London Councillor - "Where's the outrage about royal expenses?"

2»

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,391
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    FMKK wrote: »
    Vacuous non-comment follows silly cliché. You're on a role tonight.

    Is it not a fact, that the royals (or former) royals would require security once they were no longer reigning?
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Basically it all boils down to brainwashing and propaganda. You've got to give it to them on that front, the royals have done a great job.
  • lightdragonlightdragon Posts: 19,059
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    tothegrand wrote: »
    Is it not a fact, that the royals (or former) royals would require security once they were no longer reigning?

    Not if you do it right. ;);)

    J/K
  • FMKKFMKK Posts: 32,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    tothegrand wrote: »
    Is it not a fact, that the royals (or former) royals would require security once they were no longer reigning?

    They require loads of security now, probably more than they would seeing that they have more status now than they would if no longer the actual monarchy of the country. So you don't really have much of a point.
  • all_nightall_night Posts: 7,615
    Forum Member
    Whether we like it or not the Royals are self-removed and above most things in our society, that is the way its been for hundreds of years and that's the way it will probably always be.
Sign In or Register to comment.