RayC

There's another thread about the financial value of the monarchy so I won't repeat the whole discussion here. In short, the monarchy raises most of its' money from the Crown Estate, the bulk of which is then handed over to the Treasury. Whether you think that this income should belong to the Monarch in the first place is another matter. The idea that tourism would be negatively affected if the monarchy were abolished is imo nonsense. France is an obvious counter-example.

Good question: Why were they arrested? https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/kings-coronation-anti-monarchy-group-leader-among-activists-arrested-on-way-to-protest-site-12874307 I need some some superglue. I'd better buy it online; I don't want to risk walking back from the shop with it and getting arrested.

So @OneMoreFarang polite and reasonable comment upsets you because he isn't English? Fortunately not all we Englishmen are as xenophobic as you.

As I said earlier, the process for abolishing the monarchy would require careful thought. Whatever may be the eventual ownership of the Crown Estate, I can't think of any reason why it should have to cease its' trading activities in the meantime. Looked at your link again, I still can't see where you get your figures from. The revenue paid to the Exchequer from the Crown Estate over the past 10 years is £3bn whereas the Sovereign Grant for 22/23 is £86.3m. Anyway, the actual amounts are besides the point. It all boils down to whether one considers this to be an example of the Monarch's largesse or whether one thinks that this is income which should rightfully belong to the State in the first place. This obviously depends on the individual's point of view

How is this figure of £220m/ year derived? Imo a better way of viewing the Royal Family is that they are shareholders (and employees?) of a commercial organisation which pays them a generous dividend. I accept that unless the Royals are put up against a wall or exiled - I do not support either option - then the process for abolishing the Monarchy will require a lot of thought. Part of that discussion would presumably encompass the Royals 'shareholding' in the Crown Estate; however, I don't see why this should prevent the Crown Estate continuing its' commercial activities? Agreed No obvious reason why the UK economy or commercial activities of Crown Estate should suffer. I would suggest that there is little evidence to support that conclusion.

That might well be the case but it supports the premise that the UK's support in the 14 countries named in the article is relatively insignificant.

Thank you for pointing out my error. Of course, what I meant to say was: "In reality, St Lucia; the Bahamas; Jamaica; St Kitts and Nevis; Antigua and Barbuda; Grenada; St Vincent and the Grenadines; Australia; Canada; New Zealand; Belize; Papua New Guinea; the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu have looked mainly to Washington, rather than London, for support for decades now." Now what point were you trying to make?

I doubt that any of the 15 nations would want anything other than a cordial relationship with the UK (and vica versa) if they were to become republics. Replacing the UK monarchy would simply be a symbolic break with the last remnants of colonialism. In reality, all 15 nations have looked mainly to Washington, rather than London, for support for decades now.

Support for the British monarchy is on the decline in most, if not all, countries. (Do a search for "support for monarchy in < insert country>" for confirmation of this fact). A matter of time before a break is made in most countries.

It's an article from the Daily Mail. They deal exclusively in innuendo.

Brian Oulton was gay?!???? "Infamy, infamy; they've all got it in for me!"

I originally wrote: "I don't have much time for Trump the politician but his family ties to Europe (Germany and Scotland) are a lot stronger than Biden's (2nd generation vs. 4th/5th)." I may have got the actual generations wrong but Biden's ancestors migrated to the US before Trump's. That is a fact and that is my point. Completely irrelevant to whether Donald Trump feels any kinship with Germany. That is opinion. Even if it is correct, how on earth has that anything to do with his family tree?

Yes exactly. Trump's family ties to Europe are more recent than Biden's i.e. his ancestors on both his paternal and maternal side migrated to the US more recently than Biden's. Whether Trump's grandfather left Germany under a cloud and/or Trump lied about his father's place of birth is totally irrelevant.

I don't have much time for Trump the politician but his family ties to Europe (Germany and Scotland) are a lot stronger than Biden's (2nd generation vs. 4th/5th).

https://www.ft.com/content/ce458b68-b0ea-453f-8730-a174256e7c4e or https://www.gbnews.com/politics/brexit-news-retained-eu-laws-kemi-badenoch-tory-party-erg-anger

Not sure that this is a good example of uniquely British stupidity. PETA is a multinational organisation. Presumably, this view and action is consistent with those of the organisation as a whole.

Never in the Commonwealth but previously effectively a British colony. Maybe that (partly) explains the relatively large number of Brits?

What has that to do with anything in my post?

I don't know much about Texas law but I assume that killing and stealing are already illegal there. Shouldn't it be up to the individual who s/he worships and when to rest? If it's not a big deal then it is probably unnecessary. If the law isn't going to be enforced then it is certainly unnecessary. In any event, @ozimoron has identified the bigger issue: There should be a separation between religion and state.

Care to elaborate?

I wouldn't have thought that Brexit had much of an effect on Thailand's CPI but you never know ????

A goalkeeper scored in the 96th minute for Coventry last night. It may have happened before although I can't be bothered to find out if it has. Overcast here and a tad chilly.

A report in 2020 estimated that Brexit had added 2.9% to UK consumer prices. A previous report put the figure at 1.7%. Given that the UK government's target inflation rate is 2%pa, Brexit appears to have added a significant obstacle to achieving this goal. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/brexit-vote-and-inflation-updated-evidence

Nothing wrong with taking photos per sec but it depends on the context. It's one thing to take a photo of a picturesque setting e.g. the photo you posted or as a poignant reminder of what happened at a location, quite another to strike a pose and post the photo on social media in order to get personal reward ('likes' or financial reward). This woman's photo falls into the latter category.

Unfortunately, I doubt that she is the first - or will be the last - person to behave in this manner. How anyone can see this location as a social media photo opportunity is beyond me. Someone needs to give her head a shake.