Miguel Sanchez Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 20 minutes ago, scottish tory said: What's wrong with my username, it describes me very well. I haven't been at a football match for at least 20 years. While I believe your story and genuinely found it quite funny, as a neutral observer and advocate of The Forum I believe it will harm your credibility in political discussions. You'd fit right in on the Hearts thread though, I'd take up the football again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 I take it the Scottish Tory sock is the Steely red dotting alter ego (or vice versa) and probably both were DPB ??? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 (edited) 6 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said: In a valiant attempt to get back on topic, I understand that His Most Britannic Majesty has appointed a pro-homeopathy doctor as head of the royal medical household. I confess that I was surprised that there was such a thing as the "royal medical household", but have been rather put off looking at the homeopathy angle because of the Wikipedia entry I found for it. I know that Wikipedia isn't always a perfect source of information, and I am almost hoping there is a typo, (maybe something to do with the eyes?) but I was surprised at what I read about the royal medical household's membership... "Current roles include a Personal Doctor to the King and Queen, Physician to the King, a Serjeant Surgeon, Apothecaries to the King, Occultist to the King, Dentist to the King, Orthopaedic Surgeon to the King and Surgeon Gynaecologist to the Queen." IN THE 21ST CENTURY THERE IS AN OFFICIAL POST OF OCCULTIST TO THE KING? Info on the web is a bit sparse... please, please, can someone at least confirm that the post has been, and remains, unfilled? Maybe it's something to do with eyes? Edit : As you said! Edited December 12, 2023 by Jacksgranda 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 2 minutes ago, scottish tory said: I don't know what any of that means? You'll probably not believe this either but I'm new to all this Internet forum business! (I'm not far off my free bus pass) Call my cynical but your posting style is very similar to a good few multi banned users on here hence my assertions. We will see how it goes but it's uncanny how many completely new users sign up, never post anywhere but politics threads, start off with the "I come in peace, I know nobody " lines and yet within a couple of weeks they have had a total meltdown and end up banned.....rinse and repeat. To add to the coincidence they always are pro monarchy, pro Tory, right wing and anti SNP so you can see how folk think how they do 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 1 hour ago, scottish tory said: What's wrong with my username, it describes me very well. I haven't been at a football match for at least 20 years. Here's a good bit of analysis of the impact of the Royal family: "In terms of what they bring to the economy, valuation consultancy group, Brand Finance, estimated that the monarchy’s helped boost the economy with a gross uplift of £1.76billion in the year 2021/22. This figure factors in ‘the Crown Estate’s surplus as well as the monarchy’s indirect effect on various industries’ into their valuations. And this figure might even be a conservative one, when you consider the royal family indirectly keep other industries ticking along – like journalists, authors and even fashion dupes and inspiration. A lot of the money comes from visits to the iconic buildings themselves." That all seems a bit nebulous, tbh. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 6 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said: Call my cynical but your posting style is very similar to a good few multi banned users on here hence my assertions. We will see how it goes but it's uncanny how many completely new users sign up, never post anywhere but politics threads, start off with the "I come in peace, I know nobody " lines and yet within a couple of weeks they have had a total meltdown and end up banned.....rinse and repeat. To add to the coincidence they always are pro monarchy, pro Tory, right wing and anti SNP so you can see how folk think how they do Cynical, you've hit the nail on the head... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 Just think, if it wasn't for the referendum in 2014, we would be reading this risible cosplay pish on the normal people subforums -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 9 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said: In a valiant attempt to get back on topic, I understand that His Most Britannic Majesty has appointed a pro-homeopathy doctor as head of the royal medical household. I confess that I was surprised that there was such a thing as the "royal medical household", but have been rather put off looking at the homeopathy angle because of the Wikipedia entry I found for it. I know that Wikipedia isn't always a perfect source of information, and I am almost hoping there is a typo, (maybe something to do with the eyes?) but I was surprised at what I read about the royal medical household's membership... "Current roles include a Personal Doctor to the King and Queen, Physician to the King, a Serjeant Surgeon, Apothecaries to the King, Occultist to the King, Dentist to the King, Orthopaedic Surgeon to the King and Surgeon Gynaecologist