http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-q...-family-contribution-to-the-uk-economy-2015-9 The value last year nett to the UK economy was £1.155 BILLION....
Can posters be removed from threads nowadays? Only watched the 2nd half. We were unlucky in some part but atrocious in others.
Buck. Palace isn't owned by the Queen it's owned by the nation (taxpayer).Like Allam didn't want to pay to extend the stadium as it wasn't owned by him.
Well things are desperate I am having to turn on a watch the Argies beating Scotland to cheer myself up. Now they have gone and equalised
You are an example of a stupid twat. Shame you won't have grandkids to spend time with as you would have had to have a relationship with a female for that to happen.
No. Just that I am not an ardent monarchist. I think Liz has done a great job as a head of state, far preferable to ceremonial Presidents around the world. She has done the job without anyone actually knowing her thoughts on anything, meeting heads of state who fall over themselves to meet her and as as a result we indutectly benefit. But the opinionated and out of touch .Charles is a different matter. Self opinionated and out of touch...sounds like Spook as well.
It's owned by the Crown. The Crown Estates aren't owned by the Queen as an individual but it is still owned by the Monarchy as an institution. I don't think this is particularly political anyway but whatever, mods will probably disagree. The Crown Estates is a legacy of feudal tenure introduced during the Norman conquest. During pre-Conquest England the land in England was predominantly owned in allodial tenure by either peasant farmers or local nobles; the Crown itself owned jack-**** with the exception of their own royal villas. It's one of the reasons the kings called themselves King of the English rather than King of England; their sovereignty was linked with the people, not the land. The Crown Estates refer to the land or property the Monarchy can derive profit or income from and it was during King George III's reign when Parliament made a deal with King George III so that all income would be controlled by the Treasury but an allowance would be returned to the Monarch and the Royal Family in the form of the Sovereign Grant (a fixed fee decided by Parliament). The problem with this is, the Crown Estates were stolen from peasant farmers during the Conquest to begin with and we have never had a referendum on the Monarchy and therefore haven't consented to them receiving a pay-rise. She can call herself Queen till she's blue in the face and I don't care about that. I'd prefer the Crown Estates to be abolished and made public property, rather than the Monarchy as an institution being abolished. Let the Royals keep their titles and ceremonial role but make them get jobs to support their living like the proles do or make them apply for a council house. The Scandinavian and Dutch royals are much more modest in their living - if we can't abolish it altogether I'd want our Royals to certainly be more modest in their expenses.
If we had a referendum on the monarchy would people stamp their tiny feet if it didn't t go their way?
You really are bitter and talk like a spotty angry teenager behind his computer I have served in the military for 15 years and have wife you silly little man I wish you was 20 that way I could give you a slap.
I wouldn't and tbh if it was held tomorrow the Royalists would likely win; I accept that. Give Charlie a year or two on the throne and rising poverty and more people would start to question the absurdity of it all.
No, I'm not bothered by your comment, it was just casual homophobia. I am bisexual though. I'm more on the giving side than the taking side, if you catch my drift. Plus, having sex with a lecturer is frowned upon if not forbidden by my university. Ha ha ha ha.
