Poll: Royal Engagement
- Thread starter CharlieAlbert
- Start date
OMG
you've copied and pasted that from the Daily Mail for the Lolz haven't you ?
Please tell me its true
I can't believe anybody could actually seriously hold this belief !
how do you work that one out
She's not particuarly amazing and he's not particularly ugly.
I disagree, she's very pretty and he's looking old before his time and generally pretty average.
I agree...i dont think shes a patch on Princess Diana for instance and it makes me laugh that the media are making her out to be the next 'peoples' princess
...shes not ugly but i dont think shes really anything special tbh. As for William??...poor guy is going bald so is looking far older than his 28 yrs that he is...when he was younger and not losing his hair i have to say he was a dashing/handsome young man. Dont know if its true but Kate is 5 mths older than him??...am sure i read it in the paper or somewhere...i, of course could be completely wrong though.
Well everyone is entitled to their opinion...personally i dont think shes anything special...shes neither ugly or pretty, just average really.
This is the thing i dont get...why do people consider Diana as scheming and manipulative??...to be fair i never really paid much attention to her and what was going on but id like to know why people think she was this awful woman.
Explain.
She was very clever when it came to using the media. There is a picture of her wearing a black dress, attending some sort of an event. It was a big two fingers to Charles and the revelations about Camillia.
Now yes he had an affair but look at the amount of men she was associated with.
Revenue from the Crown Estate is the 'Peoples' Money, the Monarch has no claim to it after Mad King George did a deal with the Country for cash when he was broke and the Crown Estate rents were not making any profit, the Monarch merely appoints the Board that runs the Crown Estate. It is a myth that the Revenue is the Queen's money. The Revenue (Clear Profit) would go to the Treasury if the Royals did not exist.
So, where is this 'Profit' the UK allegedly makes from it's Royal Family? The Royal finances and indeed Taxations are not 100% public knowledge (Secret deals with the Treasury) and never will be, they don't want mere Peons to see the Books and never will do, which if they were pulling in cash for the UK and earning us more than they cost us you can be damned sure they'd be making a song and dance about it, but they choose to hide things away, I wonder why?
No, they are just public sector scroungers
Do you think the two brothers will get caught up in the decimation of the forces?
Naaaaah.
The revenue the Royal Family bring in through tourism far outweighs what the taxpayer spends on them!
The revenue the Royal Family bring in through tourism far outweighs what the taxpayer spends on them!
Does it, show me some numbers then.
I'm bored of this already, the news on the radio talk about this every day despite there being no actual progress. How can "they have yet to choose a venue" be news, ffs they only looked at Westminster a few days ago, weddings take months to plan :-/
MW
MW
Look into the Crown Estates earnings.
Does that show earnings directly from tourism?
If it was quantifiable then the Royals would be shouting it from the rooftops.
It shows their earnings without the need for tourism and that while they cost the tax payer about 50 million a year, the Crown Estate puts back about 200 million.
http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/annual_report/financials/cashflow.html
Or something along those lines.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,538
- Location
- Cornwall
I give it a maximum of 3 years before he's a womanising alcoholic and she has an 'accident'.
