Everyone was saying what an achievement 70 years as Queen was. The truth is the achievement was just staying alive. Even had she done much much less she'd still have been Queen as there was no way of removing her! That's the issue I have.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
Everyone was saying what an achievement 70 years as Queen was. The truth is the achievement was just staying alive. Even had she done much much less she'd still have been Queen as there was no way of removing her! That's the issue I have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She did so well clinging onto the power she did nothing to achieve
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 34 minutes ago
Everyone was saying what an achievement 70 years as Queen was. The truth is the achievement was just staying alive. Even had she done much much less she'd still have been Queen as there was no way of removing her! That's the issue I have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You come across a little bit ignorant here mate.
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - It's the facking world cup. (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
The fake footage in the trailer for their Netflix story to show how harassed they were by the paparazzi when it was the paps from a Katie Price court appearance was a huge feck up to go with the other untruths that have been uncovered.
=====
Case in point. How is this an "untruth that's been uncovered"? Just look at that terminology
Using stock footage is standard practice. Stock footage isn't a factual representation of a real day/time that something happened. You buy stock footage from the copyright owner to use when you cannot find other material to depict what you want to depict. So they wanted to depict the paparazzi behaviour and used stock footage.
So the footage isn't a factual representation of a real day/time that the Sussexes were feeling stressed by the press. We all know that they've struggled with press intrusion and paparazzi in the past and that's what they aim to demonstrate. It'd only be a problem if they didn't obtain prior consent from the copyright owners.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
my word
Deport 'em to the colonies !...... errrrm.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 34 minutes ago
Everyone was saying what an achievement 70 years as Queen was. The truth is the achievement was just staying alive. Even had she done much much less she'd still have been Queen as there was no way of removing her! That's the issue I have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You come across a little bit ignorant here mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How though? Her achievement was staying alive. That's the point I'm making. I'm not judging her as a person rather the position. The only thing you need to do to remain in post is stay alive. You can think she did a good job if you want but, even if she was terrible, she'd hardly have been removed!
No royals, no press intrusion, no lives affected - job's a good 'un.
A good test of whether anything is a good idea is to consider if knowing everything we know would we press ahead with starting it up e.g. knowing now what we do about smoking tobacco would we think it a great idea to start making cigarettes and growing the industry of making an addictive, harmful product - probably not, right?
So, a monarchy, say we didn't have one, would we think it a good idea to pick a family, give them billions of pounds worth of the country's assets, control over laws, a huge income, security, freshly painted buildings and swept streets, fawning. In return they patronise charities and, er, is that it?
Like a mega lottery?
Naw, just naw.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 34 minutes ago
Everyone was saying what an achievement 70 years as Queen was. The truth is the achievement was just staying alive. Even had she done much much less she'd still have been Queen as there was no way of removing her! That's the issue I have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You come across a little bit ignorant here mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How though? Her achievement was staying alive. That's the point I'm making. I'm not judging her as a person rather the position. The only thing you need to do to remain in post is stay alive. You can think she did a good job if you want but, even if she was terrible, she'd hardly have been removed!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is very true Diafol and the bummer side of having a Monarch as HofS. We have to put up with them good or bad. We lot today are fortunate as we have only ever known one Monarch, who, TBF on the whole, made a pretty good stab of it as a Parliamentary Monarch. Its a tough act for Charles to follow. We all know about many other English/UK Monarchs who were absolute baztards...
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 6 minutes ago
A good test of whether anything is a good idea is to consider if knowing everything we know would we press ahead with starting it up e.g. knowing now what we do about smoking tobacco would we think it a great idea to start making cigarettes and growing the industry of making an addictive, harmful product - probably not, right?
So, a monarchy, say we didn't have one, would we think it a good idea to pick a family, give them billions of pounds worth of the country's assets, control over laws, a huge income, security, freshly painted buildings and swept streets, fawning. In return they patronise charities and, er, is that it?
Like a mega lottery?
