- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 176497
17 Oct 18
@rookie54 saidWoof, woof. 🤔 😲
it must be gratifying knowing that you've only been sexually active with one partner yer whole life...
so tell me, does she/he like it doggie???
- Joined
- 09 Sep 18
- Moves
- 20590
17 Oct 18
@rookie54 saidmy gay boyfriend has a doggie, but I have not told my wife who also has adoggie
it must be gratifying knowing that you've only been sexually active with one partner yer whole life...
so tell me, does she/he like it doggie???
17 Oct 18
@wolfgang59 saidI heard it was 8.53 trillion euros a second 🤔
Tourism is worth 8.53 trillion Euro a month to UK
and 93.8% of that is due to the royal family.
Without Liz II & Phil the Greek the country would be in civil war.
17 Oct 18
@wolfgang59 saidI can't believe this parody of a Royalist got 3 thumbs up! 😢
Tourism is worth 8.53 trillion Euro a month to UK
and 93.8% of that is due to the royal family.
17 Oct 18
@captain-strange saidMy stats may be a little inaccurate. 😉
I heard it was 8.53 trillion euros a second 🤔
17 Oct 18
@wolfgang59 saidSome people obviously took it literally, yet many were too kind to point it out. Of course, 8.53 trillion is an absurd figure.
I can't believe this parody of a Royalist got 3 thumbs up! 😢
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116952
18 Oct 18
@wolfgang59 saidIt’s the only truly funny part of this thread.
I can't believe this parody of a Royalist got 3 thumbs up! 😢
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116952
While we’re on the subject I think there should be a hard cut off after the first family royals. I.e the queen and her immediate offspring plus the heir to the throne and his should be classed as “Royals”. The rest should have nothing from the state. Furthermore their working itineraries should be published retrospectively so the taxpayer can assess what they’ve been up to.
This latest “royal” wedding was a total waste of money. Who the heck is interested in the daughter of the brother of the future king.
18 Oct 18
Royalty is outdated.The idea that you are a king just by birthright does not make sense.And to rub salt into it the queen been the richest woman in the world and the head of a christian church is the height of hypocrisy.If you want proof the bible says it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than enter the kingdom of God.The king of kings in christianity was not rich.
18 Oct 18
1 edit
@gareth-cobb saidIt's a tradition, and in Sweden for instance, most of us feel that the Royal family serve as good ambassadors.
Royalty is outdated.The idea that you are a king just by birthright does not make sense.And to rub salt into it the queen been the richest woman in the world and the head of a christian church is the height of hypocrisy.If you want proof the bible says it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than enter the kingdom of God.The king of kings in christianity was not rich.
18 Oct 18
@gareth-cobb saidGod save the Queen!
Royalty is outdated.The idea that you are a king just by birthright does not make sense.And to rub salt into it the queen been the richest woman in the world and the head of a christian church is the height of hypocrisy.If you want proof the bible says it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than enter the kingdom of God.The king of kings in christianity was not rich.
18 Oct 18
@torunn saidLet them apply for the job of Ambassador then.
It's a tradition, and in Sweden for instance, most of us feel that the Royal family serve as good ambassadors.
I expect some of them might make good plumbers too.
18 Oct 18
@wolfgang59 saidWhy this hostility? Is it because of money?
Let them apply for the job of Ambassador then.
I expect some of them might make good plumbers too.
18 Oct 18
@divegeester saidThe ones who should get the money:
While we’re on the subject I think there should be a hard cut off after the first family royals. I.e the queen and her immediate offspring plus the heir to the throne and his should be classed as “Royals”. The rest should have nothing from the state. Furthermore their working itineraries should be published retrospectively so the taxpayer can assess what they’ve been up t ...[text shortened]... total waste of money. Who the heck is interested in the daughter of the brother of the future king.
The Queen and Philip
Prince Charles
William and Catherine and their children
Even then, the royal family costs around 70 pence per British taxpayer per year. Even if the UK didn't earn far more from them than they cost (which it does), I still wouldn't mind paying 70 pence to ensure that our prime ministers never think that they're the top. It's a nice balance of power up there. A prime minister with power but is lower in rank than the Queen, who has no power but is still more senior.