16 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

And sure the queen didn't put her hand in the wallet and paid millions of pounds to make a case go away before it went to court.

Why should the present queen do that?

Camilla is NOT Andrew's mother! She is only a "sister - in - law!

Charles most certainly would not open his wallet to support a brother he has little time for!

1 minute ago, scottiejohn said:

Why should the present queen do that?

Camilla is NOT Andrew's mother! She is only a "sister - in - law!

Have you lived under a rock? Queen Elizabeth bailed out her son in the Epstein case

1 minute ago, CallumWK said:

Have you lived under a rock? Queen Elizabeth bailed out her son in the Epstein case

Are you living under a rock? The arrest and release happened four years after she died!

2 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Are you living under a rock? The arrest and release happened four years after she died!

Go away troll.

Yes, reports indicate Queen Elizabeth II helped pay for Prince Andrew’s multi-million pound settlement with Virginia Giuffre in 2022 to avoid a US civil trial. The Queen reportedly contributed roughly £7 million, with another £3 million from Prince Philip’s estate and funds from King Charles, though these are often described as loans.

2 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Are you living under a rock? The arrest and release happened four years after she died!

Maybe because Randy Any waved a receipt he inherited from Mummy?

3 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Go away troll.

Yes, reports indicate Queen Elizabeth II helped pay for Prince Andrew’s multi-million pound settlement with Virginia Giuffre in 2022 to avoid a US civil trial. The Queen reportedly contributed roughly £7 million, with another £3 million from Prince Philip’s estate and funds from King Charles, though these are often described as loans.

The arrest being discussed in this topic happened this year!

Andrew was NOT arrested for any other allegations.

3 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

The arrest being discussed in this topic happened this year!

Andrew was NOT arrested for any other allegations.

Wow ! An assumedly Scots Royalist !

Even without even visiting the UK many US citizens have a fascination for British Royalty to a degree that is suspiciously bordering on jealousy !

So much so that UK tourism considers US tourism based on the royals to be only second to all other.

Across Europe recognition of at least nine historical Royal families exist but the British Royals foment more media interest in the US than the other nine.

For most citizens all are not much more than a ho hum consideration in normal daily life.

I am wondering if Trump will commission an extravagant pseudo Royal Uniform adorned with gold tassels and multiple medals based on golden arches ?

32 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Maybe BritManToo was too specific but here is a good overview of the current so called "free speech" status in the YUK at present!

The victims of Britain’s free speech crackdown

UK free speech struggle 30 arrests a day censorship

If I have a daughter who is raped by a Muslim, I should be free to tweet about that, because it is true.

If I have or do not have a daughter, and I falsely tweet she was raped by a Muslim, then that's hate speech, and does not come under free speech protections.

Your "good overview" is missing from your post.

8 minutes ago, 0ffshore360 said:

Wow ! An assumedly Scots Royalist !

Even without even visiting the UK many US citizens have a fascination for British Royalty to a degree that is suspiciously bordering on jealousy !

So much so that UK tourism considers US tourism based on the royals to be only second to all other.

Across Europe recognition of at least nine historical Royal families exist but the British Royals foment more media interest in the US than the other nine.

For most citizens all are not much more than a ho hum consideration in normal daily life.

The British Royals have a publicity machine second to none, feeding a subservient media, getting income from those who are brainless enough to believe they are still relevant.

It is in their interest to do so.

Notice how they do not visit countries that are no longer part of the Commonwealth?

That's because the taxpayers of said countries do not fork out millions to support their junkets.

Which begs the question, who is paying for the US visit?

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Which begs the question, who is paying for the US visit?

The UK tax payer with the US for the hosting. I think Trump wanted to be sure someone attended his 250 year parade.

1 minute ago, CallumWK said:

The UK tax payer with the US for the hosting. I think Trump wanted to be someone attended his 250 year parade.

In other words, the taxpayers of both countries.

14 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The British Royals have a publicity machine second to none, feeding a subservient media, getting income from those who are brainless enough to believe they are still relevant.

It is in their interest to do so.

Notice how they do not visit countries that are no longer part of the Commonwealth?

That's because the taxpayers of said countries do not fork out millions to support their junkets.

Which begs the question, who is paying for the US visit?

Since 2006, the Late Queen:

1. United States (2007, 2010)

2. Germany (2015)

3. Malta (2015)

4. Canada (2010)

5. Australia (2011)

6. Ireland (2011)

3/6 of those are Commonwealth members

Charles (underlined are Commonwealth)

