cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Royals

Community Veteran
Posts: 9,809
Thanks: 1,676
Fixes: 11
Registered: ‎02-08-2007

Royals

Some papers are claiming that once Charles becomes King he will slim down the royal family.

Not before time in my opinion, far too many hangers on.

28 REPLIES 28
Community Veteran
Posts: 19,297
Thanks: 2,272
Fixes: 30
Registered: ‎06-11-2007

Re: Royals

would he be getting rid of the original hanger-on, mrs. charles,  as well ? 

jab1
Hero
Posts: 3,322
Thanks: 1,072
Fixes: 20
Registered: ‎24-02-2012

Re: Royals


@gleneagles wrote:

Some papers are claiming that once Charles becomes King he will slim down the royal family.

Not before time in my opinion, far too many hangers on.


You mean even they are getting that bored with December 12th that they have to dredge up old news? I'm sure I remember this cropping up last time thing got a bit quiet.

Out of interest and because I cba to bother looking, which are these 'some papers'?

John
Minivanman
Aspiring Legend
Posts: 10,695
Thanks: 3,460
Fixes: 1
Registered: ‎04-11-2014

Re: Royals

The Sun for one @jab1, along with the Express, the Mail, Cosmopoliton, International Business Times....

Me, I'd be more than happy to offer them all a vasectomy at the taxpayers expense.

It's only a snip. 

giod.jpg

Just put your todger in there young sir, I'll not feel a  thing... honest.  😛

 

jab1
Hero
Posts: 3,322
Thanks: 1,072
Fixes: 20
Registered: ‎24-02-2012

Re: Royals

Thanks for the list of quality 😜 newspapers there, @Minivanman . Apart from the IBT (which I have never read (or seen), you have collection there of publications I wouldn't trust to tell me the time, never mind publish news I could believe.

As to your second comment - only to expected, and I will just say 'I respect your right to hold those opinions, but don't expect me to agree with you'.

John
Minivanman
Aspiring Legend
Posts: 10,695
Thanks: 3,460
Fixes: 1
Registered: ‎04-11-2014

Re: Royals

Well I'm almost the same age as Chas and we've sort of grown up together in a kind of a 'Prince and the Pauper' way, but in all and absolute honesty I do not envy him one tiny bit when comparing my past and hopefully some future life with his. 

Like the bible bashers, the time of throne sitters both high and low is fading. The only sadness is that regardless of truth or logic there will always be those that instinctivly bend the knee or tug the forelock along with a désirent for both reverence and reference.

It's human nature innit. 🙂 

But there you go, happy to live in a world that caters for all sorts... up to a point. 

 

 

Community Veteran
Posts: 9,809
Thanks: 1,676
Fixes: 11
Registered: ‎02-08-2007

Re: Royals

I think most people would agree the Queen has done a good job and I certainly agree with @Minivanman regarding Charles and would not wish to be in his place but once he takes over as King the public are unlikely to support increasing sums of money being spent to support those classed as royals at a time when so many public services are being cut due to lack of funds.

Highlighted
TeeGee
Aspiring Pro
Posts: 178
Thanks: 98
Registered: ‎24-02-2009

Re: Royals

The Royal family are a "steal" compared with what we pay to public sector box tickers and "hangers on" further down the social scale. The income generated from tourism by them is considerable too.

We could probably get  funding for them by getting rid of the House of Lords (£300 expenses just for signing in for a cup of coffee) and cutting Parliament by half.

 

Community Veteran
Posts: 19,297
Thanks: 2,272
Fixes: 30
Registered: ‎06-11-2007

Re: Royals


@TeeGee wrote:

 

 

We could probably get  funding for them by getting rid of the House of Lords (£300 expenses just for signing in for a cup of coffee) and cutting Parliament by half.

 


Ah Yes.... of course..... a "Black Friday Deal" on government.... 50% off ! ! ! ...

Luzern
Hero
Posts: 4,574
Thanks: 800
Fixes: 8
Registered: ‎31-07-2007

Re: Royals


@TeeGee wrote:

The Royal family are a "steal" compared with what we pay to public sector box tickers and "hangers on" further down the social scale. The income generated from tourism by them is considerable too.

We could probably get  funding for them by getting rid of the House of Lords (£300 expenses just for signing in for a cup of coffee) and cutting Parliament by half.

 


@TeeGee I'm not sure that disposing of the HoL as a revising chamber would be good for us, but I also believe there are many with specialist expertise and not so tied to current party policies, and so able to consider critically new legislation. IMHO as a revising chamber its title is unfortunate, because it lends itself to oprobium by demagogues of right and left, who abhor any upper house capable of thwarting them.

Ennoblement and aptitude in political function need be distinct from each other.

No one has to agree with my opinion, but in the time I have left a miracle would be nice.
TTman
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 569
Thanks: 361
Fixes: 1
Registered: ‎26-01-2019

Re: Royals

@Luzern I agree a second chamber is important and should be kept. The current one needs slimming down as is too large. It should not be used as a reward for MPs and party hangerons or donors, but for people who have the expertise to be able to scrutinise new laws independent of any part loyalties. 😊 

Minivanman
Aspiring Legend
Posts: 10,695
Thanks: 3,460
Fixes: 1
Registered: ‎04-11-2014

Re: Royals


@TeeGee wrote:

The Royal family are a "steal" compared with what we pay to public sector box tickers and "hangers on" further down the social scale. The income generated from tourism by them is considerable too.

We could probably get  funding for them by getting rid of the House of Lords (£300 expenses just for signing in for a cup of coffee) and cutting Parliament by half.

 


Regarding your first point, I'm not sure that's true to be honest - in fact I'm pretty sure it's not and without wishing to put you on the spot, perhaps you could provide us with some figures?

As regards to the second, it is vital that we have a first and second chamber. What is not needed are 650 members of parliament and 780 members in the house of lords. It is stark barking mad.

As for those MEPs, well there are exactly 73 worse than useless.

Head of State by election, and not as a result of a romp between the bedsheets either. 😛

 

jab1
Hero
Posts: 3,322
Thanks: 1,072
Fixes: 20
Registered: ‎24-02-2012

Re: Royals

@Minivanman So you'd accept some strange individual then - like the current POTUS? 🤣

Just a point as well, we are a monarchy, not a republic, although I know you wish we weren't.😉

John
Minivanman
Aspiring Legend
Posts: 10,695
Thanks: 3,460
Fixes: 1
Registered: ‎04-11-2014

Re: Royals

Well Trump was elected so yes, I would accept as I must the will of the majority.

We are not by the way a monarchy, we are a parliamentary democracy under an unwritten constitutional monarchy which means the only rights that lot have are those created by precedence. 

Dare they have a referendum on crown or consensus? Chance would be a fine thing. 😛

jab1
Hero
Posts: 3,322
Thanks: 1,072
Fixes: 20
Registered: ‎24-02-2012

Re: Royals

@Minivanman I agree, he was 'elected' but he is currently in the process of being 'unelected'. Not before time, IMHO . I have had personal experience of company 'presidents' a 'vice presidents' from across the pond, and sadly they have all come across as loud and ignorant - maybe that's normal across there, but it didn't endear any of them to me.

My apologies re: our constitutional status - I should have paused and re-read prior to posting, as your description is closer to what I meant.

John