• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Kate Middletons baby"

Collapse

  • Scruff
    replied
    I must admit that I think that black Labrador dogs are cute. Accidents of birth not so...

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • mudskipper
    replied


    He's quite cute

    Leave a comment:


  • SimonMac
    replied
    Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
    Australian TV has got it right - another bloody unemployable oik to sponge off the state

    Leave a comment:


  • TheFaQQer
    replied
    Australian TV has got it right - another bloody unemployable oik to sponge off the state

    Leave a comment:


  • SimonMac
    replied
    Originally posted by VectraMan View Post
    15% of £210m isn't nothing. The Crown Estate is owned by the state, not the monarch, so in effect it's still a gift to the monarch from the taxpayer for no reason other than who she happens to be related to.
    No the Crown Estate is owned by the Crown (the clue is in the name), but George III surrendered inturn for an income (the Civil List), the Queen is perfectly in her right to take it back, or basically do anything she wants but she concedes matter of state to the elected government of the day, which is still Her Majesty's Government.

    Leave a comment:


  • VectraMan
    replied
    Originally posted by SimonMac View Post
    As I pointed out the Monarchy doesn't get any money from the tax payer, the Duchy or Lancashire and Cornwall earn a private income which they pay tax on, the Crown Estate makes a profit which is payed to the Treasury (£210m in the last full year account available) which the Royal Family are allowed to keep 15%.
    15% of £210m isn't nothing. The Crown Estate is owned by the state, not the monarch, so in effect it's still a gift to the monarch from the taxpayer for no reason other than who she happens to be related to.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by original PM View Post
    we need to keep the monarchy as otherwise the only represetatives of the UK abroad would be the shister politicians,

    Love or hate the monarchy they certainly help project a decent image when abroad.
    Google

    Leave a comment:


  • original PM
    replied
    we need to keep the monarchy as otherwise the only represetatives of the UK abroad would be the shister politicians,

    Love or hate the monarchy they certainly help project a decent image when abroad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    GAL Giant Alien Lizard.
    Well done. My exact first thoughts as well. He has the heritage.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheFaQQer
    replied
    Originally posted by VectraMan View Post
    Also cobblers. How do they bring a boost to the economy? The fact we have had a monarchy, and all the history that goes with that brings in money, but all those American tourists won't stop coming to see Buckingham Palace, The Tower of London etc. just because we don't have a current monarch.
    Stick a BK, McD and a Dunkin' Donuts in there and more will come.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Saying tourism wouldn't be affected is ludicrous. Old palaces are tourist destinations in countries which renounced their monarchies, but in nowhere near the same way. For simple reasons of celebrity, the royal family add a massive draw to the buildings and history.

    Or did you not notice Will & Kate's wedding and baby were bigger news in the USA than here?

    Leave a comment:


  • SimonMac
    replied
    Originally posted by VectraMan View Post
    Presumably that's like saying 70% of us Christians, which of course is complete cobblers in reality, most just fit into that wishy washy not really sure bracket.

    I suppose it depends exactly what you mean by "monarchy". I object to them having any part in the operation of the state, and certainly object to them being given a whole load of tax payers money when they're already stinking rich. So remove the monarch as head of state, stop giving them cash (unless they do work for the state which is different), but The Queen can still be The Queen.



    Also cobblers. How do they bring a boost to the economy? The fact we have had a monarchy, and all the history that goes with that brings in money, but all those American tourists won't stop coming to see Buckingham Palace, The Tower of London etc. just because we don't have a current monarch.
    As I pointed out the Monarchy doesn't get any money from the tax payer, the Duchy or Lancashire and Cornwall earn a private income which they pay tax on, the Crown Estate makes a profit which is payed to the Treasury (£210m in the last full year account available) which the Royal Family are allowed to keep 15%.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheFaQQer
    replied
    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    Harry isn't in line for the throne. If Wills had done that stuff I don't think it would have been tolerated quite as well.
    He's closer to the throne than Victoria was when she was born...

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    I wonder if the monarchy will still be around for King George to take the throne. Realistically we're probably looking about 50 years away.
    I see no reason it wouldn't.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X