Just now, richard_smith237 said:

I’m loving the manner in which stoner attempted to virtue signal using pubs as the moral high-ground as if going down the local boozer is the same as starving school children !!!!... 

the pub is being used as a point of social connection and gathering. pubs are a huge part of community and culture in britian. 

 

 

16 minutes ago, simon43 said:

Although I'm British, the fact that I left the UK more than 20 years ago does make me a little cynical about the event, which I'm watching on the TV right now.

 

This is essentially a Christian religion event, but few in the UK would profess to be practicing Christians.  Charles should be pushing Christianity, not kowtowing to other religions. Or make it an event without any Christian aspect.

 

I see a choral group just now, not a white face amongst them.  Great singing, but I feel it is virtual signalling.

 

I see past prime ministers and so many entitled (or not so entitled) people.  If Charles says he is one of the people, then don't invite these elites but fill the cathedral with 'common' people from all walks of life.

 

 

 

 

I'm watching as its history (well waiting for the football actually)

 

The pomp and circumstance of the military is great, cant say I care much for the religious mumbo jumbo!

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

Careful....  don’t let facts get in the way of negative bias.... 

yes facts like the fact that i did not mention where the money was coming from rather how it would be better used. 

 

 

42 minutes ago, transam said:

Says an ignorant, who doesn't even know what capital letters are for........ 

Where do pheasants come into your equation.....?   ????

sorry sire i am but a poor farmer. please forgive me. 

Just now, stoner said:

yes facts like the fact that i did not mention where the money was coming from rather how it would be better used. 

 

 

Seems you know nothing, but never mind, eh..........

Just now, stoner said:

sorry sire i am but a poor farmer. please forgive me. 

Never mind that, I was asking about the Pheasants..............????

5 minutes ago, stoner said:

england is not exactly on the path to recovery these days. the money could of been spent much more effectively. 

 

denounce your throne and give all the money and land back to the people of england.

There is the very real possibly that in doing so the ‘people of England’ ...i.e. the General British public would be worse off as they’d miss out on the additional income to the British Economy generated by the British Royal family.

 

On an individual level the difference would be marginal of course, however, on a national level those funds and the monies and publicity generated by the British Royal family are of an advantage to the British Economy. 

 

 

55 minutes ago, Stocky said:

Roll on the republic.

 

 

But he IS my king, and that of millions of other ordinary people.

 

I wish him all the best, as he will need it with all the whiners and moaners coming out of the woodwork.

6 minutes ago, stoner said:

if allowed by law i would yes. however that would be breaking the law here so i shall refrain. 

 

So you you show yourself what a hypocrite you are.

56 minutes ago, stoner said:

ignorance ? hahahaha

 

unlike the ignorance of parading around a country like you are above and better than the pheasants. 

 

calling oneself a king in this modern word is the height of ignorance. 

Royals bring in tourism $$$$ 

 

Lots

3 minutes ago, stoner said:

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Careful....  don’t let facts get in the way of negative bias.... 

yes facts like the fact that i did not mention where the money was coming from rather how it would be better used. 

 

 

Where do you think the money comes from ??? 

 

And where do you think the money that the Royal Family brings in goes ???

 

You can’t have one without the other, thus unless cherry picking a dumbed down and over simplified a single facet of the argument we have to consider the whole. 

 

 

It's been a long running debate, between Royalists and Anti-Royalist’s and its generally accepted that as a national institution The British Royal family bring in more money than they cost. 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, stoner said:

yes facts like the fact that i did not mention where the money was coming from rather how it would be better used. 

 

 

Give it to me for instance.

Just now, bignok said:

Royals bring in tourism $$$$ 

 

Lots

ya hows that working out for the UK economy ? tip top. 

1 minute ago, stoner said:

ya hows that working out for the UK economy ? tip top. 

Worse without it. 

6 minutes ago, transam said:

Never mind that, I was asking about the Pheasants..............????

as a farmer my education is less than ye sire. 

1 minute ago, stoner said:

ya hows that working out for the UK economy ? tip top. 

Another dumbed down and over simplified argument...   The implication here is that the Royal Family is to blame for the Woes of the British Economy in its current state. 

 

Perhaps there is room to argue that the British Economy could be in a worse state if it were not for the Royal Family.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, stoner said:

ya hows that working out for the UK economy ? tip top. 

Separate UK govt issues but understand why you do not understand it I have children of my own. 

43 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Hold up mush how would you understand or are you English and been brought up in a time when Kings Charles was born. 

 

I'm proud of Englands history what do you have.  

you're proud of the unfathomable pain and misery caused by english colonisation? yikes and double yikes!

1 minute ago, stoner said:

as a farmer my education is less than ye sire. 

You are leaving very little room for any doubt !!! ????

Just now, bignok said:

Worse without it. 

the outlook for UK is brutal and you are barking on about a few tourist dollars. im sure the broken NHS system reliance on tourism dollars is big. 

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

Another dumbed down and over simplified argument...   The implication here is that the Royal Family is to blame for the Woes of the British Economy in its current state. 

 

Perhaps there is room to argue that the British Economy could be in a worse state if it were not for the Royal Family.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ok

1 minute ago, stoner said:

as a farmer my education is less than ye sire. 

"Pheasants".....................?  

 

1 minute ago, Lemsta69 said:

you're proud of the unfathomable pain and misery caused by english colonisation? yikes and double yikes!

Oh, dear....................????

1 minute ago, stoner said:

the outlook for UK is brutal and you are barking on about a few tourist dollars. im sure the broken NHS system reliance on tourism dollars is big. 

So getting rid of royals would fix the economy? 555

12 minutes ago, stoner said:

sorry sire i am but a poor farmer. please forgive me. 

Son of a pheasant plucker?

Just now, Lemsta69 said:

you're proud of the unfathomable pain and misery caused by english colonisation? yikes and double yikes!

Single facet cherry picking argument.... What about all the benefits ???

 

Just as the the UK was advanced by Roman colonisation, many areas were advanced by English Colonisation, as others were French, Spanish, Portuguese etc... 

 

 

1 minute ago, Lemsta69 said:

you're proud of the unfathomable pain and misery caused by english colonisation? yikes and double yikes!

Cannot blame me for history but I believe it made things better for many people in other countries on on have ever they developed. 

 

Dunno who you are but I can take it you read and write English.

5 minutes ago, transam said:

Oh, dear....................????

the truth hurts doesn't it?

I'm going for a beer God save the King.

Just now, Lemsta69 said:

the truth hurts doesn't it?

Only to people like you...."God Save The King"......Hip-Hip.....