Anybody else irritated by the current Royal tour down under?

135678

Comments

  • batgirlbatgirl Posts: 42,248
    Forum Member
    kippeh wrote: »
    I'm really in trouble when the only support is from batgirl and Jesse Pinkman... :D

    As you were...

    Oi you! :D
  • dee123dee123 Posts: 46,268
    Forum Member
    molliepops wrote: »
    Oh dear I wondered where he went after Big brother, thinking about it no deal he can stay and we will have Kate and William back :p
    Croctacus wrote: »
    I'd rather have a thousand royals than one Leo Sayer thank you very much.

    :( Please! We promise to make the Hemsworth boys visit you more often...
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,182
    Forum Member
    I don't enjoy all this fawning over Kate and the baybee. Some women act like a new born baby is the most cutest thing on Earth, and anyone who dares disagree slightly is a complete s**t and given a stern looking at. Then you have the women that pass comment on her weight. She's too thin or she looks like she needs a sandwich, etc, etc.
  • welwynrosewelwynrose Posts: 33,666
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Oh dear! The usual cop out debate that has been addressed a million or more times and I will not be wasting my time on.

    The Royals are paid for by us and that includes all the land and everything else that is handed to them on a plate from which they make money. That also includes positions in the forces that are given them which are a high status that they never worked their way up to but were handed them because the are Royal.

    None so blind as those who point blink refuse to see and go all ga-ga over the Royals.

    What the land that's been owned by the Royal Family for generations
  • edExedEx Posts: 13,460
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    welwynrose wrote: »
    What the land that's been owned by the Royal Family for generations
    Sandringham and Balmoral are both theirs, they don't belong to the state. Windsor Castle, the Duchy of Cornwall, the Crown Estate etc. are state assets though.
  • elliecatelliecat Posts: 9,890
    Forum Member
    welwynrose wrote: »
    What the land that's been owned by the Royal Family for generations

    the land their ancestors stole off people you mean? Their ancestors weren't known for being nice people.
  • MrEdgarFinchleyMrEdgarFinchley Posts: 513
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    That small but perfectly formed Irish president Michael D. Higgins is now officially my favourite head of state. Seems a lovely man, I've started to read some of his poetry (hmmm) and his eyebrows are nowhere near as scary as the Duchess's.
  • molliepopsmolliepops Posts: 26,828
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    elliecat wrote: »
    the land their ancestors stole off people you mean? Their ancestors weren't known for being nice people.

    Many of us may have had ancestors that were not very nice luckily we are not blamed for what they did generations ago though.
  • batgirlbatgirl Posts: 42,248
    Forum Member
    molliepops wrote: »
    Many of us may have had ancestors that were not very nice luckily we are not blamed for what they did generations ago though.

    But they're still at it. Maybe they can't get away with land grabs these days but tax dodging and lack of transparency (a very polite way of saying it :D) in their business dealings could teach errant MPs a thing or two.

    But the baby's working hard, and that's the main thing.
  • edExedEx Posts: 13,460
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    molliepops wrote: »
    Many of us may have had ancestors that were not very nice luckily we are not blamed for what they did generations ago though.
    Every single one of us is descended from at least one royal family. That's what I always find funny about these conspiracy theorists that say every single US President is descended from "The Bloodline". We're all descended from "The Bloodline".

    The only thing the royals have as advantage over the rest of us is they're descended from a long list of first borns.
  • mcg3mcg3 Posts: 11,390
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    molliepops wrote: »
    Well personally I am not jealous of what others have so not blind just not begrudging them what they have. Most of what they have stays in public ownership anyway and they just care take it during their life times.

    They cant even take care of most of the properties that have been benevolently given to them.

    Most of them being in a state of disrepair and requiring more millions of tax payers money to put right.

    Let them fix them up using their own money that they have squirrelled away at taxpayers expense.

    If its public ownership you try gaining access to some of these properties.
  • Jesse PinkmanJesse Pinkman Posts: 5,794
    Forum Member
    batgirl wrote: »
    Oi you! :D

    I know! Here we are providing a service of rational thought and education to the Nation and we get insulted for it. :D
  • habbyhabby Posts: 10,027
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm waiting for the Australia part of their tour so I can look up the places they'll be going to. I prefer that to NZ.
  • Mark39LondonMark39London Posts: 3,977
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Am I irritated? Not in the slightest.
  • Jesse PinkmanJesse Pinkman Posts: 5,794
    Forum Member
    welwynrose wrote: »
    What the land that's been owned by the Royal Family for generations

    Yes that land! They didn't earn it they took what they wanted.

    Get born a Royal - Here, take most of Cornwall and then you can pretend that you are a hard worker not sponging off the public. Why don't they hand out great tracks of land to everyone and then we would all never have to claim any benefits. I'll ask at the job centre. Now do you think they will give me loads of land for free or do you think that is only the case when it comes to Royals? Come on let's have some factual rational thought rather than Royal sycophancy.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,181
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    kippeh wrote: »
    I don't normally lay into the royal family as a rule, but for some reason, William and Kate grinning their way around New Zealand is really annoying me. No different to any tours by past royals of course, but I do wonder just what the reciprocal benefit is to the UK versus what it's costing.


    The Royals by tradition have been visiting the `Empire` long before you were born, and will probably continue regardless..:D
  • chaffchaff Posts: 985
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Kate Middleton's easy on the eyes, so I can't say it bothers me to see her on television.
  • molliepopsmolliepops Posts: 26,828
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mcg3 wrote: »
    They cant even take care of most of the properties that have been benevolently given to them.

    Most of them being in a state of disrepair and requiring more millions of tax payers money to put right.

    Let them fix them up using their own money that they have squirrelled away at taxpayers expense.

    If its public ownership you try gaining access to some of these properties.

    Well when we care took a council property while we waited for accommodation (huge beautiful house we had for nearly a year) we wouldn't have welcomed visitors either as it was our home but that didn't mean it wasn't owned by the tax payers of the borough.
  • SemieroticSemierotic Posts: 11,131
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I suspect it's because they have the baby in tow, so certain inane publications and all their inane readers have gone a bit more nuts than usual.
  • ArcanaArcana Posts: 37,521
    Forum Member
    I'm not a royalist at all BUT I take the positives out of having a monarch as head-of-state rather than (most likely) a politician so the negatives don't bother me so much.
  • exlordlucanexlordlucan Posts: 35,375
    Forum Member
    Ah so it's NZ is it? ... y'know I haven't taken much notice of the coverage which puts it near zero on my irritate scale.. what comes top is all that crybaby, pukin drama coming in from SA.
  • SemieroticSemierotic Posts: 11,131
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Arcana wrote: »
    I'm not a royalist at all BUT I take the positives out of having a monarch as head-of-state rather than (most likely) a politician so the negatives don't bother me so much.

    Hate to break it to you, but such a stance makes you a Royalist. In fact that's practically a textbook definition.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,888
    Forum Member
    As with all the Royals news. I am completely indifferent. I don't give a flying f*** what they do.
  • Goblin QueenGoblin Queen Posts: 633
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm not irritated but I do think the coverage is out of control. The Daily Mail should just rename themselves the Royal News, in particular. Daybreak is being nonsensical but they've been consistently stupid about everything dating back to their GMTV days.
  • 3Sheets2TheWind3Sheets2TheWind Posts: 3,028
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Between Pistorius and his retching and tears, the missing plane, the dead Peaches Geldof and the general misery and grief porn that the 24 hour news channels subject us to, it is a nice change to see something to smile about.

    Even though I wouldn't by a newspaper especially for the pull-out of it all, I do like to see it on the news.
Sign In or Register to comment.