1. Austria

2. Belgium

3. Bosnia and Herzegovina

4. Croatia

5. Czech Republic

6. Denmark

7. France

8. Germany

9. Greece

10. Hungary

11. Ireland

12. Italy

13. Luxembourg

14. Malta

15. Netherlands

16. Norway

17. Poland

18. Portugal

19. Romania

20. Serbia

21. Slovenia

22. Spain

23. Sweden

24. Switzerland

25. Turkey

26. Bahrain

27. Jordan

28. Kuwait

29. Oman

30. Qatar

31. Saudi Arabia

32. United Arab Emirates

33. Israel

34. State of Palestine

35. Botswana

36. Egypt

37. Ethiopia

38. Gambia

39. Ghana

40. Kenya

41. Morocco

42. Nigeria

43. Rwanda

44. Sierra Leone

45. South Africa

46. Tanzania

47. Uganda

48. Bangladesh

49. Brunei

50. India

51. Japan

52. Malaysia

53. Maldives

54. Nepal

55. Pakistan

56. Singapore

57. Sri Lanka

58. Thailand

59. Barbados

60. Brazil

61. Canada

62. Chile

63. Cuba

64. Mexico

65. Trinidad and Tobago

66. United States

67. Australia

68. New Zealand

69. Papua New Guinea

70. Solomon Islands

71. Vanuatu

A fair sprinkling of Non-Commonwealth nations

William

1. Belgium

2. Denmark

3. France

4. Germany

5. Ireland

6. Italy

7. Monaco

8. Netherlands

9. Norway

10. Poland

11. Spain

12. Sweden

13. Switzerland

14. Israel

15. State of Palestine

16. Jordan

17. Kuwait

18. Oman

19. United Arab Emirates

20. Botswana

21. Ethiopia

22. Kenya

23. Malawi

24. Morocco

25. Namibia

26. Rwanda

27. South Africa

28. Tanzania

29. Bhutan

30. China

31. India

32. Japan

33. Kazakhstan

34. Maldives

35. Nepal

36. Pakistan

37. Singapore

38. Thailand

39. Vietnam

40. Bahamas

41. Barbados

42. Belize

43. Brazil

44. Canada

45. Chile

46. Jamaica

47. Mexico

48. United States

49. Australia

50. New Zealand

51. Solomon Islands

52. Tuvalu

Who pays for the overseas visits of the US President, the Vice President, the British Prime Minister, the Irish President, the German President, the Russian President, the Israeli President? Asking because you have clear views who should be funding visits by Heads of State, so presumably have a massive dossier already prepared of facts and figures.

1 minute ago, Roadsternut said:

Since 2006, the Late Queen:

1. United States (2007, 2010)

2. Germany (2015)

3. Malta (2015)

4. Canada (2010)

5. Australia (2011)

6. Ireland (2011)

3/6 of those are Commonwealth members

Charles (underlined are Commonwealth)

1. Austria

2. Belgium

3. Bosnia and Herzegovina

4. Croatia

5. Czech Republic

6. Denmark

7. France

8. Germany

9. Greece

10. Hungary

11. Ireland

12. Italy

13. Luxembourg

14. Malta

15. Netherlands

16. Norway

17. Poland

18. Portugal

19. Romania

20. Serbia

21. Slovenia

22. Spain

23. Sweden

24. Switzerland

25. Turkey

26. Bahrain

27. Jordan

28. Kuwait

29. Oman

30. Qatar

31. Saudi Arabia

32. United Arab Emirates

33. Israel

34. State of Palestine

35. Botswana

36. Egypt

37. Ethiopia

38. Gambia

39. Ghana

40. Kenya

41. Morocco

42. Nigeria

43. Rwanda

44. Sierra Leone

45. South Africa

46. Tanzania

47. Uganda

48. Bangladesh

49. Brunei

50. India

51. Japan

52. Malaysia

53. Maldives

54. Nepal

55. Pakistan

56. Singapore

57. Sri Lanka

58. Thailand

59. Barbados

60. Brazil

61. Canada

62. Chile

63. Cuba

64. Mexico

65. Trinidad and Tobago

66. United States

67. Australia

68. New Zealand

69. Papua New Guinea

70. Solomon Islands

71. Vanuatu

A fair sprinkling of Non-Commonwealth nations

William

1. Belgium

2. Denmark

3. France

4. Germany

5. Ireland

6. Italy

7. Monaco

8. Netherlands

9. Norway

10. Poland

11. Spain

12. Sweden

13. Switzerland

14. Israel

15. State of Palestine

16. Jordan

17. Kuwait

18. Oman

19. United Arab Emirates

20. Botswana

21. Ethiopia

22. Kenya

23. Malawi

24. Morocco

25. Namibia

26. Rwanda

27. South Africa

28. Tanzania

29. Bhutan

30. China

31. India

32. Japan

33. Kazakhstan

34. Maldives

35. Nepal

36. Pakistan

37. Singapore

38. Thailand

39. Vietnam

40. Bahamas

41. Barbados

42. Belize

43. Brazil

44. Canada

45. Chile

46. Jamaica

47. Mexico

48. United States

49. Australia

50. New Zealand

51. Solomon Islands

52. Tuvalu

Who pays for the overseas visits of the US President, the Vice President, the British Prime Minister, the Irish President, the German President, the Russian President, the Israeli President? Asking because you have clear views who should be funding visits by Heads of State, so presumably have a massive dossier already prepared of facts and figures.

