Cable Forum

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Royal Family (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33712257)

Ms NTL 08-11-2023 02:05
Royal Family
 
How long do we have to support these parasites?

https://news.sky.com/story/kings-spe...stage-13002485

TheDaddy 08-11-2023 02:23
Re: Not my King
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms NTL (Post 36163613)
How long do we have to support these parasites?

https://news.sky.com/story/kings-spe...stage-13002485
I'm kind of on the fence, if it were just Charlie and his children I could just about stomach it but they sit on top of a class system that's held this country back for generations and if them going means we can rip down that whole rotten edifice then so be it

Paul 08-11-2023 02:41
Re: Royal Family
 
Title amended.

We've already been down this road, he IS your king, whether you like it or not.

I'm pretty sure you could have found a previous topic as well.

Hom3r 10-11-2023 11:20
Re: Royal Family
 
Exactly how are the parasites?


They bring in millions in tourism every year.


All I sat if you don't want a monarchy, you can easily move to a country that isn't apart of the Commonwealth.


(I have bit my tongue here)

TheDaddy 10-11-2023 13:27
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36163752)
Exactly how are the parasites?


They bring in millions in tourism every year.


All I sat if you don't want a monarchy, you can easily move to a country that isn't apart of the Commonwealth.


(I have bit my tongue here)
Not quite as easy to move to another country these days though is it and if they are the reason for the millions in tourism how comes the palace of Versailles gets more visitors, in fact Buckingham Palace gets 500k per year, Windsor castle 1.5 million per year and Versailles gets 15 million per year but they're the reason :rolleyes:

Sephiroth 10-11-2023 18:41
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms NTL (Post 36163613)
How long do we have to support these parasites?

https://news.sky.com/story/kings-spe...stage-13002485

The 'Socialist Worker' agrees with you.

https://socialistworker.co.uk/featur...tes-on-parade/

Hugh 10-11-2023 18:43
Re: Royal Family
 
That’s twice you’ve quoted the SW in the last week, you sneaky undercover Trot… ;)

Mr K 10-11-2023 19:36
Re: Royal Family
 
Ah one of those threads that keep coming back just like ones about the BBC licence fee ;)

Anyway, here goes, not particularly anti Royal but they've failed at the job over the last 30 or so years. Its well paid, not particularly tough and has plenty of fringe benefits . So like anyone who doesn't deliver the goods they should be on their last warning. At least they could trim it all own in terms of budget and people by 80%.

As for the Kings speech it's not his speech it's the Govts. You could tell he didn't believe anything he was being forced to say about climate u turns. Coupled with all the ludicrous ceremony, and stupid clothes it's an incredible waste of time and money that this country should have dumped decades ago. Could have bought a few dialysis machines for the cost.

Ms NTL 22-11-2023 10:59
Re: Royal Family
 
1 Attachment(s)
Today. Have a look at his tie. Daddy's country flag.

Is he abandoning the Union Jack? :D

jfman 22-11-2023 11:04
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36163758)
Not quite as easy to move to another country these days though is it and if they are the reason for the millions in tourism how comes the palace of Versailles gets more visitors, in fact Buckingham Palace gets 500k per year, Windsor castle 1.5 million per year and Versailles gets 15 million per year but they're the reason :rolleyes:
So if we beheaded them we could get more? Interesting. :p:

Pierre 22-11-2023 11:07
Re: Royal Family
 
Just nice to see someone displaying a flag other than the Palestinian, Ukraine or Pride flag.

Maggy 22-11-2023 11:17
Re: Royal Family
 
Frankly I'd rather have the two tier system of government that we have than that in other countries. Imagine how much more damage el presidente Boris could inflict upon us.

Chris 22-11-2023 11:44
Re: Royal Family
 
Well, we could appoint a commoner as head of state instead, and call them something like Lord Protector. It might upset the Irish a bit but the last one cost about a tenth of what we pay the royals so it’s not all bad.

It’s worth noting however that we tried it before, decided republicanism wasn’t for us, and brought back the monarchy after a mere 6 years. So maybe we just accept that as we already have a head of state with no real executive power (like Ireland or Germany), and we don’t want to replace him with one who has actual power (like France or the USA), we’re really no worse off as we are, and probably better as there’s absolutely no way a faded politician or sleb can get elected to the job this way.

ianch99 22-11-2023 12:01
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36164730)
Well, we could appoint a commoner as head of state instead, and call them something like Lord Protector. It might upset the Irish a bit but the last one cost about a tenth of what we pay the royals so it’s not all bad.

