Off Topic Royal Wedding

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Who is punching above their weight...

  • Harry

  • Meghan

  • Their both ugly ducklings

  • I'd love a threesome with them

  • Who gives a flying ****?


Results are only viewable after voting.
blood line wise I don't think its very royal at all>>>>>hewitts boy and some yank..........shame people fall for a sham

You must log in or register to see media
 
Remember when Blair got rid of the Royal Yacht because it was a ridiculous expense, then within months suggested he should have a plane like the Yanks have Airforce 1. Missing the irony that it would cost as much as 5 times the cost of a Royal Yacht.
 
Remember when Blair got rid of the Royal Yacht because it was a ridiculous expense, then within months suggested he should have a plane like the Yanks have Airforce 1. Missing the irony that it would cost as much as 5 times the cost of a Royal Yacht.

Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher spring to mind any time an elected president of the UK is suggested.... :emoticon-0119-puke:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solid Air
Tourists would still come if we weren't funding the royals though.

After all it's not actually the royal family they come to see, it's the palace, etc.

The tourist industry has actually argued otherwise to a point....however,

So you'd maintain the buildings then; the bit that costs almost a third of the annual budget paid by tax payer.... oh and keep staff on to run them as tourist attractions, security for contents worth more than in most museums etc etc. Those savings are quickly going down and we still haven't added the cost of either the direct replacement or cost added to the budgets of existing departments to cover the tasks reassigned.

The Crown estate would still exist without the monarch. ..its not just managing a few palaces ...its half the UK coastline, forests, agricultural land etc . It's part of the fudging of figures ... it's what takes the annual cost of the royals from 37m to 200-300 million.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnsonsbaby
The tourist industry has actually argued otherwise to a point....however,

So you'd maintain the buildings then; the bit that costs almost a third of the annual budget paid by tax payer.... oh and keep staff on to run them as tourist attractions, security for contents worth more than in most museums etc etc. Those savings are quickly going down and we still haven't added the cost of either the direct replacement or cost added to the budgets of existing departments to cover the tasks reassigned.

The Crown estate would still exist without the monarch. ..its not just managing a few palaces ...its half the UK coastline, forests, agricultural land etc . It's part of the fudging of figures ... it's what takes the annual cost of the royals from 37m to 200-300 million.


Read somewhere a while ago that the Queen owns forests, thousands of acres of countryside, vast swathes of buildings in the big cities, real estate in New York, parts of the actual coastal waters(amongst other things), not sure the country/crown estate own as much as her.

Although I'm probably totally wrong altogether.<laugh>
 
Read somewhere a while ago that the Queen owns forests, thousands of acres of countryside, vast swathes of buildings in the big cities, real estate in New York, parts of the actual coastal waters(amongst other things), not sure the country/crown estate own as much as her.

Although I'm probably totally wrong altogether.<laugh>
Genuinely don't know the divvy up... I'm sure she doesn't need the state pension though :biggrin:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Page_Moss_Kopite