rileyuk.co.uk

i do say get rid of the royal family - the tourists will still come a] because london is one of the most attractive capitals in the world and b] because killing off today's monarchy wont destroy the history; what? we're suddenly going to forget hundreds of years of britain's past just because no one wears the crown? of course many of them have jobs, what alternative do they have? sit at home playing with the corgies for weeks on end waiting for christmas to come around so queenie can get on telly again.

There is another problem with all those fine buildings. I wouldn't like to see all the castles and palaces going to rack and ruin for lack of finance. What else would we use them for if not for Royal purposes? Could the Queen run them alone without ending up with financial ruin?

On the other hand, why get rid of the Royal family at all? They do some good in many people's eyes and little harm. Only the usual excesses of families in general.

Don't you ever sleep, Fez, it's 2:30am now!

no damn it, i live to post! those fine buildings - the national trust perhaps?

The National Trust only takes on properties that can support themselves. I suspect these would take too much money. I wonder who owns them? If the Queen owns them then no doubt some would want her family to pay Inheritance tax...40% up front on everything over ?285.000. What a joke. Inheritance Theft more like, and it will affect us all because of property values.

I think I've strayed slightly from the subject now, but it is all inter-related. There's one very nice small manor house somewhere (in Suffolk I think) and the husband died in 1946. The widow could not possibly pay up 40% to the state so she had to move out of her home of generations and give the building to the National Trust. I think that is disgusting personally. State Theft pure and simple.

The National Trust was a complete mess a few years ago in terms of administration and losing money. I have not heard any positive reports since BUT I have heard no more negative ones either.

I agree with you Fez on the fact that London is one of the most attractive cities in the world and it is somewhere that I should really visit in greater depth. Having said that, I should do the same with Manchester...... so little time due to work commitments.

I will refrain from a complete rant on State Theft but I will say this..... no, I won't actually. I'd be here till past midnight.

Harry has been prevented from going to war by the commanders. It seems like a good idea because of all the additional risk placed on the surrounding people. Some people have complained that he is being singled out to protect HIM. I think they are missing the point that he is being prevented from going to protect those around him who would become massive targets as it would be a huge political claim to fame to those who managed to hurt him!

They've probably taken the right decision. You could argue that Andrew served in the Falklands, but it's pretty difficult to spot who you're shooting when they're in a helicopter, and it's a vastly different type of warfare. I'll go with Mike on this, in that the entire regiment would've become even bigger targets than they already will be out there.

the reason is a good one, though surely it raises the question of why is he in the army at all if he cannot perform the fundamental duty of any other soldier.

I think we should send Harry (and possibly his entire family out there. Give them some T-shirts with a big target on the front and ROYAL written across the back in big letters.

Once there, their mission would be walking into insurgent strong holds carrying large signs saying "BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY TOUR OF BAGDAD" playing a god save the queen through a high powered P.A system.

Oh yeah I'm a republican.

You can still be a republican without wishing death to anyone with royal blood. . . . but on the other hand maybe not!

I must congratulate Harry on his commendable approach to counter his disappointment after learning he won't be able to follow his dream and represent his country like his family have done - namely, getting smashed out of his face on a heady mixture of beer, sambuca and rum and cokes, cavorting with strippers, snogging barmaids, drolling over lurid and sexually explicit pictures and attending a private party with a blonde barmaid called Tiffany and a busty Canadian brunnette called Cherie (whose lesbian kisses are a big hit with punters) whom he chatted up with the classic lines, ''Your skirt is really short'', ''I want to see your tattoos close up'' and ''Are you wearing any underwear?''

Maybe we should rename this post 'Harry goes to Phwoar'

That's just about what Princes always have done.

I think they'll be putting Andy in The Tower soon....

Put it like this, if Cherie and Tiffany were the dungeon mistresses I could think of worse punishments!

Sounds like a totally reasonable thing for a rich person to do. Just look at Hilton, Lohan and others. George Michael is famous for his coke and booze filled benders! :D

Yes, but the Royals do it with a certain boyish style that I can't help but admire, unlike the Americans - for example, George Michael visited a toilet with a policeman, Harry visited a private party that he arranged whilst hammered off his face and oggling the women