why everyone is angry at meghan markle

Sir Lancelot said:
Can you prove Andrew is a nonce? Or are you just making it up for the sake of it? One of my cousins is a child abuser, I still talk to him when we meet on family occasions. Does that make me one too?

I would bet good money that within your circle of work colleagues, friends and relatives there are some that get up to unsavoury activities. Should we tar you with the same brush?

Are ALL Sunderland football players nonces because one of them was convicted of being one? Does that mean ALL Sunderland fans are nonces because they support a nonce team?
Click to expand...
He could always talk to the SDNY attorney's office who what to speak to him, that'll clear it up in no time
 


Boz33 said:
So we protect them for the rest of their lives while they will undoubtedly will earn multiple millions? Plenty of people who are at risk fund their own security, or if they really are skint, tap the family, it’s not like they aren’t one of the wealthiest families in the world.
See this is what slightly irks me, they want to fuck off the family business which is their choice and good luck to them, but at the same time they no doubt want royal
protection officers gratis.
Once they have left they effectively become minor royals working in a commercial world for hefty fees, personally I think it only correct they provide for themselves.....after all didn’t they same themselves they wanted to be financially independent?
Click to expand...
If they're making millions of pounds then they'll be paying tax, even if they never made a penny and paid nothing in tax they should receive the protection they are deemed to require.

I think what's more problematic if they're living abroad like they intend, should members of the Met be stationed in Canada? I honestly don't know where the responsibility should end, I don't think we should run the risk of Harry and his family getting the Ken Bigley treatment because we wanted to save a six figure sum every year though.
PeteFTM said:
I disagree, I think the Royals are the lure to the sites. I also imagine there's many tourists who love the fact that these sites are still being used by the Royals, adds to the excitement.
Click to expand...
You can disagree mate, Versailles says you're wrong though.
 
Last edited:
PeteFTM said:
Doing f all except bringing huge amounts of money in to the country.
Click to expand...
I don’t see where they bring any money in.
Some Random Guy said:
If they're making millions of pounds then they'll be paying tax, even if they never made a penny and paid nothing in tax they should receive the protection they are deemed to require.

I think what's more problematic if they're living abroad like they intend, should members of the Met be stationed in Canada? I honestly don't know where the responsibility should end, I don't think we should run the risk of Harry and his family getting the Ken Bigley treatment because we wanted to save a six figure sum every year though.

You can disagree mate, Versailles says you're wrong though.
Click to expand...
If they live in Canada then they will pay tax there , hence the Canadian tax pay should foot the bill
 
Last edited:
Some Random Guy said:
If they're making millions of pounds then they'll be paying tax, even if they never made a penny and paid nothing in tax they should receive the protection they are deemed to require.

I think what's more problematic if they're living abroad like they intend, should members of the Met be stationed in Canada? I honestly don't know where the responsibility should end, I don't think we should run the risk of Harry and his family getting the Ken Bigley treatment because we wanted to save a six figure sum every year though.
Click to expand...
... paying tax in Canada or America I’d imagine, I doubt very much they’ll be residing here in the main
I’m sure plenty of tv stars, pop stars etc pay a fuck ton of tax in this country, yet provide for their own security needs.
Seems they want rid of the shit bits of royalty they don’t like but are quite happy to take the bits they do enjoy free to them.

As I say if the family is concerned let the Windsor’s provide the funds for protection which will no doubt have to be private firms anyway in North America.
 
PeteFTM said:
Tourism. Lots of it.
Click to expand...
They come to see the castles and the history. If all of the royal houses were open to the public we would make more money. The fact that they are lived in or not would not make a difference. I enjoy going to Italy to look at their history, but to the best of my knowledge the Roman Emperors are sitting in the palace
PeteFTM said:
Tourism. Lots of it.


All the Chinese people getting giddy about going in to a palace that's still used by the royals says I'm right.
Click to expand...
If it was not used even more would come.
 
PeteFTM said:
Tourism. Lots of it.
All the Chinese people getting giddy about going in to a palace that's still used by the royals says I'm right.
Click to expand...
I was in Windsor on the day of the wedding,stood on the long walk,i live maybe 40 minutes away,but Windsor was chocka-block,pedestrianised,the amount of foreign visitors was unreal,i was there two weeks ago,its tourist central whenever I go.
 
Old Timer said:
They come to see the castles and the history. If all of the royal houses were open to the public we would make more money. The fact that they are lived in or not would not make a difference. I enjoy going to Italy to look at their history, but to the best of my knowledge the Roman Emperors are sitting in the palace

If it was not used even more would come.
Click to expand...

Well, my lass has insisted we go to Balmoral this year because it's where the Queen goes, and we did all the London sites the previous summer because she wanted to see where they lived. So there's at least 1 person.

We're English heritage members and have been to many castles, and not one of them was even a fraction as busy as the royal palaces.
 
Harry didn’t get any choice about being born royal and will be the grandson, son, brother or uncle of our reigning monarch for the rest of his life no matter what. As the royal family is seen as an important and popular part of our country’s constitution and national identity this effectively paints a target on him and his family as far as terrorists are concerned no matter how or where he chooses to live. Since this is the case surely we have a duty to provide protection for them no matter where they are?
 
PeteFTM said:
Tourism. Lots of it.


All the Chinese people getting giddy about going in to a palace that's still used by the royals says I'm right.
Click to expand...
They'd go anyway, the Palace doesn't stop being an attraction, as I've proven.

Are palaces visited more when royals are in residence? Are they simply visited more when people are likely to be on their holidays.

Tours are limited when the royals are in residence aren't they? That's a hit right there.
 
PeteFTM said:
Well, my lass has insisted we go to Balmoral this year because it's where the Queen goes, and we did all the London sites the previous summer because she wanted to see where they lived. So there's at least 1 person.

We're English heritage members and have been to many castles, and not one of them was even a fraction as busy as the royal palaces.
Click to expand...
Been to places and castles all over the world. It makes not a jot of difference that there is no monarch in them. It is true that those which were the actual residence of the last monarch are more popular than those which have not been used for hundreds of years. The royal palaces would be even busier if they were vacated and the public allowed in every room 364 days a year. On that basis I would argue that the monarchy is costing us tourist money as well as the civil list costs
 
There is an element of the population that view her race as unwanted in the royal family. Articles about her in Breitbart or Express usually have those type of comments, including asking how much it costs the taxpayer to straighten her hair.
 
Last edited:
Old Timer said:
Been to places and castles all over the world. It makes not a jot of difference that there is no monarch in them. It is true that those which were the actual residence of the last monarch are more popular than those which have not been used for hundreds of years. The royal palaces would be even busier if they were vacated and the public allowed in every room 364 days a year. On that basis I would argue that the monarchy is costing us tourist money as well as the civil list costs
Click to expand...

Well, sorry, but you're just plain wrong.

2 of the busiest historical sites that the royals don't live in are;

Tower of London
Edinburgh Castle

Why?

They both have crown jewels.

Tourists love the royals.
 
Some Random Guy said:
You just proved his argument mate, we'd still have the jewels without them.

You're having a 'mare here and don't even realise is.
Click to expand...

The jewels are made relevant because of our current monarchy.

Try again. I mean trying to claim the crown jewels of our current monarch isn’t linked at all to the royals is pretty silly.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top