Is This Man A Good Pick For Secretary Of...
News2 mins ago
No best answer has yet been selected by bobtheduck. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Also, I agree that Royals are of interest to foreigners but tourists come to England for a number of reasons other than the Royal family - Culture, Theatre, Museums, Monuments, Historical sites, etc. etc.
However, some foreigners do love the royal family. Like my Godmother who loves reading and talking about them. She adored Princess Diana and I've bought my GM numerous books about her.
There are too many extended members of the royal family who are subsidised by the state as well. Its fine if just the Queen and her immediate family are supported by the State but I don't see what royals like Princess Margaret did for the state except add glamour to the royal family.
No there aren't. You obviously haven't read my previous answer. No member of the Royal Family is subsidised by the taxpayer; they all pay for themselves from the income from the Crown Estates.
I think Bernardo is a wonderful person and has put the arguments very forcefully, with the usual AB rentagob making the usual predictable stupid points.
And who was wondering what Princess Margaret did?
She used to drink like a fish and screw*d for England, Harry, St George and just about anyone else she could find at her local. After all, being a princess is very difficult!
One of the many, many things that annoys me about the royal family is that of course we had a republic in England back in the seventeenth century but we let it slip through our fingers! True, it was partly due to the ineptitude and puritan excesses of the Cromwell government, but as a people the English really should have tried a lot harder to strive for their perceived republican utopia. That way we would not be constantly bombarded by the sycophantic media drivel which blights all our lives three centuries later, the sort of brown nosing to which the questioner - sorry, forgotten your ID - refers. As far as I'm concerned, Charles has worked very hard at the role of prospective head of state, unlike any of the rest of them, and so he deserves to fulfil the destiny which has always been his life's purpose. But then no more; he wound up colonial tenure in Hong Kong in 1997 with the same impeccable dignity that Mountbatten displayed when presiding over the independence of India half a century earlier, and he could well reprise that function in quietly bringing to a close our entirely anachronistic constitutional monarchy.
I realise of course that my views will upset a lot of people, and to them I sincerely apologise in advance.
Regards, eggman
I'm all for making much fuller use of the Royal Family as a tourist attraction.Every member could have their own particular palace (there's plenty to go round) and ,dressed in full robes and crowns they could have their pictures taken with tourists and..oh lots of things.Phil could take the kids round on his horse and cart (I believe he likes that sort of thing), Elizabeth could run the Buckingham Palace tea rooms(she'd look just right in a nylon overall and a cap), Ann could do dog-training,and Charlie would just be the perfect guide to all his (sorry, OUR) paintings and objets d'art.
Then, provided they made a profit for us we might let them stay.