It’s worth noting however that we tried it before, decided republicanism wasn’t for us, and brought back the monarchy after a mere 6 years. So maybe we just accept that as we already have a head of state with no real executive power (like Ireland or Germany), and we don’t want to replace him with one who has actual power (like France or the USA), we’re really no worse off as we are, and probably better as there’s absolutely no way a faded politician or sleb can get elected to the job this way.
You are being very silly. Going back to a time, nearly 400 years ago, when we still burnt witches at the stake for a comparison?

What you are not addressing is the moral failure of endorsing a monarchy. The wish to place an entitled, ultra wealthy, selected by birth, individual in a position where you are required/encouraged to literally be subservient to them, bowing in their presence. This is a point of principle: one man/woman is more equal than any other. The Americans got the right idea.

It really is a point of principle, not money and not imperial nostalgia. Some people voted for Brexit on principle, knowing that they, and the country, would be poorer but still were happy to do so. The whole thing, in the 21st century is an historical anachronism.

Sephiroth 22-11-2023 12:28
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36164735)
You are being very silly. Going back to a time, nearly 400 years ago, whenwe still burnt witches at the stake for a comparison?

What you are not addressing is the moral failure of endorsing a monarchy. The wish to place an entitled, ultra wealthy, selected by birth, individual in a position where you are required/encouraged to literally be subservient to them, bowing in their presence. This is a point of principle: one man/woman is more equal than any other. [COLOR=“RED”]The Americans got the right idea.[/COLOR]

It really is a point of principle, not money and not imperial nostalgia. Some people voted for [COLOR=“RED”]Brexit [/COLOR]on principle, knowing that they, and the country, would be poorer but still were happy to do so. The whole thing, in the 21st century is an historical anachronism.

You are so wrong. A political president as per the US system brings the divisions you now see there.

As to Brexit, you can’t resist bringing it in. Everyone in the EU countries is currently poorer and it’s not due to Brexit. People were happy too vote for Brexit because of sovereignty and not being governed by Brussels. That you are content to be governed by Brussels destroys your credibility on the matter.

Hugh 22-11-2023 13:31
Re: Royal Family
 
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36164738)

You are so wrong. A political president as per the US system brings the divisions you now see there.

As to Brexit, you can’t resist bringing it in. Everyone in the EU countries is currently poorer and it’s not due to Brexit. People were happy too vote for Brexit because of sovereignty and not being governed by Brussels. That you are content to be governed by Brussels destroys your credibility on the matter.
The Commons Library (from 7 days ago) says differently.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...0&d=1700656206

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1700656206

Pierre 22-11-2023 14:09
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36164740)
Obviously his use of "Everyone" is inaccurate, but it would be interesting to see the breakdown of the Eurozone, as that must be an average of all EU Countries, so no doubt there will be several (like Germany) that won't be doing as well.

Chris 22-11-2023 14:11
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36164735)
You are being very silly. Going back to a time, nearly 400 years ago, when we still burnt witches at the stake for a comparison?

What you are not addressing is the moral failure of endorsing a monarchy. The wish to place an entitled, ultra wealthy, selected by birth, individual in a position where you are required/encouraged to literally be subservient to them, bowing in their presence. This is a point of principle: one man/woman is more equal than any other. The Americans got the right idea.

It really is a point of principle, not money and not imperial nostalgia. Some people voted for Brexit on principle, knowing that they, and the country, would be poorer but still were happy to do so. The whole thing, in the 21st century is an historical anachronism.
Well I know I am. :D. It was the protectorate was problematic rather than the concept of republic. Even in 17th century England there was a deep understanding of how the relationship between a monarch and parliament should work, grounded in history and tradition. No such understanding existed with the protectorate and Parliament at one stage offered Cromwell the crown, probably because it saw the looming risk of continental style absolutism and thought a constitutional monarchy was safer all round. As it happened, Oliver died and his son Richard inherited the protectorate much as a monarch would, but was then so useless the restoration soon followed.

I don’t accept that selection by birth is a moral failure. It may or may not be a constitutional failure; it may or may not be regarded an anachronism or a failure of democracy, but ‘moral failure’ is a very strong charge and I don’t think it sticks in a society where preference for one’s own family is part of the fabric of life. We do it all the time so if it’s flawed as a fundamental principle our whole society is on thin ice.

