You Can Stick Your "Royal" Wedding Where the Sun Don't Shine.

page: 27
81
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by budski

...the point is that the ginger one needlessly put lives at risk to feed his own ego



I think you'll find that was the media. Had they not found out, no-one woud have ever have known, at least until after the event, that Harry had even been in Afghanistan.

They don't care about Britain, about our soldiers, about anyone. Just stories which sell copy which make money


I think you'll find he took a news crew with him, in order to do his PR bit, and given the fact that he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, anything could have happened.

So your media argument is bullplop - he took them with him.




posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


OH you can't just leave us hanging like that, where are the links????



Is 6 billion quid (the figure quoted on many US news channels) a silly point?


Would like to see your sources for that being the cost of security please.
edit on 29-4-2011 by aivlas because: (no reason given)


Ok I see you might be talking about the total cost....would still like to see your links for that.
edit on 29-4-2011 by aivlas because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR
 


Small arms fire is of course different, but the Taliban still have mortars and RPG's as well as some heavy machine guns and perhaps some stingers.

Yes, in all likelihood, they would have come off 2nd best, but I would consider ANY loss of life, because of what I consider to be a vanity trip, to be needlessly lost.

I would still say that it was a needless risk, and if lives had been lost because of it I would probably harbour a pretty intense dislike of the ginger one.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Show me where the wedding has cost £6 billion.......it has cost nothing like that!

Have a look here now whilst you will no doubt call this report lies because it does not back up your argument.......today's Royal wedding will by all accounts leave this country turning a very handsome profit!



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminatitanimulli
 

You and your Terrorist organisation can kiss my English Arse paddy!!!!!!!

edit on 29/4/11 by lektrofellon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DrumsRfun
 


Ain't got a problem with canadians, a beautiful country and polite people. Almost moved out there with my family as my dad was offered a job over there!



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ironsjack
reply to post by NadaCambia
 


Do a bit of research and you'll find 50,000 tourists visit the palace each year, not including the ones that stand outside to take pictures etc.

I'm no royalist but it annoys me when people complain about people that have no power and are a part of british heritage, something to be proud of.

I bet if you went abroad and asked foreigners what names come to their head when you say "england" they would say:

1. The Queen
2. Buckingham palace
3. Manchester united.


Tourists, like us only get rare glimpses of the Royals at ceremonies or at play somewhere. Buckingham Palace may have had 50,000 but that's nothing compared to the 3,000,000 that visit just the Royal chateau in Versailles, without taking into account the visitors that visit all the other French and German beautiful castles and palaces,which they can actually afford to run because they don't maintain any Royals.

We are given a figure of 66p pp to maintain the royals. That actually adds up to considerably more than the £7 million odd the Government admits they cost. Presumably that comes from the Civil List which pays for their staff, execs, admin, catering,hospitality,housekeeping,furnishings, ceremonial functions, sundres and spending on assets - (which does not include gambling bills that the Queen Mother ran up). What it does not cover are thing like security etc which comes out of the Armed Forces and Police budgets. We will probably never get to the real figure but it will be huge.

The Media are the ones that have given the wedding the hype it has had and every opportunity has been taken
to try to stir up the public about this wedding. However I suspect its actually less than 20% of the public are actually fans. Diana's death has damaged them deeply.

People seem to think that the Royal Family are 'one of us'. They are not. They come from old, quite secretive land-owning Royal European families, whom only ever intermarried other royal houses thereby keeping their assets and power intact. They often ended up ruling over peoples they had no personal relationship to. Queen Victoria's first language was German, not English. As most countries rumbled and then kicked out their royals the marriage market became less populated and they have over the last few of generations married from the lower eschelons.

The Queen is cousin to the then US President Bush and David Cameron, even Obama appears to have some weird link to her through a supposed Egyptian line and William has married a distant cousin. So its still all in the family despite appearances. These links are very handy for protecting 'one's interestboth on internal and foreign policy.

The Queen still has the power of Veto and has probably bargained with it to avoid paying tax for years. It was not that long ago that an investigative journalist, rare today, managed to reveal the phenomenal extent of her wealth, things like part of Times Square etc. Anyone who thinks the Queen has no hand in government is actually a fool. She receives every day except Christmas and New Year Despatch Boxes which update her with affairs across the world. A Red Box contains The Page of the Presence which holds Cabint, Foreign and Commonwealth documents which she has to sign. The Prime Minister visits her every week to take her instructions. She still governs and obviously helps select favoured personages into selected jobs. Cameron would never have made PM without Buck House's help.

Personally I would like a chance to vote for a proper democracy, I doubt in this day and age we would retain our royalty if the public actually realised the serruptituous stranglehold around the world our Royals actually hold. However they understand the value of eliteism and maintain an honours list which most would sell their principles to get on



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I saw the £6,000,000 figure which was given out on Bloomberg tv this morning. Their expert gave it, not only from the actual wedding costs but also the loss of trade for the UK due to the wedding. He would have included things like the loss of Revenue for odd things like the closure and redecoration of Westminster Abbey itself whilst it was made readly for the wedding. This alone lost over £1,000,000 per month in revenue without the redecoration etc.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I don't know how to post the link, but I just watched it on Bloomburg tv UK cost of royal wedding. The expert is a Mat(?) Gotkine and its on utube. Sorry guys



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lynda101
I saw the £6,000,000 figure which was given out on Bloomberg tv this morning. Their expert gave it, not only from the actual wedding costs but also the loss of trade for the UK due to the wedding. He would have included things like the loss of Revenue for odd things like the closure and redecoration of Westminster Abbey itself whilst it was made readly for the wedding. This alone lost over £1,000,000 per month in revenue without the redecoration etc.


Including trade, and lost time at work, it's well over 50 billions

Hard to believe, but there ya go.

Hope they enjoy their honeymoon while we pay for their extravagance.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Links please, it's all well and good throwing these numbers around but we need your sources.

Well I think I found it cheers Lynda101 for the info


Some British economists estimate a potential loss of national output because wedding festivities span two holiday weekends, encouraging people to take up to 11 days out of work, adding up to ¼% of U.K. GDP or around $50 billion.


www.bloomberg.com...
edit on 29-4-2011 by aivlas because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-4-2011 by aivlas because: name



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by budski
 


Links please, it's all well and good throwing these numbers around but we need your sources.


You've already been told.

read back, I ain't doing your work for you.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by budski
 


Links please, it's all well and good throwing these numbers around but we need your sources.

Well I think I found it cheers Lynda101 for the info


Some British economists estimate a potential loss of national output because wedding festivities span two holiday weekends, encouraging people to take up to 11 days out of work, adding up to ¼% of U.K. GDP or around $50 billion.


www.bloomberg.com...
edit on 29-4-2011 by aivlas because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-4-2011 by aivlas because: name


So I was wrong, it's actually about 30 billion quid


Do you honestly think in these times that it was worth that amount of money?



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Logic, by banned (see the spelling) member...




hmmm, twisted logic


My goodness, even the ads on TV are offering "Royal Wedding" special offers.

Not sure I can take much more lol
edit on 29/4/2011 by budski because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





new topics
top topics
 
81
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join