Wow, do they have any time to be at home?

You may be happy your taxes go to pay for junkets by parasites. I'm not.

If he talks about Andrew or what really happend to late respected Princess Diana...yes, it would be embarassing for the Brit Crown King. 🙏

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

You can be arrested in the UK for tweeting a Muslim raped your daughter. As far as I can see the UK police are nothing BUT a waste of time!

Really? Please share an example of where this has happened. Just one is ok.

Were you this cabbie?

https://www.tiktok.com/@laughletdie/video/7531674449372810518

Do not under estimate Charlie. He has had experience and training in the dealing with volatile personalities. Aside from Andrew and Fergie and their 2 nasty daughters, and Harry and Meaghan he had to deal with these gems;

- Edward, Duke of Windsor

-Princess Michael of Kent, aka Princess Pushy

-Princess Margaret

I think he can handle Trump. If anything, I have a feeling Trump will feel sorry for him. Trump knows what it is like to have a troublesome brother who doesn't listen.

1 hour ago, CallumWK said:

Go away troll.

Yes, reports indicate Queen Elizabeth II helped pay for Prince Andrew’s multi-million pound settlement with Virginia Giuffre in 2022 to avoid a US civil trial. The Queen reportedly contributed roughly £7 million, with another £3 million from Prince Philip’s estate and funds from King Charles, though these are often described as loans.

There was an out of court settlement, but the amount is disputable. Giuffre;s estate is in dispute between her sons and her carer. The estate is valued at £233,000.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/virginia-giuffre-andrew-settlement-estate-value-b1261318.html

Obviously there are cries about the "missing money". Maybe it was never there.

Mostly, Trump will embarrass himself ad the US. All he knows about the UK is that the wind farm is still next to his golf course, killing birds and causing cancer.

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Wow, do they have any time to be at home?

You may be happy your taxes go to pay for junkets by parasites. I'm not.

Are you a pensioner living in Thailand?

Literally, your charge falls apart on the basic biological definition of a "parasite"

an organism living in, on, or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply often in a state that directly or indirectly harms the host

If you’re going to call the British monarchy “parasites,” you have to ignore an inconvenient amount of <deleted>in' reality.

Start with the basics: the modern royal family does not exist as a freeloading clique. The core funding mechanism,the Sovereign Grant, comes from profits generated by the Crown Estate, a vast portfolio of land and assets that legally belongs to the nation, not to individuals like King Charles III. The state takes the overwhelming majority of that revenue; the monarchy receives a fraction to perform official duties. Strip them away, and the income doesn’t suddenly fall into your lap, it still belongs to the Treasury.

Then there’s the job itself. Being a senior royal is not a life of idle indulgence; it’s a lifetime of public obligation. Hundreds of engagements a year, diplomatic tours, state visits, charity patronage, crisis representation. Princess Anne, for example, routinely carries out more official engagements annually than almost any other public figure in the UK. That’s not parasitism—that’s relentless, visible service.

On the global stage, they function as soft power assets. When Queen Elizabeth II met world leaders, she wasn’t just shaking hands—she was reinforcing Britain’s diplomatic presence in a way no elected politician quite can. The monarchy provides continuity across governments, parties, and political chaos. Prime ministers come and go; the Crown remains a stable point of reference. That stability has real value, even if it’s hard to stick a neat price tag on it.

Tourism? It’s not trivial. Millions don’t flock to Britain each year to admire government office blocks. They come for the history, the pageantry, the living institution. Palaces, ceremonies, royal events; they are part of the national brand, and they generate economic activity far beyond their direct cost. No one goes to Germany to see the Kaiser's gaff.

People will counter that those buildings will be attractions if there was no Royal Family, and will point to palaces in France providing attractions. True, but Royal events are a benefit to the economy. The Coronation of King Charles III generated in excess of an Annualised, additional £300m of tourist spend. But the Centre for Retail Research put a number of an extra £1.4bn in benefit to the retail and hosptality sectors, and thats not a guess, but based on real world data (https://www.retailresearch.org/royal-events.html_. The Coronation itself cost the Public Purse £72m. Bargain. Annualised, Royal events bring in £100m or so (https://quartzmountain.org/article/how-much-does-the-monarchy-bring-in-travel-to-england)

Tell me how much President Putin's first day on the job generated for the Russian retail sector?

And then there’s the constitutional role. The monarch acts as a politically neutral head of state—someone who can formally appoint governments, open Parliament, and provide a check, without being entangled in party politics. Replace that with an elected president, and you import division, campaigns, and another layer of political rivalry into a system that currently avoids it. Your view is a minority. The Royal Family has enjoyed a remarkable 75-80% support since polling started. And elected President would kill for those numbers. The highest share of the popular vote any US President enjoyed in the 20th or 21st Century was Lyndon B. Johnson, with 61% in the 1964, and he enjoyed a massive sympathy vote after his charismatic predecessor had his head blown off.

