jayboy Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 13 minutes ago, wgdanson said: So what about all the Trump bashers, or critics of Mrs May. I suppose it would include President Trump who is a Head Of State but not Mrs May who is not a Head of State. Having said that I'm not aware of any case or prosecution under this "foreign" heading. Perhaps someone else is aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer90210 Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 euh!...who paid the global hefty bill for the dinner ?!!....Teresa May ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayboy Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 48 minutes ago, RuamRudy said: The thing about an elected heads of state is that we would have the facility to replace them if they proved to be unsuitable. I agree with the commentator, however, that there are few politicians whom I would wish to see elevated to that position. But as it is a titular role, we could elect those whose values and ethics we admire. Alan Bennett or David Attenborough would get my vote. David Attenborough, a strong royalist by the way, is the safe and boringly predictable choice. The choice of Alan Bennett is laughably bad and indeed somewhat crazed. In any case he would not stand up to scrutiny in the "Me Too" age. Check out the sexual politics of "The History Boys". It's when tossing names for UK President (Please nobody mention JK Rowling) around that one comes to appreciate the virtues of the monarchical system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simoh1490 Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 54 minutes ago, simoh1490 said: I'll bet that tourism receipts and the increased revenue to business resulting from the wedding, more than outstripped any expense that was paid by the taxpayer for the wedding. Kate and Wills wedding boosted the coffers by GBP 2 bill.: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/apr/29/royal-wedding-tourism-boost Megan's wedding boosted tourism by a third: https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/944562/royal-wedding-2018-tourism-increase-33-per-cent-over-weekend And you lot are bleating about the taxpayer having to pay the 2 million quid for police service during the recent wedding, get some perspective people! The silence is deafening! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouse Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 9 hours ago, rodney earl said: What a load of rubbish. If I dont see another article about privledged royalty it will be too soon., What a curmudgeonly attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewsterbudgen Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 Perhaps you are unaware that your comment is an offence under the Thailand Penal Code. "Section 133. Defamation of Foreign Head Whoever, defaming, insulting or threatening the Sovereign, Queen, Consort, Heir-apparent or Head of Foreign State, shall be imprisoned as from one year to seven years or fined as from two thousand to fourteen thousand Baht, or both." You might argue that your comment was not directed at the categories listed in Section 133 but equally you might well be disabused of that view if the matter went to a Thai court. Fortunately not in the UK where we are free to say what we like.Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouse Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 9 hours ago, jayboy said: Perhaps you are unaware that your comment is an offence under the Thailand Penal Code. "Section 133. Defamation of Foreign Head Whoever, defaming, insulting or threatening the Sovereign, Queen, Consort, Heir-apparent or Head of Foreign State, shall be imprisoned as from one year to seven years or fined as from two thousand to fourteen thousand Baht, or both." You might argue that your comment was not directed at the categories listed in Section 133 but equally you might well be disabused of that view if the matter went to a Thai court. More importantly, it's against Forum rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouse Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 The public funded security NOT the wedding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouse Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 7 hours ago, Justgrazing said: What I ain't understood in all of this is why handy Andy who had some choice sort's on his case back in the 80's decided to get his leg over a passed-around-abit frumpy old heffer like her .. I object to your rudeness. I hope Mods clean up this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vogie Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, Grouse said: The public funded security NOT the wedding. Who funded the wedding, the Royals themselves, where do the Royals get their money from.......can you see where I'm going with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuamRudy Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Grouse said: The public funded security NOT the wedding. But she is not a top tier royal; she does not participate in royal engagements as far as I know, and she does not contribute to the betterment of the country. Nobody is begrudging her happiness, but they are questioning why she needs such an ostentatious wedding with its attendant security bill, and why the public, in these times of austerity, needs to pay for it when her family are more than capable of doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouse Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 3 hours ago, RuamRudy said: The thing about an elected heads of state is that we would have the facility to replace them if they proved to be unsuitable. I agree with the commentator, however, that there are few politicians whom I would wish to see elevated to that position. But as it is a titular role, we could elect those whose values and ethics we admire. Alan Bennett or David Attenborough would get my vote. My family have been royalists for centuries. It ain't broke so don't fix it. Would you really ask the "people" to elect a head of state? That doesn't seem to work well now does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouse Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 3 hours ago, BobBKK said: A nominal president to 'represent' voted in (and