Can someone explain to me....

France and Italy seem to do alright on the tourism front. nt

 

Good for them Dave.

What's your point ?

 

Oh yes.

But at least I'm not that blinded by irrational loathing towards the monarchy that I'm happy to be buttf-cked by my elected representatives in this so-called 'democracy' we live in.</p>

Still, at least I voted for them so they can skank the public purse for all its worth.
</p>

 

Factomundo...

BP got shares in the massive Azerbaijan oil fields because Queenie hosted a visit to the Palace for the then Azerbaijani president.

 

I'm an old **** stirrer

<img src ="http://www.desktopstars.com/photos-ds/Sylvia_Saint_18200832817PM237.jpg">

 

She'd stir my porridge.

etc and on.

 

becasue he owns that land separately from his role as Prince of Wales and heir to the throne and instead owns in as Duke of Cornwall. As such he is entitled to it just the same as any other member of the aristocracy who inherit their lands and title although you could argue that only the title makes it any different from you or I inheriting a business from our parents (although slightly different because the prince of wales always 'inherits' this upon their father/ mother's ascent to the throne).

 

That I think that the link between the Royal family and

the level of tourism obtained is sometimes vastly overstated.</p>

</p>

 

Maybe so.

But before we get shut of them, we'd better have something better to replace them. Not for tourism but for the potential of a constitutional fck up that could leave us with a President Thatcher or Blair for example.</p>

I think some folk like the VIth form politics of wanting to do away with the monarchy.
</p>

 

Yes, but that is no different.

You can gift your land, etc and as long as it's 7 years before you cark it Tax man can't touch you.


No special treatement there.

 

I can't decide who I'll be

Phil
<img src ="http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/files/images/phil-harding-with-handaxes-from-dry-land.preview.jpg">
Or
Indiana
<img src ="http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/indiana1.jpg">

 

RE: I can't decide who I'll be

Phil - that's the **** I was on about. that Mick's a sound if boring bloke. That Phil wants burying.

 

Wurzelist nt

 

My point is only relating to the tourism.

I'm not anti monarchy although I do sometimes think it is 'overblown' and wonder how valid the system is in the 21st century.

 

RE: My point is only relating to the tourism.

imho it's as least as valid as electing an idividual ostensibly to represent you then seeing that individual use a laissez faire system of regulation in order to enrich himself at the the public's expense.</p>

I really don't get this 'ooh it's the modern age so let's get rid of stuff we think of as 'old' '</p>

make the system work better, cos we've got fck all workable to replace it.
</p>

 

but they didn't buy the land did they? If a family works hard and buys land and real estate then fair enough.

If they just decide to take it, make money on it while still claiming money from the tax payer then it's wrong. That land and all estates owned by the Royal family would be much more beneficial if they were opened up to the public by creating public gardens, museums etc. Not just lining their f.cking pocket.

 

That's a rather..

.. sweeping assertion don't you think?

 

http://www.duchyofcornwall.org/

It's an inheritance passed onto the soveriegns first heir dating back to 1337.

 

What they habitually neglect to point out in those hysterical reports...

</p>

.....is that the Crown Estate,the proceeds of whichare handed over to us,generates roughly &pound;190m each year. </p>

 

I think you're being a bit extreme mate don't forget the Queen is not obliged to pay tax she does it voluntarily, the crown estates make money as already mentioned and as for creating museums you can look round Buckingham Palace and visit Windsor Castle etc