It is vastly unlikely that if we were setting up a new British state today that we would appoint a family to provide our heads of state. But to make that argument is to ignore the context in which we live. We are not setting up a new state. We inhabit what is arguably the world’s first modern nation state, governed by a democracy that has been continually developing and extending over that period and has had universal adult suffrage for a century. All of that, plus the inherited position of head of state which is its keystone, rests on a millennium of tradition, convention and precedent. One of the reasons we haven’t seriously discussed changing that is that unpicking it would be a fraught process whose outcome would be unclear and benefits questionable. You have asserted a moral argument but I don’t think you’ve actually demonstrated it. That leaves us with practical questions. Would it be better than what we have in any practical way? A political head of state is a divisive figure by definition. It can (and does) go wrong.

TheDaddy 22-11-2023 16:07
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36164730)
So maybe we just accept that as we already have a head of state with no real executive power (like Ireland or Germany).
They're a lot cheaper and less recognisable than our own, The Dutch brand even cycle about the place unrecognised and unmolested, if we hadn't basically abandoned the Commonwealth in favour of the EU there might be an argument for keeping them in their current guise but we didn't so we shouldn't imo, this old school class system needs pulling down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36164742)
A political head of state is a divisive figure by definition. It can (and does) go wrong.
Generally it doesn't unless it's someone with an extreme ideology like donny or lettuce, most of the time with someone normal(ish) in charge it chugs along quite happily with only the odd murmurs of dissent

---------- Post added at 15:07 ---------- Previous post was at 15:06 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36164740)
Not everyone then...

Pierre 22-11-2023 16:58
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36164746)
They're a lot cheaper and less recognisable than our own, The Dutch brand even cycle about the place unrecognised and unmolested
Well that's sort of the point, when you say "The Royal Family" to anyone on the world and they will instinctively think you're talking about our Royal family.

They cost £1.29 per person. I think we can certainly trim them, but I would happily pay £5 a year to subsidise The Royal Family.


Quote:
Generally it doesn't unless it's someone with an extreme ideology like donny or lettuce, most of the time with someone normal(ish) in charge it chugs along quite happily with only the odd murmurs of dissent
Not sure that's entirely accurate. Plenty Presidents past and present that are both Political leader and head of state, that are off their rockers.

Chris 22-11-2023 17:25
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36164746)
They're a lot cheaper and less recognisable than our own, The Dutch brand even cycle about the place unrecognised and unmolested, if we hadn't basically abandoned the Commonwealth in favour of the EU there might be an argument for keeping them in their current guise but we didn't so we shouldn't imo, this old school class system needs pulling down
Charlie Farley is generating a ton of coverage in the Greek press today just for wearing the Greek tie shown earlier in this thread. He’s generating a ton of coverage in South Korea for giving out honours to a K-Pop group while our politicians and civil servants are trying to thrash out a trade deal in Seoul.

Being recognised and causing a stir overseas is a great deal of the point of having them.

TheDaddy 22-11-2023 23:08
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36164752)

They cost £1.29 per person. I think we can certainly trim them, but I would happily pay £5 a year to subsidise The Royal Family.
That's not what they cost and if you think it is can I interest you in these magic beans

Pierre 23-11-2023 00:28
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36164772)
That's not what they cost and if you think it is can I interest you in these magic beans
Well….it is.

But you’re welcome to post evidence to the contrary. If you’re so certain, shouldn’t be a problem for you.

Ms NTL 23-11-2023 00:42
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36164780)
Well….it is.

But you’re welcome to post evidence to the contrary. If you’re so certain, shouldn’t be a problem for you.
The crown estate passed from the Queen to Charles without the requirement to pay inheritance tax,

British wills are normally required by law to be published, but the sealing of the royal wills has prevented the public from seeing what kind of assets – such as property, jewellery and cash – have been passed on down the generations.

The Queen was not considered liable for tax on the sovereign grant,

The details of many assets passed from one generation of the royal family to another on their death have been concealed

£1.29 per person lol

Anyone can cook the books

Pierre 23-11-2023 00:52
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms NTL (Post 36164782)
The crown estate passed from the Queen to Charles without the requirement to pay inheritance tax,

British wills are normally required by law to be published, but the sealing of the royal wills has prevented the public from seeing what kind of assets – such as property, jewellery and cash – have been passed on down the generations.