Naw, just naw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s like after years of austerity, would you vote the tories in again? Of course not
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 34 minutes ago
Everyone was saying what an achievement 70 years as Queen was. The truth is the achievement was just staying alive. Even had she done much much less she'd still have been Queen as there was no way of removing her! That's the issue I have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You come across a little bit ignorant here mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How though? Her achievement was staying alive. That's the point I'm making. I'm not judging her as a person rather the position. The only thing you need to do to remain in post is stay alive. You can think she did a good job if you want but, even if she was terrible, she'd hardly have been removed!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is very true Diafol and the bummer side of having a Monarch as HofS. We have to put up with them good or bad. We lot today are fortunate as we have only ever known one Monarch, who, TBF on the whole, made a pretty good stab of it as a Parliamentary Monarch. Its a tough act for Charles to follow. We all know about many other English/UK Monarchs who were absolute baztards...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have nothing against the late Queen. On the whole I think she did a good job. It's just that even if she was terrible we'd have been stuck with her!
The whole point is, that the queen was most generally liked/ loved/ adored even, especially by the Brits, it's just the follow up crew and all their self opinionated ,self serving grasping minions, that most people have no wish to subsidise and tolerate any longer.
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
One is about entertainment and the other is about being born into an elitist cult that requires huge amounts of money to support and for some reason actually has an influence on our law.
It's a truly awful analogy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are missing the point Hoody. You called it preposterous, and may will agree it is. But so are many things.
And what harm do the Royals do? More harm than good. most would not agree with that.
Again, just people hung up on this privilege which actually has little or no impact on your lives. Its not like the King rocks up and demands he has first pick of your daughters and takes half your sheep.
I think being represented by the Queen for 70 years, was far better than being represented by the assorted Prime ministers over same period.
And better than Harry and Meghan too.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 59 seconds ago
I think being represented by the Queen for 70 years, was far better than being represented by the assorted Prime ministers over same period.
And better than Harry and Meghan too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I probably won't disagree with that but that is probably more luck than anything.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
One is about entertainment and the other is about being born into an elitist cult that requires huge amounts of money to support and for some reason actually has an influence on our law.
It's a truly awful analogy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are missing the point Hoody. You called it preposterous, and may will agree it is. But so are many things.
And what harm do the Royals do? More harm than good. most would not agree with that.
Again, just people hung up on this privilege which actually has little or no impact on your lives. Its not like the King rocks up and demands he has first pick of your daughters and takes half your sheep.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't really have a point though
If the best you have is 'They don't do any harm' they truly are pointless.
Arguably the most popular entertainment sport in the history of the planet is a truly awful comparison.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 34 minutes ago
Everyone was saying what an achievement 70 years as Queen was. The truth is the achievement was just staying alive. Even had she done much much less she'd still have been Queen as there was no way of removing her! That's the issue I have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You come across a little bit ignorant here mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How though? Her achievement was staying alive. That's the point I'm making. I'm not judging her as a person rather the position. The only thing you need to do to remain in post is stay alive. You can think she did a good job if you want but, even if she was terrible, she'd hardly have been removed!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is very true Diafol and the bummer side of having a Monarch as HofS. We have to put up with them good or bad. We lot today are fortunate as we have only ever known one Monarch, who, TBF on the whole, made a pretty good stab of it as a Parliamentary Monarch. Its a tough act for Charles to follow. We all know about many other English/UK Monarchs who were absolute baztards...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have nothing against the late Queen. On the whole I think she did a good job. It's just that even if she was terrible we'd have been stuck with her!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With you here
Is it not true that practically every head of state, including Russian and Chinese, have visited, to meet the Queen.
Does this not give us access that most other countries do not have?
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
Is it not true that practically every head of state, including Russian and Chinese, have visited, to meet the Queen.
Does this not give us access that most other countries do not have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A fallacy. We are still the 4/5/6th biggest economy of the World (India, France, UK all around the same) and they aint coming here for photo ops.
comment by Ham Tyler (U15867)
posted 21 hours, 25 minutes ago
I think it's a poor way, albeit a very lucrative one, of trying and failing to say 'I got bored really quickly of visiting hospitals and pretending to care about sick children.'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, when you put it like that…
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 12 minutes ago
Is it not true that practically every head of state, including Russian and Chinese, have visited, to meet the Queen.
