Would you call your new baby boy 'Louis'?

Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
Nothing like arguing facts by simply saying you don't believe in them! :D

The Royal Family bring in more money than they take, it's that simple.

no they don't. not from tourism. from their stolen lands then yes. lands which should be subject to the same rules as all of us. then they wouldn't bring in as much over time.

their time is running out IMO
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Sep 2013
Posts
12,299
however the land was taken by force. if someone did that today their would be an out cry.
What, like the forced purchase of privately owned homes, so the council can demolish everything and build a housing estate for immigrants, yeah? I can only imagine the outcry..... they wouldn't dare do something like that.... not ever....!!!

Lewee is way cooler than Lewis.............Lewis, just no
You WHAT??!!

This former hairdresser wishes to disagree with you:

MV5BM2UzYTA0YTctMGU4OS00YTlmLTg0MzUtNmUzNDI5ZDA1ODAyXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjUyNDk2ODc@._V1_.jpg


In case you weren't aware - In addition to starring in "Who Dares Wins", Collins actually did pass the real-life Selection for 21 SAS, but was ultimately denied entry as they felt he was too famous for the secret nature of their work!
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
It's funny how they essentially live off the state and have 3 children and potential for more.

Yet the state has said no more benefits for 3rd or more children.

One rule for one and another rule for another. Royals essentially stole their power.

It's about time the state stopped funding them. How much is the upkeep of their estate too? it's ridiculous the amount of land they have that we essentially pay to maintain.

As for tourism. I don't know anyone who comes here because we have a royal family. Sure they will visit the palace, etc, but they would visit it anyway without a royal family, in fact without one more would come as you would be allowed inside.
well they live off the crown estate which pays an effective rate of 80% tax.


I suppose if you want to argue your point they could reverse that agreement and pay whatever tribe going rate of business tax is (which for the likes of Amazon is 1%) and be vastly better off ?
 
Commissario
Joined
16 Oct 2002
Posts
2,646
Location
In the radio shack
In case you weren't aware - In addition to starring in "Who Dares Wins", Collins actually did pass the real-life Selection for 21 SAS, but was ultimately denied entry as they felt he was too famous for the secret nature of their work!
Didn't he just do the initial phase, up to and including test week but wasn't allowed to go any further? I know even that is pretty damn good but it's not the full Selection process.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Sep 2013
Posts
12,299
Didn't he just do the initial phase, up to and including test week but wasn't allowed to go any further? I know even that is pretty damn good but it's not the full Selection process.
Sources vary, even down to whether he went for 21 or 23. It's hotly contested often and of course nobody can say for sure.
The most common opinions from relatively reliable sources seem to concur that he passed Selection for 21, but was always to be pending review based on how well-known his day job was making him at the time. I suppose these days it'd be the equivalent of whether he's an A, B, C-List celeb or however far down it goes. Basically whether he'd sunk low enough to qualify for I'm A Celebrity!
He was already a member of 10 Para anyway, so it wasn't necessarily that much of a problem in theory.

Regardless though, getting to test week would take 6 months for 22, but closer to 18 months for either of the others. I doubt they'd let him go through all that and then just drop him before the final stages... I like to think he passed the lot.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
I imagine they bring in more money through tourism than they cost.

Americans are crazy about the royal family.

They bring in more money from taxation than they cost. Far more - the cost is 15% of the voluntary supertax they pay. It's defined that way.

The other costs are either standard costs of a head of state and diplomatic functions (e.g. while it would be funny to give President Trump some vouchers for a budget room at a Premier Inn, it wouldn't be good diplomacy) or standard costs of building maintainence. Of course, all that would remain a necessary cost if we deposed the royal family and stole all their stuff.

So what's actually being proposed is simply stealing everything from a rich family. But only one rich family. Not other rich families. Not usually, anyway. Some people are more consistent and advocate enforcing a wealth cap in general rather than targeting only one family.

Tourism is also a thing. Yes, tourists would also come to see a palace by itself. But not as many as would come to see a palace a monarch lives in. There are far prettier palaces elsewhere. Disney probably has some. Apple, Facebook or Google could build one in a couple of months and it would be easier for most Americans to get to. But vast numbers of tourists wouldn't travel to see Google Palace just because it was pretty. Even places like Taj Mahal and Versailles don't get tourists solely because they're pretty, and they're probably the prettiest buildings in the world.

As for the name, it's clearly a Cunning Plan to take over France. The British royal family technically has a legitimate claim to the throne of France(*) and giving a British prince a French name is "obviously" the beginnings of a new takeover bid.



* That bit isn't a joke. At one point, the King of England had the best claim to the throne of France and the French claimaint only got the throne due to bigger army diplomacy.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
We do not pay for the maintenance of them at all, nor do we pay their salaries. They are paid from the Sovereign grant which is paid out from the profits of the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate also pays for the maintenance of the buildings such as Buckingham Palace and other popular estates I think you mean. They do not pay for private owned ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family

Don't know enough about if/how they stole their land so I can't give you my opinion on that but I will say that it was probably back in the day when all other countries Royals/leaders were doing the same,do you think they should give back their land too?? :p

Most of the land was last stolen in 1066, by the Norman conquerors. Before then, it was stolen in the 10th century by the Scandanavian conquerers, in the 5th century by the English conquerors and in the 1st century by the Roman conquerors. Prior to that, it was stolen in a more piecemeal fashion by various more local rulers. Who, of course, were stealing it from other local rulers. There was almost certainly some similar piecemeal stealing in the high medieval period as a result of corruption. Some acres here, some acres there.

I suppose it could be argued that it should all be given to Wales on the basis that the Welsh are at least partly descended from people who migrated to Britain earlier.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2011
Posts
21,590
Location
ST4
Psycho Sunny getting burned in this thread :)
He should do some homework before spouting garbage.
He must read too much Facebook shares.

I don't think I've ever seen him post something that isn't either patronising, passive-aggressive or just plain downright rude. I find it best to simply ignore him and just laugh at his posts when they crop up.
 
Back
Top Bottom