The Queen was not considered liable for tax on the sovereign grant,

The details of many assets passed from one generation of the royal family to another on their death have been concealed

£1.29 per person lol

Anyone can cook the books
Very nice, please use a different colour.

But you still have not given me a figure?

Surely, it must be dead easy to give me a figure?

I’m actually going to revise mine down to 77p per person.

https://www.royal.uk/media-pack/fina...0in%20the%20UK.


I look forward to hearing from you.

Ms NTL 23-11-2023 01:12
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36164783)
Very nice, please use a different colour.

But you still have not given me a figure?

Surely, it must be dead easy to give me a figure?

I’m actually going to revise mine down to 77p per person.

https://www.royal.uk/media-pack/fina...0in%20the%20UK.


I look forward to hearing from you.
I did indeed read that. You are correct. The cooked books say that.

Do you dispute what I am saying? Then do the proper maths mate.

Very sorry for the colour choice.

---------- Post added at 00:12 ---------- Previous post was at 00:06 ----------



You can by the new Uk flag cravat here. Biden got one too. ;)

https://www.instagram.com/pagonimaison/

Pierre 23-11-2023 01:18
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms NTL (Post 36164785)
I did indeed read that. You are correct. The cooked books say that.

Do you dispute what I am saying? Then do the proper maths mate.

Very sorry for the colour choice.

---------- Post added at 00:12 ---------- Previous post was at 00:06 ----------



You can by the new Uk flag cravat here. Biden got one too. ;)

https://www.instagram.com/pagonimaison/
What’s the number?

TheDaddy 23-11-2023 01:20
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36164780)
Well….it is.

But you’re welcome to post evidence to the contrary. If you’re so certain, shouldn’t be a problem for you.
It wasn't a problem, you were right

The campaign group Republic, which promotes republicanism in the United Kingdom, claims that the full annual cost of the British monarchy is at least £345,000,000 a year, when including lost revenue from the two duchies, security, costs met by local councils and police forces, and lost tax revenue.

At least four times the cost they'd have us believe

Ms NTL 23-11-2023 01:46
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36164787)
What’s the number?

The details of many assets passed from one generation of the royal family to another on their death have been concealed


Tell me the details and I will oblige to do the calculations.

Paul 23-11-2023 02:25
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36164788)
The campaign group Republic, which promotes republicanism in the United Kingdom, claims that the full annual cost of the British monarchy is at least £345,000,000 a year, when including lost revenue from the two duchies, security, costs met by local councils and police forces, and lost tax revenue.
Yes, they sound like a trustworthy independant source. :erm:

Meanwhile, this from last year ;
https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/fea...ing-to-the-uk/

Quote:
According to Brand Finance, the UK monarchy’s capital value as a business sits at £67.5bn, while its annual contribution to the UK economy was £1.76bn in 2017 alone. Meanwhile, for the taxpayer, the annual cost per head is roughly 1p a day.
More recent figures for the contribution to the UK economy rise as high as £2.5bn per year, either way, the country makes quite a profit out of them overall.

As to 1p per day, well thats £3.65 per year, a little higher than 77p or £1.29, but still pretty insignificant, it wouldnt even get you a pint of beer these days.

TheDaddy 23-11-2023 02:49
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36164790)
Yes, they sound like a trustworthy independant source. :erm:

Meanwhile, this from last year ;
https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/fea...ing-to-the-uk/



More recent figures for the contribution to the UK economy rise as high as £2.5bn per year, either way, the country makes quite a profit out of them overall.

As to 1p per day, well thats £3.65 per year, a little higher than 77p or £1.29, but still pretty insignificant, it wouldnt even get you a pint of beer these days.
Speaking of trustworthy sources how's that 2.5 billion they contribute made up?

Paul 23-11-2023 03:53
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36164791)
Speaking of trustworthy sources how's that 2.5 billion they contribute made up?
Look it up, like someone said elsewhere. ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36164792)
... you should've got off your backside and looked yourself ...

Sephiroth 23-11-2023 10:22
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36164788)
It wasn't a problem, you were right

The campaign group Republic, which promotes republicanism in the United Kingdom, claims that the full annual cost of the British monarchy is at least £345,000,000 a year, when including lost revenue from the two duchies, security, costs met by local councils and police forces, and lost tax revenue.

