mercalia wrote:how many more of them are there? breed like rabbits? I hope not
And whilst they are enjoying having a town shutdown for their wedding others are struggling with increasing use of food banks, increasing rent arrears, etc. And again the public pick-up significant costs for 9th inline to a supposedly ceremonial role. Something very wrong with our priorities.
Makes you wonder if the Royals in their protected shells appreciate the extent of the struggle being faced by some of their subjects.
Ian
Makes you wonder if footballers in their protected shells appreciate the extent of the struggle being faced by some of their fans?
My impression is that the fans have all chosen to pay out the money used to make such footballers so wealthy. I also suspect that most fans are not considered "loyal subjects". Footballers entertain and the audience choses to pay to watch. Royalty seems to feel no real obligation to their subjects.
Psamathe wrote:And whilst they are enjoying having a town shutdown for their wedding others are struggling with increasing use of food banks, increasing rent arrears, etc. And again the public pick-up significant costs for 9th inline to a supposedly ceremonial role. Something very wrong with our priorities.
Makes you wonder if the Royals in their protected shells appreciate the extent of the struggle being faced by some of their subjects.
Ian
Makes you wonder if footballers in their protected shells appreciate the extent of the struggle being faced by some of their fans?
My impression is that the fans have all chosen to pay out the money used to make such footballers so wealthy. I also suspect that most fans are not considered "loyal subjects". Footballers entertain and the audience choses to pay to watch. Royalty seems to feel no real obligation to their subjects.
Ian
Nope.... there isn’t a single club in the UK that could survive from the extortionate Gate/ Francise income....much of the funding comes from the charges made by “TV” companies
So if you watch Sky movies, you are also paying for footballers
There are all too many people subsidising these individuals Have given consent?
The same is true for Sky’s cycling team, how many of the people paying for this have actually consented?
Cunobelin wrote: Makes you wonder if footballers in their protected shells appreciate the extent of the struggle being faced by some of their fans?
My impression is that the fans have all chosen to pay out the money used to make such footballers so wealthy. I also suspect that most fans are not considered "loyal subjects". Footballers entertain and the audience choses to pay to watch. Royalty seems to feel no real obligation to their subjects.
Ian
Nope.... there isn’t a single club in the UK that could survive from the extortionate Gate/ Francise income....much of the funding comes from the charges made by “TV” companies
So if you watch Sky movies, you are also paying for footballers
There are all too many people subsidising these individuals Have given consent?
The same is true for Sky’s cycling team, how many of the people paying for this have actually consented?
One of the reasons I wont pay for Sky or BT TV, etc. I don't like Amazon but when I keep getting their Prime pop-ups pushed at me it's the Clarkson et. al. that stop me even thinking twice about it.
I have a reasonable amount of choice over that (Ok, I do pay for a TV license but could chose to not do that).
Psamathe wrote:My impression is that the fans have all chosen to pay out the money used to make such footballers so wealthy. I also suspect that most fans are not considered "loyal subjects". Footballers entertain and the audience choses to pay to watch. Royalty seems to feel no real obligation to their subjects.
Ian
Nope.... there isn’t a single club in the UK that could survive from the extortionate Gate/ Francise income....much of the funding comes from the charges made by “TV” companies
So if you watch Sky movies, you are also paying for footballers
There are all too many people subsidising these individuals Have given consent?
The same is true for Sky’s cycling team, how many of the people paying for this have actually consented?
One of the reasons I wont pay for Sky or BT TV, etc. I don't like Amazon but when I keep getting their Prime pop-ups pushed at me it's the Clarkson et. al. that stop me even thinking twice about it.
I have a reasonable amount of choice over that (Ok, I do pay for a TV license but could chose to not do that).
Ian
Which pays for footballers as well
The argument that Football is independently funded and by consent of those paying for it is getting weaker and weaker
Why not just agree that both are funded without consent ?
Why not discuss people paying for the rich without consent?
Unless of course it is more about slagging off one group and accepting the others?
After all...
Makes you wonder if the Rich people in their protected shells appreciate the extent of the struggle being faced by those paying for their privileged position
Back on topic - it's now reported that Harry has 'done his duty' in fathering a sprog. Another 'spare' to add to the lengthening list of 'heirs and spares'. Oh well... that's hereditary monarchy for you!
I'm no great fan of Princess Anne, but one has to acknowledge, she should be the one with the biggest grievances. Every time a new sprog is produced, she slips further down the line - and she lost out on the change in the Primogeniture laws, since they weren't made retrospective.
And no doubt Eugenie and hubby will be getting busy...
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity. Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments... --- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Oh dear, I am a bit rusty, I thought Princess Anne was the Queens sister, had to wykecheck, she is her daughter, born 1950 Maybe I could join a royal fanclub to keep up to date What is the next royal event, down near Slough? What names might the new Princesslet carry?
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120 Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
661-Pete wrote:Back on topic - it's now reported that Harry has 'done his duty' in fathering a sprog. Another 'spare' to add to the lengthening list of 'heirs and spares'. Oh well... that's hereditary monarchy for you!
I'm no great fan of Princess Anne, but one has to acknowledge, she should be the one with the biggest grievances. Every time a new sprog is produced, she slips further down the line - and she lost out on the change in the Primogeniture laws, since they weren't made retrospective.
And no doubt Eugenie and hubby will be getting busy...
yes Markle has been sparkling, poor woman what she gave up just for a bit of poshness and classe: the most boring status and life ever? I think we should do them all a favout and disband the lot
If they went NHS they would get contraception free (or paid for by taxpayer). Private healthcare tends to be a bit more restrictive ... maybe I've identified the problem?
661-Pete wrote:Back on topic - it's now reported that Harry has 'done his duty' in fathering a sprog. Another 'spare' to add to the lengthening list of 'heirs and spares'. Oh well... that's hereditary monarchy for you! ......
And it looks like Merkel and Harry and already "lost custody" of their unborn child! Although technically they lost custody before the child was even conceived. Ancient laws give the Queen full legal custody (ancient law called "The Grand Opinion for the Prerogative Concerning the Royal Family". And it's not some ancient law long forgotten about but came into play when Dianna wanted to take her kids to live with her in Australia.