You can criticise the monarchy on plenty of grounds; cost, relevance, symbolism, but calling them “parasites” is lazy shorthand.

It collapses a complex institution into a slogan and ignores the economic return, diplomatic utility, constitutional function, and sheer volume of work involved.

Dislike it if you want. Abolish it if you can make the case.

But don’t <deleted> pretend it’s doing <deleted> all while feeding off the state; that <deleted> argument simply doesn’t hold up under scrutiny

6 hours ago, Sigmund said:

If he talks about Andrew or what really happend to late respected Princess Diana...yes, it would be embarassing for the Brit Crown King. 🙏

Then they will swap stories about leaky rectums, hookers, STDs, perving at 13 year olds, the Lolita Express and Moscow Golden Showers.

https://gregolear.substack.com/p/full-disclosure-an-interview-with

his incontinence stems from his decades of stimulant abuse and fast food diet. He pretends he’s the model of physical health, when instead his bodily functions are being dictated by his drug addiction—and he tries to cover it up. So it’s evidence of his incompetence, and one of the main reasons for the NDAs. The crew nicknamed CA “The <deleted>show,” because he would soil himself during tapings, often after flying into a rage and cursing out the Script Dept. Because he couldn’t read a three-syllable word.......He is severely dyslexic, and has been his entire life. Ivanka would joke about it off camera........He snorts Adderall as his maintenance high. When he gets too wired, this is tempered with benzodiazepines. There’s also a robust use of cocaine and methamphetamine in the Trump orbit, and I’ll leave it at that….“Captain Valtrex” was another nickname for him. He sent his secretaries to the CVS on 57th Street to pick up his scripts for that herpes treatment. He used the name “John Barron” on some of these prescriptions.

1 hour ago, Roadsternut said:

Are you a pensioner living in Thailand?

Literally, your charge falls apart on the basic biological definition of a "parasite"

If you’re going to call the British monarchy “parasites,” you have to ignore an inconvenient amount of <deleted>in' reality.

Start with the basics: the modern royal family does not exist as a freeloading clique. The core funding mechanism,the Sovereign Grant, comes from profits generated by the Crown Estate, a vast portfolio of land and assets that legally belongs to the nation, not to individuals like King Charles III. The state takes the overwhelming majority of that revenue; the monarchy receives a fraction to perform official duties. Strip them away, and the income doesn’t suddenly fall into your lap, it still belongs to the Treasury.

Then there’s the job itself. Being a senior royal is not a life of idle indulgence; it’s a lifetime of public obligation. Hundreds of engagements a year, diplomatic tours, state visits, charity patronage, crisis representation. Princess Anne, for example, routinely carries out more official engagements annually than almost any other public figure in the UK. That’s not parasitism—that’s relentless, visible service.

On the global stage, they function as soft power assets. When Queen Elizabeth II met world leaders, she wasn’t just shaking hands—she was reinforcing Britain’s diplomatic presence in a way no elected politician quite can. The monarchy provides continuity across governments, parties, and political chaos. Prime ministers come and go; the Crown remains a stable point of reference. That stability has real value, even if it’s hard to stick a neat price tag on it.

Tourism? It’s not trivial. Millions don’t flock to Britain each year to admire government office blocks. They come for the history, the pageantry, the living institution. Palaces, ceremonies, royal events; they are part of the national brand, and they generate economic activity far beyond their direct cost. No one goes to Germany to see the Kaiser's gaff.

People will counter that those buildings will be attractions if there was no Royal Family, and will point to palaces in France providing attractions. True, but Royal events are a benefit to the economy. The Coronation of King Charles III generated in excess of an Annualised, additional £300m of tourist spend. But the Centre for Retail Research put a number of an extra £1.4bn in benefit to the retail and hosptality sectors, and thats not a guess, but based on real world data (https://www.retailresearch.org/royal-events.html_. The Coronation itself cost the Public Purse £72m. Bargain. Annualised, Royal events bring in £100m or so (https://quartzmountain.org/article/how-much-does-the-monarchy-bring-in-travel-to-england)

Tell me how much President Putin's first day on the job generated for the Russian retail sector?

And then there’s the constitutional role. The monarch acts as a politically neutral head of state—someone who can formally appoint governments, open Parliament, and provide a check, without being entangled in party politics. Replace that with an elected president, and you import division, campaigns, and another layer of political rivalry into a system that currently avoids it. Your view is a minority. The Royal Family has enjoyed a remarkable 75-80% support since polling started. And elected President would kill for those numbers. The highest share of the popular vote any US President enjoyed in the 20th or 21st Century was Lyndon B. Johnson, with 61% in the 1964, and he enjoyed a massive sympathy vote after his charismatic predecessor had his head blown off.

You can criticise the monarchy on plenty of grounds; cost, relevance, symbolism, but calling them “parasites” is lazy shorthand.

It collapses a complex institution into a slogan and ignores the economic return, diplomatic utility, constitutional function, and sheer volume of work involved.

