call me wrong , if I am.. but...

[scottduffy]

Byker i have never taken an oath to them in my life so i owe them nothing. Maybe if they showed the same respect for my religion as i afford theirs i would think more highly of them.

"I hope this doesn't come across as partisan, but it strikes me that our new prince will enjoy a freedom not granted to any member of the Royal Family since the Act of Settlement was passed in 1701: he will be able to marry a Roman Catholic without surrendering his right to the throne. This amendment to the Act has long been mooted, though it's not viewed with any enthusiasm at Buckingham Palace or Clarence House. But the idea that the ban on marrying Catholics will still be in place in 20 years' time is ridiculous. Whether the constitution will also allow a monarch to becomea Catholic is much more open to question: I don't see such a change happening unless the Church of England is fully disestablished from the State and the Monarchy. And if that happens then, yes, a Catholic monarch is conceivable"






Jesus next they'll be telling us that black people can attend the same schools as us !!!! Bigots the lot of them.

 

[Bernie174]

Obscene security costs? You said they refuse to reveal how much they are, so how do you know they are obscene?

The reality is of course, as someone who has an idea of what their security involves, that it isn't as much as some politicians. so that makes it reasonable. Whoever we have as head of state they will have a security cost, so it's really a spurious argument, even if you
had any idea what you're talking about, which you clearly don't.

William worked for a living, had a full time job in the RAF, leaving aside, that there are a fair number of people who are alive today thanks to him, and his colleagues, he did that along with representing the UK. For which he got no pay.
He now intends to work as an air ambulance pilot, for no pay, and also work for the UK and other Commonwealth Realms, for expenses only. Yes, he has a company flat, so what, seems like good value to me.

So, lets boil this down, you object to a family who devote their lives to the UK,, and 16 other Countries, who don't retire, who do more than one job, and in the eyes of the majority of the world, do those jobs well.

And as an objection to that, you say that there are needy. Can I recommend that you watch Ch4's Benefit Street. Oh, I'm sure you think it's all made up, but I'm sorry to disenchant you, there are a lot of the so called poor who seem to think they should live on the efforts of the rest of us, who seem to be able to smoke and drink quite well, sometimes in the queues for food banks. Who have all the mod cons at home.

You strike me as a bitter and twisted person, who's unable to put a coherent point over with some evidence supporting it. However, it's a free Country, so you have a right to your views, and I am in favour of you expressing them, they make me laugh.

Oh and I did take an oath of Allegiance too, "I Bernie do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth in the office of Constable". I also take that seriously.

 

[jakeblu]

what utter toss.

If you got off your ass and applied yourself you could well find yourself in those circles. Several unmarried royals out there you could pull. You just need to put youself in the position to move in the right circles. Several "civvies" have married royals. You just cant be bothered and would rather whine about them on a BB.

And as for the moaning Jock, accounts have proven than the royals contribute a damn site more wealth to the UK than you lot who are more than happy to suck up the english taxpayers money to fund yourselves. You lost, tough.

Thank you for that incoherent rant. You've helped me see the error of my ways. Instead if complaining about the perceived inequalities of royalty I should just get my act together and get off my arse and marry one of them. lol it would be funny if I didn't think you meant it. You couldn't make it up honestly.

 

[viv1969]

There are so may quotes here that make me chuckle but this is my favourite. They wouldn't have a nanny by choice !!! They've been brought up by nannies and bloody hired help the lot of them. It's all they know.

By the way instead of bigging up Prince William for giving up his salary why don't we ask him to live on it like the rest and give up the millions he takes from the public?

Another point. How can anyone say we get good value from the Royals when we have no idea how much they cost us since they refuse to publish their obscene security costs?

Diana hounded to her death by paps eh. The Royals hated Diana because the public loved her and sided with her against that awful family. What other family can take money from the public, wear Nazi uniforms for the pleasure and get good press? They are vile.

Blah.

Blah.

Blah.

:sleep:

 

[simon ess]

I would love to see, one day, a coherent, well thought out, statistically supported, non-political argument for abolishing the monarchy.

I'm instinctively a republican but, until I see that argument, I have to accept that, for this country at least., my instincts are probably wrong.

It seems to me, and various threads in this forum seem to support it, most anti-monarchists are bitter old style socialists with a class inferiority chip on their shoulder.