to the Queen." IN THE 21ST CENTURY THERE IS AN OFFICIAL POST OF OCCULTIST TO THE KING? Info on the web is a bit sparse... please, please, can someone at least confirm that the post has been, and remains, unfilled? To (sort of) paraphrase Frankie Boyle, when the queen was alive they could have saved money by combining the gynaecologist and occultist roles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClydeTon Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 4 hours ago, scottish tory said: The Royal family bring in far more money than they get from tax payers. We would be so much worse off without them. President Blair? Or Farage? Constitutional monarchy may have its anachronisms, still better than any alternative for me. But that's just my opinion! I think it would make a lot more money if Buckingham Palace was fully open to the public similarly to Stirling or Edinburgh Castles - rather than having people at the gates while a rich c**t who's done nothing to earn his wealth waves at them once or twice, probably thinking the people outside are utter clowns for standing there. Constitutional Monarchy is fine if it's done how Norway (or the likes) do it - don't pay them with taxpayer's money, make them earn it. The Norwegian monarchy don't live in fancy palaces, it's just a (slightly larger than average) house. They receive little-to-no taxpayer money. Meanwhile, King Chuck takes from the dead. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurkst Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 10 hours ago, O'Kelly Isley III said: The French got it right in 1789. 10 hours ago, Arch Stanton said: And the Russians in 1918. TBF the English did it first. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 Like Viz said - If this talk about the Monarchy being a net boon to the economy is true, then the obvious solution to the UK's financial troubles is to just turn the unemployed into Royals. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt n Vinegar Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 6 hours ago, scottish tory said: The Royal family bring in far more money than they get from tax payers. We would be so much worse off without them. President Blair? Or Farage? Constitutional monarchy may have its anachronisms, still better than any alternative for me. But that's just my opinion! I realise that "scottish tory" might not still be around but it is stunning to see the argument about the monarchy and alleged income generation rearing its ugly head again. As someone far more eloquent than me once put it, France and Italy got rid of their monarchies quite some time ago - unless someone wants to claim that not a single tourist has set foot in those countries since, we'd have to conclude that the tourists might still visit the UK ex-Royal residences.. after all, they'd actually get access to them as paying visitors a lot easier than they can now, and for more of the year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullerene Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 What exactly is the objection to President <Horrible Person> (Insert name). They will merely be a figurehead, they have very little real power and don't even get to control what they get to say in public. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 19 minutes ago, Fullerene said: What exactly is the objection to President <Horrible Person> (Insert name). They will merely be a figurehead, they have very little real power and don't even get to control what they get to say in public. Probably because you don't want a war criminal (for instance) representing your country. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt n Vinegar Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 1 hour ago, Fullerene said: What exactly is the objection to President <Horrible Person> (Insert name). They will merely be a figurehead, they have very little real power and don't even get to control what they get to say in public. Plus there are the added attractions of the post-holder being able to be booted out by the electorate AND not be at the head of a probably similarly abolished class/honours/forelock tugging/know your place system. I appreciate it might be hard to dislodge someone from a post when some folk apparently think a supernatural entity appointed him for life and wants his heirs and successors to keep the lineage in power, but it's worth a go IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dav nan Gael Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 The majority in Canada and Australia looking to dump the HRH's . Once the Liz was gone,it was only gonna be a matter of time. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O'Kelly Isley III Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 4 hours ago, Dav nan Gael said: The majority in Canada and Australia looking to dump the HRH's . Once the Liz was gone,it was only gonna be a matter of time. I'll be contacting the colonial cousins to make this happen ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 Why get rid when they can do things like this and give us all a good laugh 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamthebam Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 13 hours ago, Suspect Device said: Probably because you don't want a war criminal (for instance) representing your country. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.