Dislike it if you want. Abolish it if you can make the case.

But don’t <deleted> pretend it’s doing <deleted> all while feeding off the state; that <deleted> argument simply doesn’t hold up under scrutiny

Just don't mention Uncle Dickie abusing kiddies in Kincora and trafficking them to Sligo for his weekend entertainment. Or Sir Laurens van der Post godparent to Prince William, spiritual adviser to Prince Charles raping his friend's 14-year-old daughter. Or Charles remaining besties with Bishop Peter Ball throughout his choirboy-raping years, even writing him supportive letters after conviction. Or Sir Jimmy Savile, necrophiliac and national treasure, granted keys to hospitals and Broadmoor while the Palace looked the other way. Or any number of establishment "transgressions" because acknowledging the rot at the heart of the institution is apparently what only bitter Taigs do. Can't piss on the Orange parade.

And then there's Andrew. The pride of the Windsor line. Whose mother wrote a £12 million cheque to make the problem disappear buying what, exactly? The suicide of a trafficked girl? The silence of a convenient corpse? A tragic victim converted into an accounting line item?

God Save the King. Time for the reboot nobody asked for: King Billy the Fifth. Same firm, fresh branding, institutional memory conveniently wiped. The show must go on.

Parasites? No. Worse than that.

Parasites serve a biological function. Parasites have the decency to stay hidden. Parasites don't demand you bow. Parasites don't cost you £350 million a year. Parasites don't cover for child rapists. Parasites don't lecture you about service while protecting nonces and paying off their victims with public money. Parasites don't wave from gold carriages while the food banks overflow.

They're not parasites. They're a protection racket for the most depraved elements of the British establishment, wrapped in ermine and propped up by forelock-tugging subjects too frightened to call it what it is: a hereditary crime family that's convinced you it's your patriotic duty to fund their existence while they sweep their filth under the crown jewels.

God Save the King?

Nah.

F@ck the King and his fascist regime. There's a forest somewhere missing some compost.

(Is that enough - ed ??

Trump's presence, reputation and slowly revealing past is in itself an embarrassment. Foisting this state visit upon The King, not a well man, for what have become attempts to restore (!) Starmer's somewhat tarnished image are reprehensible. Starmer is prepared to throw the sovereign under Trump's bus!

9 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Are you a pensioner living in Thailand?

Literally, your charge falls apart on the basic biological definition of a "parasite"

If you’re going to call the British monarchy “parasites,” you have to ignore an inconvenient amount of <deleted>in' reality.

Start with the basics: the modern royal family does not exist as a freeloading clique. The core funding mechanism,the Sovereign Grant, comes from profits generated by the Crown Estate, a vast portfolio of land and assets that legally belongs to the nation, not to individuals like King Charles III. The state takes the overwhelming majority of that revenue; the monarchy receives a fraction to perform official duties. Strip them away, and the income doesn’t suddenly fall into your lap, it still belongs to the Treasury.

Then there’s the job itself. Being a senior royal is not a life of idle indulgence; it’s a lifetime of public obligation. Hundreds of engagements a year, diplomatic tours, state visits, charity patronage, crisis representation. Princess Anne, for example, routinely carries out more official engagements annually than almost any other public figure in the UK. That’s not parasitism—that’s relentless, visible service.

On the global stage, they function as soft power assets. When Queen Elizabeth II met world leaders, she wasn’t just shaking hands—she was reinforcing Britain’s diplomatic presence in a way no elected politician quite can. The monarchy provides continuity across governments, parties, and political chaos. Prime ministers come and go; the Crown remains a stable point of reference. That stability has real value, even if it’s hard to stick a neat price tag on it.

Tourism? It’s not trivial. Millions don’t flock to Britain each year to admire government office blocks. They come for the history, the pageantry, the living institution. Palaces, ceremonies, royal events; they are part of the national brand, and they generate economic activity far beyond their direct cost. No one goes to Germany to see the Kaiser's gaff.

People will counter that those buildings will be attractions if there was no Royal Family, and will point to palaces in France providing attractions. True, but Royal events are a benefit to the economy. The Coronation of King Charles III generated in excess of an Annualised, additional £300m of tourist spend. But the Centre for Retail Research put a number of an extra £1.4bn in benefit to the retail and hosptality sectors, and thats not a guess, but based on real world data (https://www.retailresearch.org/royal-events.html_. The Coronation itself cost the Public Purse £72m. Bargain. Annualised, Royal events bring in £100m or so (https://quartzmountain.org/article/how-much-does-the-monarchy-bring-in-travel-to-england)

Tell me how much President Putin's first day on the job generated for the Russian retail sector?

And then there’s the constitutional role. The monarch acts as a politically neutral head of state—someone who can formally appoint governments, open Parliament, and provide a check, without being entangled in party politics. Replace that with an elected president, and you import division, campaigns, and another layer of political rivalry into a system that currently avoids it. Your view is a minority. The Royal Family has enjoyed a remarkable 75-80% support since polling started. And elected President would kill for those numbers. The highest share of the popular vote any US President enjoyed in the 20th or 21st Century was Lyndon B. Johnson, with 61% in the 1964, and he enjoyed a massive sympathy vote after his charismatic predecessor had his head blown off.

