Royalist Nutter in ED (Lounged)

[Brendan]

The South of France, what?s wrong with a piss-soaked wall to while away the last five minutes of their gagged and blindfolded lives against before being sent to judgement in a chorus of rifle fire?

Ok sorry I don?t actually think that. Just felt like being all revolutionary an? stuff.

Seriously though, if they are kept around for their ceremonial purposes and nostalgia they don?t need to have so much land and power. We can strip them of most of it and still keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

Personally I don?t like the thought of my children being born as ?subjects? to a monarchy that 100 years ago oversaw and sponsored the genocide of my people. But hey what can you do.

You can be indignant about it, that?s what!

[bon3yard]

Are you a bore Brendan;-)...erm, sorry Boer?

[bon3yard]

Are you a bore Brendan...erm, sorry Boer? ;-)

[Jeremy]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> However, under the Civil List, the royal family

> gives up their Crown Estate revenue in return for

> parliament paying their expenses.

>

> Since the revenue from the Crown Estates is just

> under ?200m, and the Civil List only amounts to

> ?12m, then tax payers receive a net return of

> ?188m per annum for retaining the royal family.

Interesting argument, I hadn't thought of it that way.

But the crown estate is not the private property of the Monarchy. The Queen can't just do what she wants with it. Hypothetically, if the monarchy was dismantled, I'm guessing the estate would just be absorbed into the government. So I'm not sure we can use it as a way of justifying the monarchy...

[MadWorld74]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the utterly useless Prince Charles would

> tick most boxes...

Actually if it wasn't for Charlie and his Princes Trust. I would not have been able to go to drama school. He is also an avid supported of historical architecture and it's preservation.

He's not that bad.

[Jeremy]

I don't like Charles' attitude to renewable energy though... he tries to come accross as a strong advocate, yet he is strongly opposed to wind farms because he thinks they look ugly.

[MadWorld74]

Wind farms in the sea ARE bloody ugly. On the land, no so bad.

[Asset]

Wind farms are terrible full stop, although at sea they would be better than on land. They are not put out at sea as no one would be able to get the subsides available for the land use. The negative impact of the turbines outweighs what little energy they produce.

[Cassius]

I like them - I think they are strange and beautiful like man made triffids..........

[david_carnell]

Except his idea of architecture is a twee mock-georgian pastiche. Have you actually seen Poundbury? Good grief - it's like a village of Hyacinth Buckets.

And his anti-science standpoint over GM produce is ill informed naivity.

And don't get me started on his biscuits....

....but anyway, those posters outsisde ED station are quite amusing. The author has obviously found a rich benefactor to up his campaign to mail-drops.

[Jeremy]

Sorry, I can't stand it when people talk about renewable energy, but when push comes to shove they'd rather burn fossil fuels than spoil their idyllic countryside views.

Anyway, off topic...

[lard]

Cassius Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I like them - I think they are strange and

> beautiful like man made triffids..........

Yeah you say that but what happens when they start walking.

Run for the hills.

[*Bob*]

Burn wood.. it's the way forward.

Or should that be 'backward'?

[Loz]

Actually, I feel a little sorry for Charles. He has prepared all his life for one job that continues to elude him and now, because his mistake of a marriage (which was only to keep the general populace happy in the first place), that job may elude him altogether and he's not allowed to pursue any other career. Can't really blame him for going a little do-lally after 50 or 60 years of that.

As for the monarchy in general, I don't really care one way or the other. I am a little concerned about what may replace it - President Blair? Eeeuw. He could spend the ?12M annual civil list money on consultants in a month.

[HonaloochieB]

Paul Burrell once told me that in a private conversation with the Queen he felt the conversation was relaxed enough to broach the subject of her abdicating in favour of her eldest son.

According to Burrell, "her majesty simply sat back on her haunches and brayed with laughter".

Although he couldn't make out exactly what she was saying but swears he heard the phrases "faaack me sideways" "that bellend" "jug-eared tw@t" and "his father'd have me committed".

He claimed that her majesty became helpless with mirth and he had to summon a lady in waiting to help her to the lavatory.

In the light of Burrell's more recent conduct, perhaps best to take this with some salt.

But he seemed sincere at the time.

[Administrator]

Lounged

[snorky]

-- moved topic --

[HonaloochieB]

Ah. Welcome to the Democratic Republic Of Lounge.

[Asset]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry, I can't stand it when people talk about

> renewable energy, but when push comes to shove

> they'd rather burn fossil fuels than spoil their

> idyllic countryside views.

>

> Anyway, off topic...

No - I wouldn't rather burn fossil fuels and I will talk about renewable energy. If you do a little research you will find that wind farms are not the way forward and it's nothing to do with the view.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Surely Jonathan Creek is ok?

[HonaloochieB]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Surely Jonathan Creek is ok?

No. Not at all, unless you know of a version that doesn't star Alan Davies?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

I think Companies should be ruled by "competent administrations" as well,preferably by "Committees":)):))

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Hearing that Billionaire Sir Philip Green talking this very morning about Leaders "leading from the front" with all that that entails and implies.

What does that fool know anyway?

Johnny Guesser,if you ask me(td)

Even THe Wheeltappers and Shunters Club was ruled by "t committee" and it never did them any harm,I tell thee.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

snorky Wrote:

the one who posts up hand typed Monarchist bollck sheets ....

one arrived this week with a union jack

WTF(6)..."Royalty"...."Union Jack"?????....bet that went down well with some ED ResidentsB)

[Jeremy]

Asset Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Sorry, I can't stand it when people talk about

> > renewable energy, but when push comes to shove

> > they'd rather burn fossil fuels than spoil

> their

> > idyllic countryside views.

> >

> > Anyway, off topic...

>

>

> No - I wouldn't rather burn fossil fuels and I

> will talk about renewable energy. If you do a

> little research you will find that wind farms are

> not the way forward and it's nothing to do with

> the view.

My comment wasn't necessarily aimed at you. Although I guess it was partly influenced by what you said.

What are the drawbacks from your perspective? Wildlife? Noise? The fact that they are fairly inefficient, so arguably the cost outweights the benefit?

I'm not ignorant in the ways of renewable energy... it seems to me that if we are to stop burning fossil fuels, our choices are to either ramp up the nuclear plants, or harness every single bit of renewable energy available to us (as well as reducing consumption).