Does this not give us access that most other countries do not have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It gives a massive bill to the security services for what is basically
"Ooooooo you've got a gold hat."
"Ooooooo you've got one too!"
"Let's sit in gold chairs together because we were born."
Do people not visit France anymore? Is Versaille shut and not taking any tourist money?
I'd rather elevate a dog to that status.
And the true cost including security, policing and everything that's paid for by governments national and local is estimated at £345m pa. Every year.
Tourism people shout. Doubt only a relative handful of nutters come ONLY to see something royal? 172,000 tourists spending £2k each on royal things? Doesn't pass my sanity check and whilst that could be construed as growing GDP the reality is that only a tiny fraction of that sees it's way back to benefitting UK plc.
We could still keep all the Palace's.
My mates Dad is a farmer, farm has been in his family for generations.
They still have to pay the King
Why? Just cos that's why. Absolutely bonkers.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
Is it not true that practically every head of state, including Russian and Chinese, have visited, to meet the Queen.
Does this not give us access that most other countries do not have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A fallacy. We are still the 4/5/6th biggest economy of the World (India, France, UK all around the same) and they aint coming here for photo ops.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitely not a good fallacy. Every us president since the war has visited, they like the idea of the coach and Palace. In fact it is acknowledged what a pull she's been
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 12 minutes ago
Is it not true that practically every head of state, including Russian and Chinese, have visited, to meet the Queen.
Does this not give us access that most other countries do not have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It gives a massive bill to the security services for what is basically
"Ooooooo you've got a gold hat."
"Ooooooo you've got one too!"
"Let's sit in gold chairs together because we were born."
Do people not visit France anymore? Is Versaille shut and not taking any tourist money?
I'd rather elevate a dog to that status.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The dog analogy is trite.
Nobody visits France for Versailles, they go to Paris and then it's on their bucket list.
Sign in if you want to comment
So.. The Sussex's
Page 4 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 16/12/22
Everyone was saying what an achievement 70 years as Queen was. The truth is the achievement was just staying alive. Even had she done much much less she'd still have been Queen as there was no way of removing her! That's the issue I have.
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 minute ago
Everyone was saying what an achievement 70 years as Queen was. The truth is the achievement was just staying alive. Even had she done much much less she'd still have been Queen as there was no way of removing her! That's the issue I have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She did so well clinging onto the power she did nothing to achieve
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 34 minutes ago
Everyone was saying what an achievement 70 years as Queen was. The truth is the achievement was just staying alive. Even had she done much much less she'd still have been Queen as there was no way of removing her! That's the issue I have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You come across a little bit ignorant here mate.
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Serious Thorgen Kloppinson - It's the facking world cup. (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
The fake footage in the trailer for their Netflix story to show how harassed they were by the paparazzi when it was the paps from a Katie Price court appearance was a huge feck up to go with the other untruths that have been uncovered.
=====
Case in point. How is this an "untruth that's been uncovered"? Just look at that terminology
Using stock footage is standard practice. Stock footage isn't a factual representation of a real day/time that something happened. You buy stock footage from the copyright owner to use when you cannot find other material to depict what you want to depict. So they wanted to depict the paparazzi behaviour and used stock footage.
So the footage isn't a factual representation of a real day/time that the Sussexes were feeling stressed by the press. We all know that they've struggled with press intrusion and paparazzi in the past and that's what they aim to demonstrate. It'd only be a problem if they didn't obtain prior consent from the copyright owners.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
my word
posted on 16/12/22
Deport 'em to the colonies !...... errrrm.
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 34 minutes ago
Everyone was saying what an achievement 70 years as Queen was. The truth is the achievement was just staying alive. Even had she done much much less she'd still have been Queen as there was no way of removing her! That's the issue I have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You come across a little bit ignorant here mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How though? Her achievement was staying alive. That's the point I'm making. I'm not judging her as a person rather the position. The only thing you need to do to remain in post is stay alive. You can think she did a good job if you want but, even if she was terrible, she'd hardly have been removed!
posted on 16/12/22
No royals, no press intrusion, no lives affected - job's a good 'un.
posted on 16/12/22
A good test of whether anything is a good idea is to consider if knowing everything we know would we press ahead with starting it up e.g. knowing now what we do about smoking tobacco would we think it a great idea to start making cigarettes and growing the industry of making an addictive, harmful product - probably not, right?
So, a monarchy, say we didn't have one, would we think it a good idea to pick a family, give them billions of pounds worth of the country's assets, control over laws, a huge income, security, freshly painted buildings and swept streets, fawning. In return they patronise charities and, er, is that it?
Like a mega lottery?
Naw, just naw.
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 34 minutes ago
Everyone was saying what an achievement 70 years as Queen was. The truth is the achievement was just staying alive. Even had she done much much less she'd still have been Queen as there was no way of removing her! That's the issue I have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You come across a little bit ignorant here mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How though? Her achievement was staying alive. That's the point I'm making. I'm not judging her as a person rather the position. The only thing you need to do to remain in post is stay alive. You can think she did a good job if you want but, even if she was terrible, she'd hardly have been removed!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is very true Diafol and the bummer side of having a Monarch as HofS. We have to put up with them good or bad. We lot today are fortunate as we have only ever known one Monarch, who, TBF on the whole, made a pretty good stab of it as a Parliamentary Monarch. Its a tough act for Charles to follow. We all know about many other English/UK Monarchs who were absolute baztards...
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 6 minutes ago
A good test of whether anything is a good idea is to consider if knowing everything we know would we press ahead with starting it up e.g. knowing now what we do about smoking tobacco would we think it a great idea to start making cigarettes and growing the industry of making an addictive, harmful product - probably not, right?
So, a monarchy, say we didn't have one, would we think it a good idea to pick a family, give them billions of pounds worth of the country's assets, control over laws, a huge income, security, freshly painted buildings and swept streets, fawning. In return they patronise charities and, er, is that it?
Like a mega lottery?
Naw, just naw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s like after years of austerity, would you vote the tories in again? Of course not
posted on 16/12/22
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 34 minutes ago
Everyone was saying what an achievement 70 years as Queen was. The truth is the achievement was just staying alive. Even had she done much much less she'd still have been Queen as there was no way of removing her! That's the issue I have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You come across a little bit ignorant here mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How though? Her achievement was staying alive. That's the point I'm making. I'm not judging her as a person rather the position. The only thing you need to do to remain in post is stay alive. You can think she did a good job if you want but, even if she was terrible, she'd hardly have been removed!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is very true Diafol and the bummer side of having a Monarch as HofS. We have to put up with them good or bad. We lot today are fortunate as we have only ever known one Monarch, who, TBF on the whole, made a pretty good stab of it as a Parliamentary Monarch. Its a tough act for Charles to follow. We all know about many other English/UK Monarchs who were absolute baztards...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have nothing against the late Queen. On the whole I think she did a good job. It's just that even if she was terrible we'd have been stuck with her!
posted on 16/12/22
The whole point is, that the queen was most generally liked/ loved/ adored even, especially by the Brits, it's just the follow up crew and all their self opinionated ,self serving grasping minions, that most people have no wish to subsidise and tolerate any longer.
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
One is about entertainment and the other is about being born into an elitist cult that requires huge amounts of money to support and for some reason actually has an influence on our law.
It's a truly awful analogy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are missing the point Hoody. You called it preposterous, and may will agree it is. But so are many things.
And what harm do the Royals do? More harm than good. most would not agree with that.
Again, just people hung up on this privilege which actually has little or no impact on your lives. Its not like the King rocks up and demands he has first pick of your daughters and takes half your sheep.
posted on 16/12/22
I think being represented by the Queen for 70 years, was far better than being represented by the assorted Prime ministers over same period.
And better than Harry and Meghan too.
posted on 16/12/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 59 seconds ago
I think being represented by the Queen for 70 years, was far better than being represented by the assorted Prime ministers over same period.
And better than Harry and Meghan too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I probably won't disagree with that but that is probably more luck than anything.
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
One is about entertainment and the other is about being born into an elitist cult that requires huge amounts of money to support and for some reason actually has an influence on our law.
It's a truly awful analogy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are missing the point Hoody. You called it preposterous, and may will agree it is. But so are many things.
And what harm do the Royals do? More harm than good. most would not agree with that.
Again, just people hung up on this privilege which actually has little or no impact on your lives. Its not like the King rocks up and demands he has first pick of your daughters and takes half your sheep.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't really have a point though
If the best you have is 'They don't do any harm' they truly are pointless.
Arguably the most popular entertainment sport in the history of the planet is a truly awful comparison.
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 34 minutes ago
Everyone was saying what an achievement 70 years as Queen was. The truth is the achievement was just staying alive. Even had she done much much less she'd still have been Queen as there was no way of removing her! That's the issue I have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You come across a little bit ignorant here mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How though? Her achievement was staying alive. That's the point I'm making. I'm not judging her as a person rather the position. The only thing you need to do to remain in post is stay alive. You can think she did a good job if you want but, even if she was terrible, she'd hardly have been removed!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is very true Diafol and the bummer side of having a Monarch as HofS. We have to put up with them good or bad. We lot today are fortunate as we have only ever known one Monarch, who, TBF on the whole, made a pretty good stab of it as a Parliamentary Monarch. Its a tough act for Charles to follow. We all know about many other English/UK Monarchs who were absolute baztards...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have nothing against the late Queen. On the whole I think she did a good job. It's just that even if she was terrible we'd have been stuck with her!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With you here
posted on 16/12/22
Is it not true that practically every head of state, including Russian and Chinese, have visited, to meet the Queen.
Does this not give us access that most other countries do not have?
posted on 16/12/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
Is it not true that practically every head of state, including Russian and Chinese, have visited, to meet the Queen.
Does this not give us access that most other countries do not have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A fallacy. We are still the 4/5/6th biggest economy of the World (India, France, UK all around the same) and they aint coming here for photo ops.
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Ham Tyler (U15867)
posted 21 hours, 25 minutes ago
I think it's a poor way, albeit a very lucrative one, of trying and failing to say 'I got bored really quickly of visiting hospitals and pretending to care about sick children.'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, when you put it like that…
posted on 16/12/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 12 minutes ago
Is it not true that practically every head of state, including Russian and Chinese, have visited, to meet the Queen.
Does this not give us access that most other countries do not have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It gives a massive bill to the security services for what is basically
"Ooooooo you've got a gold hat."
"Ooooooo you've got one too!"
"Let's sit in gold chairs together because we were born."
Do people not visit France anymore? Is Versaille shut and not taking any tourist money?
I'd rather elevate a dog to that status.
posted on 16/12/22
And the true cost including security, policing and everything that's paid for by governments national and local is estimated at £345m pa. Every year.
Tourism people shout. Doubt only a relative handful of nutters come ONLY to see something royal? 172,000 tourists spending £2k each on royal things? Doesn't pass my sanity check and whilst that could be construed as growing GDP the reality is that only a tiny fraction of that sees it's way back to benefitting UK plc.
posted on 16/12/22
We could still keep all the Palace's.
My mates Dad is a farmer, farm has been in his family for generations.
They still have to pay the King
Why? Just cos that's why. Absolutely bonkers.
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
Is it not true that practically every head of state, including Russian and Chinese, have visited, to meet the Queen.
Does this not give us access that most other countries do not have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A fallacy. We are still the 4/5/6th biggest economy of the World (India, France, UK all around the same) and they aint coming here for photo ops.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitely not a good fallacy. Every us president since the war has visited, they like the idea of the coach and Palace. In fact it is acknowledged what a pull she's been
posted on 16/12/22
comment by Robbing Hoody (U6374)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 12 minutes ago
Is it not true that practically every head of state, including Russian and Chinese, have visited, to meet the Queen.
Does this not give us access that most other countries do not have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It gives a massive bill to the security services for what is basically
"Ooooooo you've got a gold hat."
"Ooooooo you've got one too!"
"Let's sit in gold chairs together because we were born."
Do people not visit France anymore? Is Versaille shut and not taking any tourist money?
I'd rather elevate a dog to that status.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The dog analogy is trite.
Nobody visits France for Versailles, they go to Paris and then it's on their bucket list.
Page 4 of 8
6 | 7 | 8