You can criticise the monarchy on plenty of grounds; cost, relevance, symbolism, but calling them “parasites” is lazy shorthand.

It collapses a complex institution into a slogan and ignores the economic return, diplomatic utility, constitutional function, and sheer volume of work involved.

Dislike it if you want. Abolish it if you can make the case.

But don’t <deleted> pretend it’s doing <deleted> all while feeding off the state; that <deleted> argument simply doesn’t hold up under scrutiny

Oh, I am a humble Australian subject, and I simply cannot contain my overflowing gratitude for the majestic "Parasite Parade" that occasionally graces our dusty shores. It is truly heartwarming to watch our media collapse into a collective, froth-mouthed orgy of adulation every time a royal foot touches the tarmac. Some might call the multimillion-dollar bill for these visits "expensive," but I say: why spend that money on schools or hospitals when we can fund the transport of a gold-plated carriage? It’s truly "chunderous" in the most regal way possible.

My spiritual awakening began as a lowly caddie at Royal Melbourne, where I had the divine honor of carrying the bags for Sir Dallas Brooks, the Governor of Victoria. The press hailed him as a titan of the green, though in reality, his golf game was about as sharp as a plastic butter knife—a solid 10-handicap on a day when the wind wasn’t blowing. His tips to caddies were apparently aimed at reducing any unreasonable expectation of his vice-regal status. Stingy is too extravagant.

But his true talent was a "buy now, pay never" policy at Melbourne’s department stores. It’s the ultimate life hack: how do you sue the Queen’s representative for being a deadbeat? You don’t; you just consider your unpaid invoice a "tithe" to the crown.

And who could forget the 1999 Republic referendum? A masterclass in political sabotage by John Howard and Tony Abbott—that shining British quisling who made the entire continent’s skin crawl by trying to knight Prince Philip. I mean, what’s $90 million a year for a redundant layer of gubernatorial bureaucracy between friends? It’s a small price to pay for the privilege of keeping a seat warm for someone who doesn’t live here.

Of course, I’m just a grumpy minority. After all, look at the stellar track record of "The People" lately—just check out President #47 for a glimpse into the glorious future of elected heads of state.

But please, do tell me why I should swear allegiance to such a wholesome, functional family unit. We’ve got a late Queen whose husband allegedly treated maids of honor like an all-you-can-eat buffet, an adulterous sister, and a King who once dreamed of being a female hygiene product just to be closer to his mistress. Toss in a son with a penchant for underage "friendships," and you’ve got a soap opera that makes The Bold and the Beautiful look like a Sunday School picnic.

It’s also delightful that as a loyal Commonwealth citizen, I have to navigate more UK visa paperwork than a marathon runner, while apparently, all I really needed was a rubber dinghy and a departure point in Calais.

If you enjoy tugging your forelock and playing the servile peasant to an institution with the practical utility of an ashtray on a Harley-Davidson, please, don’t let me stop you. I’ll be over here in Thailand, enjoying the view. I am minding my own business, please consider doing the same.

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Oh, I am a humble Australian subject, and I simply cannot contain my overflowing gratitude for the majestic "Parasite Parade" that occasionally graces our dusty shores. It is truly heartwarming to watch our media collapse into a collective, froth-mouthed orgy of adulation every time a royal foot touches the tarmac. Some might call the multimillion-dollar bill for these visits "expensive," but I say: why spend that money on schools or hospitals when we can fund the transport of a gold-plated carriage? It’s truly "chunderous" in the most regal way possible.

My spiritual awakening began as a lowly caddie at Royal Melbourne, where I had the divine honor of carrying the bags for Sir Dallas Brooks, the Governor of Victoria. The press hailed him as a titan of the green, though in reality, his golf game was about as sharp as a plastic butter knife—a solid 10-handicap on a day when the wind wasn’t blowing. His tips to caddies were apparently aimed at reducing any unreasonable expectation of his vice-regal status. Stingy is too extravagant.

But his true talent was a "buy now, pay never" policy at Melbourne’s department stores. It’s the ultimate life hack: how do you sue the Queen’s representative for being a deadbeat? You don’t; you just consider your unpaid invoice a "tithe" to the crown.

And who could forget the 1999 Republic referendum? A masterclass in political sabotage by John Howard and Tony Abbott—that shining British quisling who made the entire continent’s skin crawl by trying to knight Prince Philip. I mean, what’s $90 million a year for a redundant layer of gubernatorial bureaucracy between friends? It’s a small price to pay for the privilege of keeping a seat warm for someone who doesn’t live here.

Of course, I’m just a grumpy minority. After all, look at the stellar track record of "The People" lately—just check out President #47 for a glimpse into the glorious future of elected heads of state.

