• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Bedfordspurs said:
Exactly…
Consorting Buckingham Palace with Versailles or a zoo is daft
Click to expand...
It is as things currently stand. However with no more royal family and a therefore unoccupied palace, it could be open all year round and would attract far more visitors.
I understand the points made by @Grays_1890 and am certainly not going to dismiss his direct knowledge of the £££ impact the royals have on tourism. But taking out specific and (usually) irregular events like weddings and funerals, having wider access to what would then be historic royal residences should offer a different but still very popular tourist opportunity, if marketed appropriately, so I am sure losses can be mitigated to a reasonable extent. Anyway if tourism revenues are the reason for keeping a monarchical structure, then something is very wrong (not suggesting anyone here is saying it is the reason but it does seem to be a fallback argument that is generally raised).
 
Glenda's Legs said:
It is as things currently stand. However with no more royal family and a therefore unoccupied palace, it could be open all year round and would attract far more visitors.
I understand the points made by @Grays_1890 and am certainly not going to dismiss his direct knowledge of the £££ impact the royals have on tourism. But taking out specific and (usually) irregular events like weddings and funerals, having wider access to what would then be historic royal residences should offer a different but still very popular tourist opportunity, if marketed appropriately, so I am sure losses can be mitigated to a reasonable extent. Anyway if tourism revenues are the reason for keeping a monarchical structure, then something is very wrong (not suggesting anyone here is saying it is the reason but it does seem to be a fallback argument that is generally raised).
Click to expand...

Well on thay I agree TBH, I think there is a extendable trick being missed on opening them up further of course. I think the Royal Family will in future be diluted down toothed level that it happens personally post Charles. But i don't agree with the whole get rid and everything remains equal side of the arguments, losing a loving a breathing royal family in the UK would have a negative impact IMO based on what I've seen.
 
Some sickos have started rumours that David Attenborough has died. Probably thought it would be a good April Fools joke. Imagine if you were a family member though?
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
That moany ginger cnut over in America should have paid inheritance tax on the millions Diana left him.
Click to expand...

As Republican as I am I think Inheritance tax was paid on Diana's estate.

It is only the stuff which is passed on as Monarch (and I think the Duchies) that doesn't get taxed but there is a lot of grey area of what is the Crown's and what is the personal possession - art work, horses, gifts etc seem to be given to the Monarch but belong to the person. Possibly the same as Balmoral and Sandringham which are owned in a private capacity but were bought in a dodgy stich up d3eal using public money ('loan').
 
Lost Mango said:
As Republican as I am I think Inheritance tax was paid on Diana's estate.

It is only the stuff which is passed on as Monarch (and I think the Duchies) that doesn't get taxed but there is a lot of grey area of what is the Crown's and what is the personal possession - art work, horses, gifts etc seem to be given to the Monarch but belong to the person. Possibly the same as Balmoral and Sandringham which are owned in a private capacity but were bought in a dodgy stich up d3eal using public money ('loan').
Click to expand...
I doubt it but I'm a cynic and my heart is in it.

I see no point to them at all.
 
Lost Mango said:
As Republican as I am I think Inheritance tax was paid on Diana's estate.

It is only the stuff which is passed on as Monarch (and I think the Duchies) that doesn't get taxed but there is a lot of grey area of what is the Crown's and what is the personal possession - art work, horses, gifts etc seem to be given to the Monarch but belong to the person. Possibly the same as Balmoral and Sandringham which are owned in a private capacity but were bought in a dodgy stich up d3eal using public money ('loan').
Click to expand...

Don't they own some of the sea as well, loads of income from the offshore wind rig auctions goes to them. Why would Blair have put in a law saying the money goes to them.

www.theguardian.com

King Charles redirects £1bn windfarm profits towards ‘public good’

Wind energy agreements have generated windfall that would normally go towards monarchy
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Just seen the story about Israel attacking the aid convey and killing 6 people.

Anyone left still think the Israeli Govt and IDF aren't complete clams and exploiting the wests appeasement to enact genocide?

Any other country and the US, UK etc would be gearing up for air strikes.

If you had any lingering dillusion that supporting Israel was on the "right side", then you are equally morally culpable. And Hamas has already won by the way - played Israel like a fiddle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back