out if need be) is preferable to what we have. Having said that our Queen has done an outstanding job but many of us would be pleased if it ended with her. Yes! Let's have our own Trump as head of state. Someone with real gravitas, moral rectitude and style. What nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouse Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 3 hours ago, observer90210 said: euh!...who paid the global hefty bill for the dinner ?!!....Teresa May ? The Queen paid for the champagne reception The Duke of York paid for the dinner it was jolly good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuamRudy Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, Grouse said: My family have been royalists for centuries. It ain't broke so don't fix it. Would you really ask the "people" to elect a head of state? That doesn't seem to work well now does it? The Dutch seem to be have a much more modern approach: no dowager aunts 10 times removed living in grace and favour apartments on tax-payer funded royal stipends. The king even has a regular job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouse Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 14 minutes ago, vogie said: Who funded the wedding, the Royals themselves, where do the Royals get their money from.......can you see where I'm going with this? No I dont If you are a republican, that's your choice. It doesn't seem to have worked well elsewhere though has it? I am a royalist through and through; away with your republican Corbynista views! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouse Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 18 minutes ago, RuamRudy said: But she is not a top tier royal; she does not participate in royal engagements as far as I know, and she does not contribute to the betterment of the country. Nobody is begrudging her happiness, but they are questioning why she needs such an ostentatious wedding with its attendant security bill, and why the public, in these times of austerity, needs to pay for it when her family are more than capable of doing so. Are you complaining about the security costs? How would you bill that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overherebc Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 Still not sure why the UK spends so much on the unimportant members of the German Royal Family. Just sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuamRudy Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, Grouse said: Are you complaining about the security costs? How would you bill that? Ideally the costs would have been minimal because she would have had a private wedding in the chapel on her father's estate. I am sure that her father would insist that his daughter was as worthy of the pomp and ceremony bestowed upon her cousins, but the reality is that she is that, at 9th in line to the throne, she is not important. This is evidenced by the fact that she has no public duties and, normally, no public presence. I hope that she has a long, happy and prosperous marriage, but I think that fawning over minor royals is an anachronism that we can no longer afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simoh1490 Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 Just now, overherebc said: Still not sure why the UK spends so much on the unimportant members of the German Royal Family. Just sayin' Still not sure why so many posters here chose to ignore the upside to the economy that is derived from these events, I suppose they do invalidate most posters arguments but that can't really be helped! Sorry, please continue bashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouse Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 8 minutes ago, RuamRudy said: The Dutch seem to be have a much more modern approach: no dowager aunts 10 times removed living in grace and favour apartments on tax-payer funded royal stipends. The king even has a regular job. Yes, I do like the stance taken by Northern European states (as in so many things) The Duke of York ( I don't know if he still has ten thousand men) is still The Queen's son. I think giving a traditional send off to a Granddaughter of The Queen is not unreasonable. Eurgenie has a full time job and undertakes significant charity work. I doubt she requested the level of security provided. It is a sad fact of the times and the enemies our country has created. At least there was no Irish threat; yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouse Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said: Ideally the costs would have been minimal because she would have had a private wedding in the chapel on her father's estate. I am sure that her father would insist that his daughter was as worthy of the pomp and ceremony bestowed upon her cousins, but the reality is that she is that, at 9th in line to the throne, she is not important. This is evidenced by the fact that she has no public duties and, normally, no public presence. I hope that she has a long, happy and prosperous marriage, but I think that fawning over minor royals is an anachronism that we can no longer afford. When I look at the billions wasted elsewhere, the royals are good value at twice the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouse Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 11 minutes ago, overherebc said: Still not sure why the UK spends so much on the unimportant members of the German Royal Family. Just sayin' You mean the Kaiser? What then? https://www.ft.com/content/b80a9dde-f1f0-11e6-95ee-f14e55513608 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swanny321 Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 Great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraday Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 Why didn't Camilla attend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouse Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 2 hours ago, faraday said: Why didn't Camilla attend? Lack of spine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 2 hours ago, faraday said: Why didn't Camilla attend? Camilla was busy: https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a23736175/princess-eugenie-duchess-camilla-misses-royal-wedding/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.