But please, do tell me why I should swear allegiance to such a wholesome, functional family unit. We’ve got a late Queen whose husband allegedly treated maids of honor like an all-you-can-eat buffet, an adulterous sister, and a King who once dreamed of being a female hygiene product just to be closer to his mistress. Toss in a son with a penchant for underage "friendships," and you’ve got a soap opera that makes The Bold and the Beautiful look like a Sunday School picnic.

It’s also delightful that as a loyal Commonwealth citizen, I have to navigate more UK visa paperwork than a marathon runner, while apparently, all I really needed was a rubber dinghy and a departure point in Calais.

If you enjoy tugging your forelock and playing the servile peasant to an institution with the practical utility of an ashtray on a Harley-Davidson, please, don’t let me stop you. I’ll be over here in Thailand, enjoying the view. I am minding my own business, please consider doing the same.

Thailand has got it about right make it compulsory under the cosh or get rid of it. Medaievalism vs Democracy. And what has William actually acheived in his long life -at least Charles is highly educated and has left many legacies - Prince's Trust,Poundbury, Highgrove Gardens, speaks fluently many languages and stripped of his crown and priliges woulkd proabbly made a good job of being head of parks or some such. Willima just seems to like shagging and drinking anf football and doing little else except the minimum perfomative tick box occasional carefully staged "caring" optics. Oh and Prince Philip for the last decades when he wasn't making gaffes lived with his mia-noi Penny Knatchbull - "family values" only in nam.

‘How’s his wife?’: Trump takes swipe at Harry after Ukraine speech

Donald Trump has hit out at Prince Harry for urging the US to throw support behind Ukraine.

It comes after an impassioned speech by Harry at the Kyiv Security Forum on Thursday (23 April), where he asked for "American leadership" to "honour its international treaty obligations" in its "enduring role in global security".

In response to a reporters question on what he thought of Harry’s plea to the US, the President said: “Prince Harry? How's his wife? Please pass on my greetings to her, okay.”

He added: “I know one thing. Prince Harry doesn't speak for the United Kingdom. That's for sure.

I think I speak more for the United Kingdom than Prince Harry.”

‘How’s his wife?’: Trump takes swipe at Harry after Ukraine speech

Nearly half of voters say King Charles III should abandon his state visit to the US next week, exclusive polling for The i Paper reveals

Ahead of the King’s first visit to the US as monarch, which will mark the 250th anniversary of American independence, 44 per cent of those surveyed said the head of state should not press ahead.

By contrast, 35 per cent are in favour while 21 per cent said they were unsure, according to polling conducted by Merlin Strategy.

Only a third of UK public back King’s state visit to US

18 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Oh, I am a humble Australian subject, and I simply cannot contain my overflowing gratitude for the majestic "Parasite Parade" that occasionally graces our dusty shores. It is truly heartwarming to watch our media collapse into a collective, froth-mouthed orgy of adulation every time a royal foot touches the tarmac. Some might call the multimillion-dollar bill for these visits "expensive," but I say: why spend that money on schools or hospitals when we can fund the transport of a gold-plated carriage? It’s truly "chunderous" in the most regal way possible.

My spiritual awakening began as a lowly caddie at Royal Melbourne, where I had the divine honor of carrying the bags for Sir Dallas Brooks, the Governor of Victoria. The press hailed him as a titan of the green, though in reality, his golf game was about as sharp as a plastic butter knife—a solid 10-handicap on a day when the wind wasn’t blowing. His tips to caddies were apparently aimed at reducing any unreasonable expectation of his vice-regal status. Stingy is too extravagant.

But his true talent was a "buy now, pay never" policy at Melbourne’s department stores. It’s the ultimate life hack: how do you sue the Queen’s representative for being a deadbeat? You don’t; you just consider your unpaid invoice a "tithe" to the crown.

And who could forget the 1999 Republic referendum? A masterclass in political sabotage by John Howard and Tony Abbott—that shining British quisling who made the entire continent’s skin crawl by trying to knight Prince Philip. I mean, what’s $90 million a year for a redundant layer of gubernatorial bureaucracy between friends? It’s a small price to pay for the privilege of keeping a seat warm for someone who doesn’t live here.

Of course, I’m just a grumpy minority. After all, look at the stellar track record of "The People" lately—just check out President #47 for a glimpse into the glorious future of elected heads of state.

But please, do tell me why I should swear allegiance to such a wholesome, functional family unit. We’ve got a late Queen whose husband allegedly treated maids of honor like an all-you-can-eat buffet, an adulterous sister, and a King who once dreamed of being a female hygiene product just to be closer to his mistress. Toss in a son with a penchant for underage "friendships," and you’ve got a soap opera that makes The Bold and the Beautiful look like a Sunday School picnic.

It’s also delightful that as a loyal Commonwealth citizen, I have to navigate more UK visa paperwork than a marathon runner, while apparently, all I really needed was a rubber dinghy and a departure point in Calais.

