• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The royal baby ***Official*** WE HAVE A BOY!

Gilzeantoscore said:
Just read the thread from start to finish. Re the black baby joke and recent mentions of treason. Did you know that having adulterous sex with the wife of the heir to the throne is an act of treason? Edward III had this act passed in the 14th century to protect the integrity of the royal succession and it is still on the statute books. Looks like that red head who was giving it to Diana dodged a bullet.
Click to expand...

Is that act the same if it is a female in line to the throne? For instance when Elizabeth II was heir, if Philip had slept with a woman, would she be accountable for treason? Or is gender discrimination another anachronistic virtue of the royals?
 
clownfoot said:
Is that act the same if it is a female in line to the throne? For instance when Elizabeth II was heir, if Philip had slept with a woman, would she be accountable for treason? Or is gender discrimination another anachronistic virtue of the royals?
Click to expand...


The act was passed in the 14th century, so only applied to men who slept adulterously with royal women.
 
markysimmo said:
Bull****
Click to expand...

I'mno rroyalist, but I like having them around.

I think it is very difficult to measure their contribution to the UK economy, as I believe a lot of it is indirect tourism.

The royal family is a famous, worldwide, brand that attracts tourists. People come to stare at a palace and a guy in a red uniform behind a fence for 15 minutes.
Whilst here they experience all the other wonderful things about London ( and m&m world - seriously, why!?).

But I think, and I know this may be contentious, the identity the Royals gives the UK makes tourists visit here over places like Paris or Rome. I'm basing that view mainly on conversations with tourists I have spoken to, ( here and abroad) all of whom state seeing Buck palace and the Royal as a major reason for visiting
 
monkeybarry said:
I'mno rroyalist, but I like having them around.

I think it is very difficult to measure their contribution to the UK economy, as I believe a lot of it is indirect tourism.

The royal family is a famous, worldwide, brand that attracts tourists. People come to stare at a palace and a guy in a red uniform behind a fence for 15 minutes.
Whilst here they experience all the other wonderful things about London ( and m&m world - seriously, why!?).

But I think, and I know this may be contentious, the identity the Royals gives the UK makes tourists visit here over places like Paris or Rome. I'm basing that view mainly on conversations with tourists I have spoken to, ( here and abroad) all of whom state seeing Buck palace and the Royal as a major reason for visiting
Click to expand...

Tourists visit Versailles Palace and the Louvre despite the fact that France does not have a royal family. They would still go to the Tower of London, or Buckingham Palace, even if Liz and Phil the Greek were not home.
 
markysimmo said:
Bull****
Click to expand...


Direct revenue for gate receipts, it does. There is confirmation bias on both sides of the arguement of indirect income from tourists, as there is no way to prove people come to the country because of the royals as much is there no way to prove people don't if they do not go to the official tourist spots (Windsor Castle etc.)

They are immune from scrutiny with regards to income and certain taxes, as far as data which under the Freedom of Information Act should be widely available is concerned. What have they got that they don't want the public knowing about?

The concept of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's completely contradicts the principles of democracy. I struggle to see how they can be defended in a society where over 1 million people can not afford to feed themselves and their families so have to revert to food banks.
 
clownfoot said:
Direct revenue for gate receipts, it does. There is confirmation bias on both sides of the arguement of indirect income from tourists, as there is no way to prove people come to the country because of the royals as much is there no way to prove people don't if they do not go to the official tourist spots (Windsor Castle etc.)

They are immune from scrutiny with regards to income and certain taxes, as far as data which under the Freedom of Information Act should be widely available is concerned. What have they got that they don't want the public knowing about?

The concept of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's completely contradicts the principles of democracy. I struggle to see how they can be defended in a society where over 1 million people can not afford to feed themselves and their families so have to revert to food banks.
Click to expand...
What about the income we get from the rent on their land?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back