At least four times the cost they'd have us believe
You really are a bitter person.

The Royal Family are an asset to the UK, enrich our history and provide endless opportunity for comment (and fun).

Mr K 23-11-2023 10:36
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36164801)
You really are a bitter person.

The Royal Family are an asset to the UK, enrich our history and provide endless opportunity for comment (and fun).
Don't think they are an asset any longer. Times have changed, other countries are looking to dump our Royal wasters too. They can't even get anyone to bother to host the Commonwealth games any longer. We're an insignificance.

Paul 23-11-2023 22:24
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36164804)
Don't think they are an asset any longer.
Why not ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36164804)
Times have changed.
"Times have changed" is a vague statement, "times" always change. What specific change(s) are you referring to ?

Ms NTL 24-11-2023 05:00
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36164783)

But you still have not given me a figure?

Surely, it must be dead easy to give me a figure?

I’m actually going to revise mine down to 77p per person.

https://www.royal.uk/media-pack/fina...0in%20the%20UK.


I look forward to hearing from you.
I spent some time doing calculations. Two questions:

*Do I include the suitcases and bags of cash he took from the Qataris?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...in-qatari-cash

*Do I include the money he collected from dead people?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-dead-citizens

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...e-king-charles

(Satire, not sarcastic)

Paul 24-11-2023 05:59
Re: Royal Family
 
:zzz:

Ms NTL 24-11-2023 06:07
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36164864)
:zzz:
Come on. Oh come on! It was funny mate!:D

jfman 29-11-2023 08:32
Re: Royal Family
 
Oh dear a Dutch version of a book names the Royal racist who asked what tinge Meghan and Harry’s kid will be.

Sephiroth 29-11-2023 09:08
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36165296)
Oh dear a Dutch version of a book names the Royal racist who asked what tinge Meghan and Harry’s kid will be.
You do like stirring it up! It's the first thing that came to mind across the country when the pregnancy was announced.

Hugh 29-11-2023 09:10
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36165298)
You do like stirring it up! It's the first thing that came to mind across the country when the pregnancy was announced.
Only for some people - never occurred to me….

Sephiroth 29-11-2023 09:11
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36165299)
Only for some people - never occurred to me….
Yeah - right (unless you didn't know Meghan was expecting).

peanut 29-11-2023 09:23
Re: Royal Family
 
It was a translation error... :erm:

It's more odd they're still classing it as a racist comment to ask if the baby will be black or whatever.

GrimUpNorth 29-11-2023 10:38
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36165300)
Yeah - right (unless you didn't know Meghan was expecting).
Don't be so presumptuous, some of us wondered what colour hair the little one would have.

Sephiroth 29-11-2023 10:42
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36165307)
Don't be so presumptuous, some of us wondered what colour hair the little one would have.

What colour hair does Archie have?

peanut 29-11-2023 10:44
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36165309)

What colour hair does Archie have?
Ginger afro? :shocked:

Sephiroth 29-11-2023 10:51
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut (Post 36165310)
Ginger afro? :shocked:
At last - someone else with a sense of humour.

Pierre 29-11-2023 11:09
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36165299)
Only for some people - never occurred to me….
Nor me, I didn't know Megan was mixed race.

Sephiroth 29-11-2023 11:18
Re: Royal Family
 
Were Putin to arrange the offing of William and his children, then Harry would be next in line, Meghan would be Queen in waiting and Archie would eventually become Prince of Wales.

"No shit" I just heard someone say.

jfman 29-11-2023 12:53
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36165318)
Were Putin to arrange the offing of William and his children, then Harry would be next in line, Meghan would be Queen in waiting and Archie would eventually become Prince of Wales.

"No shit" I just heard someone say.
It’s the monarchy bit that’s preposterous, not his skin colour.

Sephiroth 29-11-2023 13:06
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36165320)
It’s the monarchy bit that’s preposterous, not his skin colour.
Nobody has suggested that Archie's skin colour is preposterous. The monarchy is not as preposterous as you suggest. Charlie Farley is preposterous, but the institution provides constitutional stability.

Paul 29-11-2023 22:33
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36165315)
Nor me, I didn't know Megan was mixed race.
Ditto, I think I even mentioned that at the time [on here].

jfman 30-11-2023 00:15
Re: Royal Family
 
Piers Morgan naming and shaming Charlie and Katie on his show.

