What song did the pipers play between the palace and the abbey?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A ludicrous situation.So, reading that story, the money was recieved and sanctioned, by the UK, prior to sanctions being imposed on Russian oligarchs because of the Ukraine? Correct?
Prior to sanctions?
It was all legal and above board, open to scrutiny, and before the Ukraine sanctions. What is your point man?
Abramovich was sanctioned after he spent all that money on Chelsea. Do they have to give that all back?
Within the laid down law of the land, yes.
His charity is under investigation at the moment.So has a law been broken?
Have the Princes Charities hidden anything about their dealings from the authorities?
Other than repeated salacious headlines, is there any proof of guilt on the charities side?
If proven, then the full force of the law will come to bear.
You are proving nothing with these copy and paste headlines, and continually ignoring the counter questions I am posing, of which there are many.
I can only take from that that you concede my previous points.
Clever. Cap doffed.His charity is under investigation at the moment.
But I do concede that at this moment from a legal point of view they are as clean as Andrew.
Don’t mention that little shithouse on the SMB!Clever. Cap doffed.
They are equally as clean as Mother Theresa.
Depends on your viewpoint marra![]()
Charles had sovereign immunity and cannot be prosecuted in either criminal or civil proceedings.So has a law been broken?
Have the Princes Charities hidden anything about their dealings from the authorities?
Other than repeated salacious headlines, is there any proof of guilt on the charities side?
If proven, then the full force of the law will come to bear.
You are proving nothing with these copy and paste headlines, and continually ignoring the counter questions I am posing, of which there are many.
I can only take from that that you concede my previous points.
No.Charles had sovereign immunity and cannot be prosecuted in either criminal or civil proceedings.
As a general point do you believe this is right?
Don’t mention that little shithouse on the SMB!
Not a hope.There was a merge of posts overnight, so it got a bit confusing
Thank you for explaining, I wasn't aware of how it worked in Ireland.
Could the president amend laws to suit his circumstances as the article hinted the royal family had?
Thought that only is with the monarch? He has it now but didn’t used to.Charles had sovereign immunity and cannot be prosecuted in either criminal or civil proceedings.
As a general point do you believe this is right?
Paddington would have done a runner if he'd known what those guardsmens' hats were made of.Her acting in the James Bond and Paddington sketches was shite
Tbf the writing on both of those was pretty terrible too
Good to hear. If you accept that this particular privilege is wrong then surely you would also accept a debate about which of this famillies privileges belong in the past and that there is a case for modernisation i.e. there is actually a discussion to be had after all.No.
Straight answer. Bet you weren't expecting that.
Law breaking needs prosecuting.
No vaguery here
![]()
Never objected to most of that marra.Paddington would have done a runner if he'd known what those guardsmens' hats were made of.
Good to hear. If you accept that this particular privilege is wrong then surely you would also accept a debate about which of this famillies privileges belong in the past and that there is a case for modernisation i.e. there is actually a discussion to be had after all.
So good I have watched again.“Every stinking time”
That was such a quality line![]()
Or the fact that now with the likes of iPlayer, Netflix, Disney, prime and box sets etc on sky people have much more choice of what to watch, how they watch.25m peak audience figure yesterday , i would have expected more frankly , dianas funeral got 32 m and that was when our population was 10m lower
is this a sign we are slowly falling out of love with royalty , i can only hope so
Not seen owt about it, what did they do?What is the feeling on the behaviour of Kwarteng and IDS at the funeral?
i think whether we like it or not, there is going to be more and more discussion over the coming years about the role of the monarchy in society, their financing, their burden on the tax payer, their powers and the reality that certain laws which apply to the rest of us, don't apply to them. that doesn't mean that they need scrapping all together, that 1000 years of history needs rewriting and that buckingham palace be turned into a hotel. maybe if they are going to be funded by the tax payer, then their private investments, estates and income be turned over the to treasury. possibly establish that the first in line to the throne and his immediate family are funded, but anyone else is on their own.
you can support something, without having to have the entire thing set out in minute detail. look at the brexit vote, 17 million believed leaving the EU was the right thing to do, not one of them had a clue how it was going to be done.
I think there are many many people who whilst they may not want to get rid of the monarchy all together would support modernisation and a slimming down of the institution. We never going to agree on this but its certainly more than 'a few discontents'.Never objected to most of that marra.
Wrong is wrong in the eyes of the law, and no one should be immune from that.
It is your opinion that modernisation is needed, which I disagree with, but happy for that discussion to take place if there is a desire for it, but needs to be from more than a few discontents expecting the world to fall in to what they have decided is apt.
Think that about answers your question marra.
And what benefit would that provide in real monetary terms, other than to satisfy the lust generated by jealousy of their fortunate position?I think there are many many people who whilst they may not want to get rid of the monarchy all together would support modernisation and a slimming down of the institution. We never going to agree on this but its certainly more than 'a few discontents'.
There are 14 royal residences and this doesn't include those privately owned like Sandringham and Balmoral. How terrible it would be for them If that was reduced by say 20%. Obviously all those other than a few discontents would be wringing their hands and knashing their teeth if it was ever suggested that a couple might be let go.