 

[Byker28i]

Byker i have never taken an oath to them in my life so i owe them nothing. Maybe if they showed the same respect for my religion as i afford theirs i would think more highly of them.

"I hope this doesn't come across as partisan, but it strikes me that our new prince will enjoy a freedom not granted to any member of the Royal Family since the Act of Settlement was passed in 1701: he will be able to marry a Roman Catholic without surrendering his right to the throne. This amendment to the Act has long been mooted, though it's not viewed with any enthusiasm at Buckingham Palace or Clarence House. But the idea that the ban on marrying Catholics will still be in place in 20 years' time is ridiculous. Whether the constitution will also allow a monarch to becomea Catholic is much more open to question: I don't see such a change happening unless the Church of England is fully disestablished from the State and the Monarchy. And if that happens then, yes, a Catholic monarch is conceivable"






Jesus next they'll be telling us that black people can attend the same schools as us !!!! Bigots the lot of them.

You owe them nothing! The crown estate has paid over £2 billion into the treasury over the last decade, constantly producing an above average return on the portfolio they manage for the country (that you wanted to leave). Never mind about the royal duties that makes this country so admired abroad.

Your quoting a journalist, Damien Thompson, from the telegraph. At least have the decency to add the link or source. It's someone's opinion, not fact,

I'm afraid that the only bigot exposed in your posts both in here and the independence thread, is you.

Bigot, a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people...

 

[boyfalldown]

That said why shouldn't they have a nanny - lots of rich people have nannies , au pairs etc ?

If you have a big enough house for a spare bedroom an au pair works out one of the cheaper forms of child care. In London an au pair will cost you around £90/week + board and lodging. Thats far cheaper then a nursery place & about the same as an after school club costs for a child.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Diana hounded to her death by paps eh. The Royals hated Diana because the public loved her and sided with her against that awful family. What other family can take money from the public, wear Nazi uniforms for the pleasure and get good press? They are vile.

Don't you think the Nazi uniform was a bit of fun for a Halloween party, nothing malicious in it. I went as Hitler to one.

 

[SFTPhotography]

You have a net loss of £12 billion as pointed out in the independence thread. Remember salmond couldn't get the books to balance.
So scotland needs £12 billion from the rest of the uk to balance it's books. Rich taking from the poor, after all you get free medical, education, all paid for by the rest of us.

Crown estates made £253 million for the treasury last year. I'm sure you can work out the percentage the royals get back from that.

What net loss does the UK operate at?

 

[Byker28i]

What net loss does the UK operate at?

£12 billion deficit for Scotland was in direct response to ScottDuffy Taking money and spending it like it's going out of fashion whilst food banks become a normal part of every day life for millions across Britain. (post #6) Seemed a little rich that Scotland was overspending providing free education, prescriptions. Just pointing out the hypocracy.

As for the deficit, in 1997 Labour inherited a budget that was balanced, but Gordon Brown (Scottish ) let fly and by the end of 2010 the UK as a whole was £178 billion in debt. in 2009 to 2010 the UK as a whole spent £100 billion more than it brought in in taxes, about 8% of GDP, that's now down to about 4% of GDP, govt borrowing is halved. Scottish spending has not reduced.

We could get into a lot more figures, but my point was about a certain posters hypocracy, never mind about his financial inaccuracies or bigotry.

 

[Bernie174]

The Royal family receive nothing from the Crown Estate.
They get 15% currently of the net revenue of the Estates from Government as a Grant. So, although the Crown owns the land, it cannot sell it, or profit from it. In other words they pay 85% tax on it. Sponging? I don't think I'd be happy with that rate of tax.

 

[SFTPhotography]

£12 billion deficit for Scotland was in direct response to ScottDuffy Taking money and spending it like it's going out of fashion whilst food banks become a normal part of every day life for millions across Britain. (post #6) Seemed a little rich that Scotland was overspending providing free education, prescriptions. Just pointing out the hypocracy.

As for the deficit, in 1997 Labour inherited a budget that was balanced, but Gordon Brown (Scottish ) let fly and by the end of 2010 the UK as a whole was £178 billion in debt. in 2009 to 2010 the UK as a whole spent £100 billion more than it brought in in taxes, about 8% of GDP, that's now down to about 4% of GDP, govt borrowing is halved. Scottish spending has not reduced.

We could get into a lot more figures, but my point was about a certain posters hypocracy, never mind about his financial inaccuracies or bigotry.

I agree Scotland and its socialist government spends other peoples money like it's going out of fashion, for sure. Its why I voted no. All this free uni/free prescriptions crap, its not on when the whole country is skint and them charletons want to spend more on childcare etc. No-one makes folk have kids etc or go to uni, why should I see my taxes wasted on that. Luckily, rUK we are in, long live trident and its happily still at faslane.

I have no issue with the royal family, but nannies etc is not good parenting, good parenting is spending time with the children you have as much as you can

 

[Yv]

I have no issue with the royal family, but nannies etc is not good parenting, good parenting is spending time with the children you have as much as you can

I think in fairness, William and Kate have probably spent far more time with their son than any previous royal parents before them, including Williams own mother, but as with any parents, when you both work, then childcare has to be in place. You could argue that she doesn't need to work, they have enough money for her to stay at home full time, but pretty sure they would get equal amounts of abuse for that too, as this thread has shown, so either way they are damned

 

[SFTPhotography]

I think in fairness, William and Kate have probably spent far more time with their son than any previous royal parents before them, including Williams own mother, but as with any parents, when you both work, then childcare has to be in place. You could argue that she doesn't need to work, they have enough money for her to stay at home full time, but pretty sure they would get equal amounts of abuse for that too, as this thread has shown, so either way they are damned

very true, but she'd at least be spending time with her son, george.

 

[viv1969]

If Kate wants to carry out her work for charities and her royal duties why shouldn't she? Her kids will grow up happier and better adjusted if their parents are happily working rather than miserably forced to stay at home simply because envious bigots say they should.

 

[SFTPhotography]

If Kate wants to carry out her work for charities and her royal duties why shouldn't she? Her kids will grow up happier and better adjusted if their parents are happily working rather than miserably forced to stay at home simply because envious bigots say they should.

didnt they say they didn't want a nanny only to have one put on them?

 

[Yv]

didnt they say they didn't want a nanny only to have one put on them?

Palace politics.... they have to work, because the public expects and because it's duty [regardless of any wish to on their part or not, though the impression is certainly that they do both want to be useful members of society] so whilst I believe they did the first 6 months or so without a nanny, whilst Kate was 'on maternity leave' as it were, they were left in a situations where there was no choice really I suspect.

 

[viv1969]

Palace politics.... they have to work, because the public expects and because it's duty [regardless of any wish to on their part or not, though the impression is certainly that they do both want to be useful members of society] so whilst I believe they did the first 6 months or so without a nanny, whilst Kate was 'on maternity leave' as it were, they were left in a situations where there was no choice really I suspect.

Exactly.
Besides, if they're going to work, having a steady constant nanny to care for the kids has to be good for them doesn't it? I seem to recall Tiggy always being where William and Harry were.

 

[Bernie174]

Tiggy. Now there's a name to jog a memory! She lost something very very very sensitive at Heathrow shortly after Di died. I found it, returned it to her, and had a very nice letter from her as a result. Unheard of to get a thanks from most VIP's especially Government members, but not from the Royal Household.

 

[jakeblu]

As for the deficit, in 1997 Labour inherited a budget that was balanced, but Gordon Brown (Scottish ) let fly and by the end of 2010 the UK as a whole was £178 billion in debt. in 2009 to 2010 the UK as a whole spent £100 billion more than it brought in in taxes, about 8% of GDP, that's now down to about 4% of GDP, govt borrowing is halved. Scottish spending has not reduced.

We could get into a lot more figures, but my point was about a certain posters hypocracy, never mind about his financial inaccuracies or bigotry.

From an LSE Blog

Many people may also be surprised to know that after all this spending but before the financial crash in 2007/8, the UK’s finances were in better shape than when Labour took over, with a lower deficit and national debt as a proportion of national income (GDP).

Also from the Centre of Economic Performance report

The UK’s economic performance between 1997 and 2010 was surprisingly strong, according to a report published today by the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP). GDP per capita grew faster than in France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the US. Productivity growth as measured by real GDP per hour worked was second only to the US. And improvements in employment rates were actually better than in the US.


The study by CEP’s director Professor John Van Reenen, Anna Valero and former government adviser Dan Corry shows that the UK’s strong productivity performance was not due to “unsustainable bubbles” in finance, property, oil or public spending.


Professor Van Reenen comments that “Productivity in the UK market economy grew by around 2.8% per year before the Great Recession, and financial services only contributed 0.4% to this growth. Industries such as business services and distribution made a much bigger contribution to overall productivity growth than finance.” And in addition to overall efficiency improvements, there were substantial investments in skills and information technology.

They do go on to say that the main failures were not regulating the Bankers & allowing public debt to rise further than it should but it wasn't for nothing that Labour won three elections but rather the country did trust them, rightly so imo, on the economy.

Much of Labours record is tarnished by the crash in 07/08 and they could and should have done more but to be honest I doubt any of the parties would have radically reformed the stock market and avoided the crash.

 

[Byker28i]

Exactly.
Besides, if they're going to work, having a steady constant nanny to care for the kids has to be good for them doesn't it? I seem to recall Tiggy always being where William and Harry were.

Didn't the Daily Mail once suggest that Kate looked like Tiggy, so Wills was effectively marrying his nanny.

 

[viv1969]

Didn't the Daily Mail once suggest that Kate looked like Tiggy, so Wills was effectively marrying his nanny.

Daily mail being gospel and all lol

 

[Byker28i]

From an LSE Blog

Much of Labours record is tarnished by the crash in 07/08 and they could and should have done more but to be honest I doubt any of the parties would have radically reformed the stock market and avoided the crash.

Nope I agree with that, they all were seduced by the easy money reported to be coming from the city. Made up money mind, not tangible assets, houses built on sand.



However (since you like stuff in bold)


http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data

Labour ran a surplus for each of their first four years of government, because of the favourable conditions created by the prudent Ken Clarke budgets prior to the financial year 1997/98 and Blair’s commitment to sticking to the Major Government’s spending plans for their first two years in office. Also helped by selling off £5 billion (or half) the UK gold reserve at rock bottom prices.

1998 £ 703m
1999 £11,976m
2000 £16,697m
2001 £ 8,426m
Total 1998 – 2001 surplus of £37,802m

Labour ran a deficit for the rest of their time in government:
2002 £19,046m
2003 £34,004m
2004 £36,797m
2005 £41,355m
2006 £30,755m
2007 £33,718m
2008 £68,003m
Total 2002 – 2008 Deficit of £263,678m
2009 £152,289m
2010 £148,774m
Total 2009 -2010 Deficit of £301,063m

Net total debt accumulated in the period 1998 – 2008 £225,876m

Net total debt accumulated in the period 1998-2010 £526,339m


We could also go into Gordon Browns £10bn a year pensions grab, making final salary schemes unaffordable (unless they were paid for by the UK tax payers ). Interesting report published a few months ago - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...sion-tax-raid-and-others-since-Seventies.html

Spin it how you want, but those are the figures...

 

[jakeblu]

Nope I agree with that, they all were seduced by the easy money reported to be coming from the city. Made up money mind, not tangible assets, houses built on sand.



However (since you like stuff in bold)


http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data

Labour ran a surplus for each of their first four years of government, because of the favourable conditions created by the prudent Ken Clarke budgets prior to the financial year 1997/98 and Blair’s commitment to sticking to the Major Government’s spending plans for their first two years in office. Also helped by selling off £5 billion (or half) the UK gold reserve at rock bottom prices.

1998 £ 703m
1999 £11,976m
2000 £16,697m
2001 £ 8,426m
Total 1998 – 2001 surplus of £37,802m

Labour ran a deficit for the rest of their time in government:
2002 £19,046m
2003 £34,004m
2004 £36,797m
2005 £41,355m
2006 £30,755m
2007 £33,718m
2008 £68,003m
Total 2002 – 2008 Deficit of £263,678m
2009 £152,289m
2010 £148,774m
Total 2009 -2010 Deficit of £301,063m

Net total debt accumulated in the period 1998 – 2008 £225,876m

Net total debt accumulated in the period 1998-2010 £526,339m


We could also go into Gordon Browns £10bn a year pensions grab, making final salary schemes unaffordable (unless they were paid for by the UK tax payers ). Interesting report published a few months ago - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...sion-tax-raid-and-others-since-Seventies.html

Spin it how you want, but those are the figures...

No spin gdp grew faster between 1997-2008 than any of our major competitors.

I wasnt making a statement with the bold its was only there to distinguish it from my comments.

Deficits are not the be all and end all to running the economy successfully and its not unusual for a government to run a budget deficit in fact many think its a benefit. But it is Ironic that you should show a chart that shows that since 1979 the budget has been in surplus only 6 times and four of those were under a labour government.

And just incase you missed it first time round, oh and just for you no bold

[Many people may also be surprised to know that after all this spending but before the financial crash in 2007/8, the UK’s finances were in better shape than when Labour took over, with a lower deficit and national debt as a proportion of national income (GDP).]

Again no spin just the facts

 

[gumbo-67]

blooming heck a thread started about one subject ends up going so far of topic on here even i am surprised

 

[Lynton]

William served with the armed forces for 7 years and last I heard was training to take up a position as an air ambulance pilot where he intends to donate his full salary back to the service.

It seems a little unfair to say neither of them work.

oh really? Lets imagine the interview..........

So, Wills....
Who's queen?
Oh your nan.
Job is yours.

Whats the salary for a helimed pilot? oh nothing compared to what he "earns"

 

[Lynton]

blooming heck a thread started about one subject ends up going so far of topic on here even i am surprised

yep.. wonder if Ebola will be mentioned.. anytime soon

 

[jakeblu]

yep.. wonder if Ebola will be mentioned.. anytime soon

Well at least no one can blame that on Gordon Brown

 

[nilagin]

oh really? Lets imagine the interview..........

So, Wills....
Who's queen?
Oh your nan.
Job is yours.

Whats the salary for a helimed pilot? oh nothing compared to what he "earns"

You've been to some pretty strange job interviews if that's the sort of question they ask you.

 

[H2O]

oh really? Lets imagine the interview..........

So, Wills....
Who's queen?
Oh your nan.
Job is yours.

Whats the salary for a helimed pilot? oh nothing compared to what he "earns"

Are we really judging people now by how much hardship they cause themselves with their charitable work?

Considering he doesn't have to get a job like this i'd say the amount of time he's giving up to do it means more than the money he's not taking in compensation.

 

[boyfalldown]

oh really? Lets imagine the interview..........

So, Wills....
Who's queen?
Oh your nan.
Job is yours.

Whats the salary for a helimed pilot? oh nothing compared to what he "earns"

Talk about can't win.

 

[big soft moose]

Now I'm pretty sure that was intended as an insult but you failed as nanny McPhee rocks..... So bad luck moose

I'm fairly sure Nanny Mcphee wouldnt be so quick to take offence when none was intended

(and beleive me if i set out to insult someone they arent left in any doubt)

 

[big soft moose]

If you have a big enough house for a spare bedroom an au pair works out one of the cheaper forms of child care. In London an au pair will cost you around £90/week + board and lodging. Thats far cheaper then a nursery place & about the same as an after school club costs for a child.

Plus the father can have an affair with her while the wife is away on business thus saving all the money he would otherwise have spent on women of easy virtue, and/or taking his secretary/intern to hotels. For a royal this has much to commend it as you can do your dirty deed behind palace doors rather than risking unseemly exposure by the pernicious papparazzi

 

[boyfalldown]

Plus the father can have an affair with her while the wife is away on business thus saving all the money he would otherwise have spent on women of easy virtue, and/or taking his secretary/intern to hotels.

oh trust me, round here the wife has thought of that possibility and hired accordingly

 

[Cg_Girl]

I'm fairly sure Nanny Mcphee wouldnt be so quick to take offence when none was intended

(and beleive me if i set out to insult someone they arent left in any doubt)

I think you mis-read my post, I said bad luck it wasn't an insult...

As for your bracketed post, believe is spelt i before e,

 

[Yves Geza]

oh trust me, round here the wife has thought of that possibility and hired accordingly

Are you moaning here too, Hugh, about how far you've had to lower your standards!

 

[boyfalldown]

Are you moaning here too, Hugh, about how far you've had to lower your standards!

I have standards?

 

[big soft moose]

alledgedly female and recently breathing ?

 

[POAH]

who actually GAF about seeing pictures of someone else's baby? some people have serious problems

 

[boyfalldown]

alledgedly female and recently breathing ?

they've improved over time then