1andrew1 30-11-2023 00:22
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36165371)
Piers Morgan naming and shaming Charlie and Katie on his show.
In his video here at 8 minutes 25 seconds
https://twitter.com/PiersUncensored/...57308665336235

Ms NTL 30-11-2023 00:40
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut (Post 36165310)
Ginger afro? :shocked:

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2023/11/4.jpg

Maggy 30-11-2023 10:36
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36163793)
Ah one of those threads that keep coming back just like ones about the BBC licence fee ;)

Anyway, here goes, not particularly anti Royal but they've failed at the job over the last 30 or so years. Its well paid, not particularly tough and has plenty of fringe benefits . So like anyone who doesn't deliver the goods they should be on their last warning. At least they could trim it all own in terms of budget and people by 80%.

As for the Kings speech it's not his speech it's the Govts. You could tell he didn't believe anything he was being forced to say about climate u turns. Coupled with all the ludicrous ceremony, and stupid clothes it's an incredible waste of time and money that this country should have dumped decades ago. Could have bought a few dialysis machines for the cost.
:clap:

---------- Post added at 09:34 ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36164790)
Yes, they sound like a trustworthy independant source. :erm:

Meanwhile, this from last year ;
https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/fea...ing-to-the-uk/



More recent figures for the contribution to the UK economy rise as high as £2.5bn per year, either way, the country makes quite a profit out of them overall.

As to 1p per day, well thats £3.65 per year, a little higher than 77p or £1.29, but still pretty insignificant, it wouldnt even get you a pint of beer these days.
:clap::clap::clap:

---------- Post added at 09:36 ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36165299)
Only for some people - never occurred to me….
Or me.:rolleyes:

Kursk 30-11-2023 18:16
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36165371)
Piers Morgan naming and shaming Charlie and Katie on his show.
Certainly he named them but he didn't 'shame' them did he?

Ms NTL 30-11-2023 22:45
Re: Royal Family
 
I watched "Suits" for years -Megan was an actor there. I did not query her race for years.

When she married Harry, her bum was significantly reduced. Then, I found out she is half black. I thought she was South African - Zulu women have a condition called "Steatopygia", two watermelons as bum cheeks. Then by accident ,I found Megan is 43% Nigerian.

It is not uncommon for black babies to be born white. It takes time for melanin to kick in, more so in Nigerians.

Curiosity killed the cat :rolleyes:

Paul 30-11-2023 22:45
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 36165429)
Certainly he named them but he didn't 'shame' them did he?
He did not, and has he noted, without evidence (and context), its all meaingless hearsay.

Ms NTL 30-11-2023 22:55
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36165449)
He did not, and has he noted, without evidence (and context), its all meaingless hearsay.
It is not racist to be curious.

As somebody said they might have whether the baby will have ginger hair --gingerhairphobia?

GrimUpNorth 01-12-2023 08:47
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms NTL (Post 36165453)
It is not racist to be curious.

As somebody said they might have whether the baby will have ginger hair --gingerhairphobia?
It goes much further than that, in our house we've often wondered if a certain other red haired royal has got a promiscuous brother???

Ms NTL 01-12-2023 13:48
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36165475)
It goes much further than that, in our house we've often wondered if a certain other red haired royal has got a promiscuous brother???

Thanks! :D

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Sephiroth 01-12-2023 14:32
Re: Royal Family
 
Who needs a promiscuous brother when Charlie Farley himself was that soldier?

Ms NTL 01-12-2023 15:06
Re: Royal Family
 
Did Charlie wear the Greek flag tie again to cheese off Rishi?

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2023/12/1.jpg

Sephiroth 01-12-2023 15:13
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms NTL (Post 36165506)
Did Charlie wear the Greek flag tie again to cheese off Rishi?

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2023/12/1.jpg
No. Remember? He talks to plants.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/so...released%20for

Quote:
His notorious comments in 1986 about talking to plants are often repeated: "I just come and talk to the plants, really—very important to talk to them, they respond.” However, he was unembarrassed when asked about this in 2013, telling BBC's Countryfile: “No, now I instruct them instead."

Ms NTL 01-12-2023 15:23
Re: Royal Family
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36165508)
:D A good one!


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:23.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum