

    Grow up. :)
  • RedSparrows 30 Apr 2011 20:16:33 22,346 posts
    Seen 13 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Dr Coffin, you really are a spectacular mong.

    Also, 'interesting bloodlines'?

    What?

    Royal history can be fascinating, but it's hardly the machine it was a few centuries back.
  • Pirotic Moderator 30 Apr 2011 20:21:04 20,646 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Ka-blamo wrote:
    Madder Max wrote:
    the monarchy is a redundant thing that serves absolutely no purpose. the royals dont have a say in anything. Nothing to do with class and whatnot. its something that taxpayers pay for. What do we get in return apart from propping up an element of the tourist industry?

    61p each they cost us a year.(lowest its ever been)

    They bring in a hell of alot more than that.....and I'm a fan of Royal history and interesting bloodlines etc.

    People act like they're playing dress up, or pretending to be a Royal family....but this is real whether you like it or not.

    If their popularity drops significantly, then who knows.....but it's high, and especially so after this....so haters might as well be talking to a brick wall, we hear you but aren't listening.


    I say we get some rebels together and have a good old revolution, I mean look at the knights they have defending them - mick jagger and elton john, I could 'ave em easily! I don't mind having a monarchy, but at least in the good old days you had to stay on your toes or get overthrown - seems somewhat unfair this no longer applies to them.
  • TechnoHippy 30 Apr 2011 20:30:13 14,710 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    They might want some of their powers back if that was the case though.

    My books, contests, reviews and author interviews on my blog

  • Pirotic Moderator 30 Apr 2011 20:31:57 20,646 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I always thought that they still had the power by law, but don't use it because they know people wouldn't accept it. That's why the Conservatives and Lib Dems had to ask permission from the queen to form a government still etc.

    When you think about it it's pretty clever, if you have all the power you can easily create the illusion of having none and just pull the strings in peace.
  • matt6666 30 Apr 2011 20:37:56 2,620 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Yeah, I thought much of our traditional legislation was based around the idea that technically the Queen had a great deal of power but there is an unwritten rule not to call on it.
  • TechnoHippy 30 Apr 2011 20:40:51 14,710 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    You are correct (I thought it was mostly ceremonial, but apparently not). The monarch can disolve parliment, fire ministers and declare war, amongst other fun duties.

    It's like playing Civ without the micro-management :-)

    Edit: The precious demands correct spelling!

    My books, contests, reviews and author interviews on my blog

  • matt6666 30 Apr 2011 20:42:56 2,620 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Heh.. Spielberg you Knight cunt... Fucking joust this taliban.
  • Fab4 30 Apr 2011 20:43:50 6,019 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The term you are looking for is 'ceremonial'.

    Edit: That was a sly spelling dig, btw. I was replying to matt6666.
  • Ka-blamo 30 Apr 2011 20:50:41 7,332 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    FWB wrote:
    Not really sure what you mean by "real". As far as I'm concerned it is just a bunch of regular folk pratting about in stupid clothes.

    Ah, no then...you didn't know what I meant by real :)
  • Ged42 30 Apr 2011 20:53:20 7,721 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Pirotic wrote:

    I say we get some rebels together and have a good old revolution, I mean look at the knights they have defending them - mick jagger and elton john, I could 'ave em easily! I don't mind having a monarchy, but at least in the good old days you had to stay on your toes or get overthrown - seems somewhat unfair this no longer applies to them.

    I dunno Jagger is so thin, I bet he's well hard to hit if he's dodging about, also the sheer quantity of drugs he's taken means he wouldn't feel pain.

    As for Elton, his wig would leap off and devour your face before you even got near him.
  • matt6666 30 Apr 2011 20:53:41 2,620 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Fab4 wrote:
    The term you are looking for is 'ceremonial'.

    Edit: That was a sly spelling dig, btw. I was replying to matt6666.
    thanks I think
  • Fab4 30 Apr 2011 20:54:38 6,019 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    matt6666 wrote:
    Fab4 wrote:
    The term you are looking for is 'ceremonial'.

    Edit: That was a sly spelling dig, btw. I was replying to matt6666.
    thanks I think


    Oops...sorry..I actually meant 'wasnt'....honest :-D

  • Ka-blamo 30 Apr 2011 20:55:47 7,332 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Pirotic wrote:
    I say we get some rebels together and have a good old revolution, I mean look at the knights they have defending them - mick jagger and elton john, I could 'ave em easily! I don't mind having a monarchy, but at least in the good old days you had to stay on your toes or get overthrown - seems somewhat unfair this no longer applies to them.

    Heh, I like that idea....in a war all the 'Knights' get called up to go on the front line :)
  • TechnoHippy 30 Apr 2011 20:56:14 14,710 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I know who you were digging at you common knave :-)

    My books, contests, reviews and author interviews on my blog

  • matt6666 30 Apr 2011 20:57:27 2,620 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Fab4 wrote:
    matt6666 wrote:
    Fab4 wrote:
    The term you are looking for is 'ceremonial'.

    Edit: That was a sly spelling dig, btw. I was replying to matt6666.
    thanks I think


    Oops...sorry..I actually meant 'wasnt'....honest :-D

    heh, two bottles of red down the line, you blagged me as having been corrected! Run with it!
  • Ka-blamo 30 Apr 2011 22:24:32 7,332 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    If William becomes king, will his face be on the money?..or Charles for that matter :/
  • RedSparrows 30 Apr 2011 22:27:51 22,346 posts
    Seen 13 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Yes.

    What is the problem with Charles? That's the monarchy. That's how it works. Deal with it.
  • Ka-blamo 30 Apr 2011 22:33:04 7,332 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I meant, his face on the money is ':/'....I don't mind him being king :)
  • matt6666 30 Apr 2011 22:35:39 2,620 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Wonder if there is legislation if Charles becomes senile or mental..

    Must be I guess, with the madness of king George being a film I'm guessing it won't be unheard of..

    That said, I think the catholic church suffers in part due to the popes always being so decrepit.

    If there was an eloquent educated and articulate 50 year old pope I think the church would be a fuck site less ridiculous..
  • FWB 30 Apr 2011 23:33:39 44,353 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Ka-blamo wrote:
    FWB wrote:
    Not really sure what you mean by "real". As far as I'm concerned it is just a bunch of regular folk pratting about in stupid clothes.

    Ah, no then...you didn't know what I meant by real :)

    So what do you mean by "real" then?
  • Ka-blamo 1 May 2011 01:23:15 7,332 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    FWB wrote:
    Ka-blamo wrote:
    FWB wrote:
    Not really sure what you mean by "real". As far as I'm concerned it is just a bunch of regular folk pratting about in stupid clothes.

    Ah, no then...you didn't know what I meant by real :)

    So what do you mean by "real" then?

    O.k you're a regular guy right?....say you pratted around in stupid clothes and declared yourself a prince.

    You don't see a difference between you doing that and someone doing it, that say....is related to Henry VIII, William I, Henry I, Alfred the Great!

    You may not see a difference but I do.

    You're being disingenuous, but i don't know why.
  • Page

    of 51 First / Last

Log in or register to reply