her ribs without breasts cushioning them might be
Royal baby: Prince William and Kate expecting second child
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Problem is that assumes that if Britain were to turn into a Republic tomorrow that 0 people would come to view those attractions.
No one understands your posts, but please re-read my answer and the links. But I'll still wait for yours
Only certain special folk don't understand my posts.
I'm pointing out that it's not possible to prove either way, so it's pointless arguing about it because it will just be a load of "this website tells me my opinion is x" ad infinitum.
50 year old? Women used to have below knee length skirts and such in the 70s and 80s. As well as before. There was a time when women were very elegant. Some still are but too few to make a difference.
Free sites visited:
http://www.visitengland.org/Images/Most%20visited%2020%20Free%202013_v2_tcm30-42233.pdf
Paid sites visited:
http://www.visitengland.org/Images/Most visited 20 Paid 2013_v3_tcm30-42232.pdf
Is the Tower of London popular for the current Royals or for Historical reasons? Don't think tourists would flock there to see the Queen unless they were Americans...
They'd want to see the Crown Jewels I'd imagine, but they are not the private property of the Queen, they belong, like the Tower of London itself to the UK they'd be there to see Queen or no Queen, she doesn't sit there with them on posing for photographs and signing autographs (Sorry to disappoint our American users once again!).The Royal 'Tourist' revenue argument is tenuous at best as it is simply unprovable who visited specifically for the Royal Family as the places would be visited without the Royals there. Sure, there's occasional events like the Jubilee, Royal Wedding, Trooping the Colour that will attract huge amounts of tourists but they will also incur massively increased Security costs pro rata. Until the actual Security Costs are made accountable to the Public, no-one will know.
Last edited:
For me it's the face.
But I am very much one who doesn't go for generic. I have often been called out for batting for the other team as the 'what do you think of her' question usually gets a.. She's ok..
Not saying she isn't attractive. She must be.. People love her.. But not to me at all.. Another in the same category is Cheryl Cole and scarlet johansssen (sp?)
I'm not so much 'fussy' as different
It's all about the eyes, face and hair for me.. I'm a sucker for striking hair. Be it jet black, electric blue, etc. And also no makeup, pale
Traditional beauty to me is 'plain'
Last edited:
Lol! Would never have guessed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 2,647
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 11,973
- Location
- Bangor, Northern Ireland
So Jennifer Lawrence nude pics get leaked and about a week later Kate is up the duffer... Proof that she is a lesbian? I think so.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 2,647
I do rather like the fact that despite having access to the finest education money and privilege could ever buy the princes are distinctly average from an academic standpoint.
Probably mean spirited of me but hey ho.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3150649.stm
Probably mean spirited of me but hey ho.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3150649.stm
I'd say Harry couldn't care less and William tried to do well but isn't that intelligent; an A, B, C at A-Level isn't too bad.
I agree though. Probably £250k down the pan in private school fees etc.
And it going be Black.......My prediction -
Female, named Diana, Elizabeth or Catherine
Quote me
And yet the main news story on the BBC news is still the Independence vote. It's almost as if you hatred of the royal family blinds you to reality...
You wrote your post, not me. Your post contained a false statement about money which even a very brief look into the subject shows to be false. So the statement makes you look ignorant of the subject (if you thought it was true) or deceitful (if you knew it wasn't). I've no way of knowing which because I can't read your mind, but it has to be one or the other.
I replied to you arguing about the money, so clearly you were.
Arguing that monarchy is an obsolete concept or that it's wrong in social and/or political terms is one thing. That's debateable. Arguing that the way we currently have it set up is a net financial loss and the country would be financially better off with some other form of head of state is simply wrong unless coupled with advocating that inheritance be severely capped (e.g. 100% inheritance tax over £10M or some such thing). Assuming that tourism is ignored, obviously, as that's much harder to objectively quantify.