If you enjoy tugging your forelock and playing the servile peasant to an institution with the practical utility of an ashtray on a Harley-Davidson, please, don’t let me stop you. I’ll be over here in Thailand, enjoying the view. I am minding my own business, please consider doing the same.

You're an Australian Citizen, not Subject.You've never been an "Australian Subject".

Visa arrangements are reciprocal. I'm not sure why you are of the belief that Australian citizens should be accorded special privileges that British citizens do not have when visiting Australia. Both countries introduced visas in the early 1970s, though both, for UK, Australian citizens, followed a process of authority on arrival (visa on arrival). Australia introduced more restrictions on Britons in the 1990s by requiring travel authorisation, which was reciprocated 30 years later by the UK. In both cases, not a visa per se, visas for ordinary visitors are still issued on arrival.

Your irrelevant comment regarding the entry of some refugees is a view resembling those you describe themselves as firmly in the racist/Islamophobe camp, which I suppose is your right. Perhaps you felt the need to state that to get your racist credentials out in the open.

You replied in bold font for no apparent reason.

I maintain my freedom of expression, despite your attempts to repress it. Freedom of Expression of course is different from the American concept of Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Expression means I don't have the right to be heard. You can block my account.

Vidkun Quisling was tried and died a mass murderer, having been held responsible for his role in the extermination of Norwegian Jews. Your characterisation of a former Australian Prime Minister as a "British Quisling" (sic) is both ridiculous and offensive. Abbott is not a mass murderer nor, as far as I know, an extreme anti-semite. Your ignorant use of the term is highly offensive and contrasts with your preceived prejudices. Your use of the term is ridiculous because it demonstrates an innate ignorance about who Quisling was. It would make more sense to characterise Abbott as an "Australian Quisling"; that would still be offensive to survivors of the Holocaust and those who suffered under Nazi occupation, but at least it won't be perceived as imbecilic.

Australians, like Britons, are not required to swear allegiance to anyone. You live in Thailand, so clearly you are not an Australian politician, serving police officer nor serviceman, so I'm not sure why you are lying by suggesting that someone now is forcing you to swear allegiance to anyone. And for anyone required to take the Oath, your are not swearing allegiance to a family unit. You are not even swearing an oath to the monarch (the head of state) and his heirs. There is no alliegance formalised with respect to the rest of the family. Government Acts are in the name of the "Crown". The Oath is an Oath to the constitutional order. The oath functions as a commitment to the rule of law and institutional continuity. Without taking an oath, a police officer cannot be said to be acting within the law. If someone is taking Australian nationality, or wishes to hold certain offices, they are being asked to accept the current rules of the system. Disliking the monarchy doesn’t remove that requirement; it just means accepting it as a condition while remaining free to campaign to change it, through referendums or political reform.

So another lie designed to misrepresent a position and distort a discussion. You're being a bit of a baby about it, while going off on one describing, in effect, your former Prime MInister as a Jew killing Nazi, originating because you had a crappy job carrying around bags for rich and not-so-rich blokes ("Caddy" isn't exactly much of a profession), generating resentment.

Trump is a senile old man, full of himself and the lack of any dignity... He should be impeached as soon as possible... a danger for the US and the rest of the world

5 hours ago, bannork said:

Nearly half of voters say King Charles III should abandon his state visit to the US next week, exclusive polling for The i Paper reveals

Ahead of the King’s first visit to the US as monarch, which will mark the 250th anniversary of American independence, 44 per cent of those surveyed said the head of state should not press ahead.

By contrast, 35 per cent are in favour while 21 per cent said they were unsure, according to polling conducted by Merlin Strategy.

Only a third of UK public back King’s state visit to US

Notably, the King's visit with the President will be private. So none of that Oval Office nonsense by the looks of it, beyond a photo. The American President apparently is keen to discuss the Digital Tax and NATO. It will be a one way discussion. The King is not there to discuss anything.

This is how the unrecorded conversion might go:

U.S. President: Your Majesty, I want to raise two issues briefly. Our concerns about the UK’s digital services tax and also NATO burden-sharing.

King Charles III: I am grateful for the opportunity to meet, Mr President. Those are clearly matters of importance between our two countries.

U.S. President: We feel the digital tax disproportionately affects American companies. We’d like to see it reconsidered.

King Charles III: I understand there are differing views on that question. As you know, these are matters for my government and Parliament to determine, but I am sure they will continue to engage constructively with your administration.

U.S. President: And on NATO—we’d like to see stronger commitments from European allies.

King Charles III: NATO has been a cornerstone of transatlantic security for many decades, and the United Kingdom has always valued its role within it. I know my government remains committed to that partnership.

U.S. President: We appreciate that. It’s important we stay aligned.

King Charles III: Indeed. The alliance between our countries has long provided stability in uncertain times, and I have every confidence that cooperation will continue in that spirit.

U.S. President: Thank you, Your Majesty.

King Charles III: Thank you, Mr President. I am very glad we have had this opportunity to speak.