Is Prince William a 'Slacker'?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stuk  Top half 20 Apr 16 3.45pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by JL85
Maybe, maybe not. I think with Charles the appetite for a monarchy will dwindle. The appetite for him being head of state for some other countries might. Even if it did here it would never get to the point where more wanted rid than not. It's got about an 80% approval rating. Edited by Stuk (20 Apr 2016 3.46pm)
Optimistic as ever |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Apr 16 3.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
You'll be waiting a long time to see it. The Monarchy is infinitely better than the alternative. Just look at France. Yeah, with their better working conditions, shorter hours, cheaper booze, existential cigerrettes, great licencing laws, beautiful cities, laid back attitudes to p***. prostitution, drugs, sex, drinking, their better health care, better trains and s**ty (but better) wine. Granted they have a president, who is usually a smarmy dodgy as f**k c**t. But we have Prince Phillip, Harry and Andrew, which is like having three of them all of whom are completely irrelevant to the Queens official state roles.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Apr 16 3.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
The appetite for him being head of state for some other countries might. Even if it did here it would never get to the point where more wanted rid than not. It's got about an 80% approval rating. Edited by Stuk (20 Apr 2016 3.46pm) Certainly true, given William is very popular with the masses. If Charles had no kids, or kids who were like him (insert Hewitt and Carling jokes here) then there might have been more popular opinion for getting rid of them. But the current crop seem to have overcome the PR night mare on legs that was their parents, aunts and uncles generation.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 20 Apr 16 3.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Yeah, with their better working conditions, shorter hours, cheaper booze, existential cigerrettes, great licencing laws, beautiful cities, laid back attitudes to p***. prostitution, drugs, sex, drinking, their better health care, better trains and s**ty (but better) wine. Granted they have a president, who is usually a smarmy dodgy as f**k c**t. But we have Prince Phillip, Harry and Andrew, which is like having three of them all of whom are completely irrelevant to the Queens official state roles. Bottom line, though, is that they're French and nothing on earth can compensate for that particular misfortune.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| JL85 London,SE9 20 Apr 16 3.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
The appetite for him being head of state for some other countries might. Even if it did here it would never get to the point where more wanted rid than not. It's got about an 80% approval rating. Edited by Stuk (20 Apr 2016 3.46pm) Around 60% from the polls i've seen, but it matters not. I don't dispute that they remain popular. I have my fingers crossed for 15 years of Charlie carnage.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
The Sash  Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 20 Apr 16 4.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by susmik
As long as its not you mate as you do not know what you are talking about. Why you have this thing about the royal family beats me. They do a good job believe it or not and bring millions into this country both with tourism and investment. Get your facts right instead of spinning the sh1t.... No they don't. Complete fallacy and pretty much the monarchists only arguement Edited by The Sash (20 Apr 2016 4.05pm)
As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 20 Apr 16 4.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by JL85
Ponying on about fact's and prevent none yourself, eh? But whilst we are on fact's, you do realise that the most popular Royal residence is Windsor Castle, right? And that Windsor Castle is less popular a tourist destination than a Flamingo Zoo? That's a bit of an unfair comparison as Flamingo Land brings in mainly visitors from the local area whilst London's heritage including Buckingham Palace brings in overseas visitors with their Dollars and Euros
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| JL85 London,SE9 20 Apr 16 4.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
That's a bit of an unfair comparison as Flamingo Land brings in mainly visitors from the local area whilst London's heritage including Buckingham Palace brings in overseas visitors with their Dollars and Euros Yeh, fair enough, but the point stands because Windsor Castle is the only residence to make the top 20, and it sits down in 17th. Museums fair so much better, as do vacated Royal attractions, such as the Tower of London, which support the notion that tourism would be unaffected by a lack of Royalty.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 20 Apr 16 4.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by JL85
Ponying on about fact's and prevent none yourself, eh? But whilst we are on fact's, you do realise that the most popular Royal residence is Windsor Castle, right? And that Windsor Castle is less popular a tourist destination than a Flamingo Zoo? Anyone could bring money in as King/Queen through tourism, in fact the Palace's and places of interest would do that quite well by themselves. But that's irrelevant, it's the need to continuously perpetuate some neolithic overlord status decided by hereditary hand me downs. It's a load of old nonsense, much like the house of lords. If anything, i'd like to see it become a voluntary payment system so as more people opt out, those ardent fans, like yourself, can pick up the remainder of the bill. Edited by JL85 (20 Apr 2016 2.58pm) You need to get your brain in gear matey. The bit I highlighted in your reply about facts is there for all to see and YOU actually answered them in your return post. Your hatred for the Royals is based on what??? You should go back to school (if you are not still in school that IS by your posts)and learn some more about the history of this country...... You really do need to THINK before you spout!
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 20 Apr 16 4.15pm | |
|---|---|
|
If I was married to Kate I would be boffing her 24/7 and doing fcuk all else. Fair play to him.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Attachment: | JL85 London,SE9 20 Apr 16 4.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by susmik
You need to get your brain in gear matey. The bit I highlighted in your reply about facts is there for all to see and YOU actually answered them in your return post. Your hatred for the Royals is based on what??? You should go back to school (if you are not still in school that IS by your posts)and learn some more about the history of this country...... You really do need to THINK before you spout! I think when you try to attack me it highlights that you have little if anything to bring to this debate, hence the resorting to insults. Suggesting "i go back to school" is weak. I invite you to bring some actual facts rather then frantically re-reading your Daily Mail Royalty special edition framed on your bedroom wall. So as for the part you highlighted originally, where i said: Can you clarify you believe this to be me stating something as a matter of fact? Because i feel i was offering an opinion/alternative. Edited by JL85 (20 Apr 2016 4.37pm) Edited by JL85 (20 Apr 2016 4.40pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 20 Apr 16 4.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by JL85
I think when you try to attack me it highlights that you have little if anything to bring to this debate, hence the resorting to insults. Suggesting "i go back to school" is weak. I invite you to bring some actual facts rather then frantically re-reading your Daily Mail Royalty special edition framed on your bedroom wall. So as for the part you highlighted originally, where i said: Can you clarify you believe this to be me stating something as a matter of fact? Because i feel i was offering an opinion/alternative. Edited by JL85 (20 Apr 2016 4.37pm) The comments I made were to a very immature piece of typing. Your hatred for the royals is plain for all to see and I will reiterate once again seeing a you did not get it first time round. The Royals bring in millions of pound on their own both with visitors who do really like to see royalty and Buck house and all the pageantry that goes with it.... Some of the Royals actually do go abroad to drum up business which AGAIN brings millions of pounds in and also creates jobs. As an added note they do pay taxes as well .....
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.