Thursday 25 June 2015


Presumably the story was started to deflect from the news that, while more and more people visit the food bank to feed their kids, regardless of the number of hours they work, and despite the fact that we ARE all in this together, the Queen is to get a pay rise and her house is to be repaired at our expense.


  1. How very very troo...............regards, Ronnie.

    1. Yes, it probably is Ronnie.

  2. about time we got rid of these leaches

    1. I think so too. The perfect time would be when Liz does and her awful son and his tart get the job.

    2. Tris I think comments like "tart" are beneath you. They had an affair when both were married. Would you call him a "tart"? If not then you hold women to a higher moral standard than men. I'm a republican and don't think they are any better than anybody else and part of that is treating them the same as the rest of us. Is everyone who has ever been unfaithful to be castigated? Infidelity is a terrible betrayal of your partner but imo it's got heehaw to do with the rest of us.

      Let's stick with castigating them as a waste of money in a country where too many live in poverty whilst they idle in their taxpayer funded palaces.

    3. OK PP, I disagree here. They are, of course both tarts. She knew perfectly well that she shouldn't be having an affair with him and she cheated on her husband and kids to do so. Who knows what they planned for the future. But I bet she had her eye on the main chance all along. None of us know what part this couple played in Diana's death. They certainly drove her to misery and mental instability by their constant very publicly known humiliation of her and William and Harry. She just appeared to be getting her life back together when she was mysteriously killed.

      I do, of course, call him a tart. And he is far worse than her. He was born to unbelievable privilege and with that goes responsibility. She was just born to society, and with that usually goes no responsibility whatsoever.

      When he was a toddler he had elderly men calling him royal highness and Sir, and his every wish was granted, overseen by his adoring grandmother. He never wanted for anything, although to be fair it is rumoured that his father and mother didn’t much like him and possibly still don’t . Certainly his over privileged grandmother did and she taught him the Edwardian values of being royal. She never wanted for anything either, no matter what it cost.

      He wants to be head of the Church of England. That is the church that demands that you be faithful to your wife. It also forbids marrying someone with a spouse still alive. Well, that’s the rules for everyone else bar him it seems.

      When he should have been getting on with his job of producing the next generation of state dependants he was too busy running around with a long list of females and being action man, because he could. NO one could say no to Charles.

      By his 30s of course when he decided to settle down there were no suitable brides. All the princesses in Europe were catholic and all the "ladies" of his age were either married or had had many boyfriends. …That would never do for a future King of England. So he had to marry the only virgin they could find. That he didn’t much like her was tough. He should have thought about that before.

      And, like Diana or not, she was treated like utter garbage, and humiliated publicly, even on the first night of their honeymoon.

      I don’t hold any candles for Diana. There was a lot that she did that was good, but she was a silly woman in many ways. (And she should have known that proposing to get married to the son of a shopkeeper/hotelier, and a Muslim at that, would never be tolerated. Still she didn’t deserve what that vile family and her particularly disgusting ex-husband did to her.)

      I have no problem with people having affairs…as many as they like. It’s their business, but we pay for him to at least behave something like decently, and he doesn’t come cheap, and he behaves like the spoilt brat he is.

      While the Queen and her husband travel on commercial flights (albeit having taken the whole of the first class section), his nibs insists on private flights, no matter the cost. His own income is in excess of £30 million a year.

      When his mother is dead he will almost certainly demand that the Archbishop of Canterbury crowns his unmarried (in the church’s eyes) wife, queen. Maybe the archbishop will tell him to erm go forth.

      I sincerely hope that he runs true to form and demands everything be done his way. He should kill off the monarchy within a few years.

      So we don’t often disagree, but in this case…. We do 

  3. Well I have to agree, after all this family put themselves out to meet and greet all the Tourists that come and view the anachronism that they are (oh not the don't) I would say it definitely is to take the pressure of them. Now if her Grace would simply cough up more money than she has to for her council tax, I nearly used to pay as much as she does for Balmoral, I was band G and she can only be Band H, no wonder the rich love the Tories/Red Tories.

    1. Yes, people say that folk go to England to see the royals, but let's be honest, they hardly lean out the window to wave to the tourists, and I suspect that other capitals get plenty of visits without having a freak show to sell them. That palace at Versailles does not too badly although its a good few years since there was a royal leach living there.

  4. London Betty's house is falling down, falling down
    Poor auld lady,
    They'll build it up, over poor peoples bones, poor peoples bones
    And say it's fine, for the auld lady.

    Why not sell it to, say, the Hilton hotel chain. They could do it up and get more tourists in it.
    Thus saving the tax payer, a shed load.
    Betty and her extended family, then could, move in to a modest detached house, with nice new heating and double glazing, with a nice garden for the corgis. And pay for it, her bloody self.

    1. I'd not mind so much if they didn't have other palaces to live in, while there are so many people who have nothing.

      Buckingham Palace, St James's Palace, Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle, and the massive mansion that Charlie and his concubine live in.

      How many homes in owe town does this family need. if they paid for them themselves I bet they would have many fewer.

  5. Why has the maintenance at the palace been neglected for all these decades? Surely there should have been a schedule of upgrades (like electricity and plumbing) and decoration put in place decades ago. That way the costs would be spread over a number of years and could come from the annual income. If it is done in one big burst paid for as an extraordinary cost, that just encourages the neglect to be repeated over and over.

    1. Any sensible person does that. But clearly the palace are not sensible people. I don't know who is responsible. In fairness I guess it's not the queen who goes around inspecting the dry rot. But they have let it get out of hand and now can't afford to pay for it to be fixed.... not that they haven't got billions!

  6. I won't say what I would do with the 'royals', as I don't want your blog quoted in the Daily Hate.

    1. Best not to. If the Tories manage to get rid of the human rights legislation it will probably be treason!!! :)

  7. Don't get blinded by envy or jump into a class war. Royalty generates a hell of a lot of tourist income. But look at the alternative - President Blair?? There are some advantages.

    However, the family should be slimmed down to a core few, with the rest forced to get real jobs. Beatrice is the worst example - someone who takes the occasional break from her holidays.

    It's not the Queen's fault she was born into royalty. But she puts in a punishing schedule, as does Princess Anne.

    As to the story, you can bet it was created by some civil servant in Whitehall. God knows why, perhaps they thought there was some political advantage when it was a complete non-story. Or maybe they were trying to get a reaction from some of the openly republican SNP figures. Maybe it was Cameron's doing, trying to dig himself out of the hole he threw himself into when he described the Queen as purring.......

    1. Who needs a president? The leader of the elected parliament is the head of state.

    2. There may have been a "president Blair" but, we could've voted the bugger out. With gods chosen reps on earth the royals, we're kinda stuck with them, well for ever; unless we wake up.
      It's not their fault they were born "royals", true. But it isn't the fault of the poor, sick, hungry or disadvantaged either. That argument doesn't hold water, or logic.
      They are " royals" because an ancestor was a complete bastard ( as in nasty and obnoxious) and murdered their way to power, no define right, just self-righteous greed.
      This is not envy, nor a class war; it is righteous indignation, it is blatantly wrong to hold one family, in awe and esteem and snivelling grovellingness, above all others, wrong just wrong.

      This is not a cybernat attack, on your good self, anon, just a rant about the ludicrous notion of royalty.

    3. Divine, not define.

      Though that may have been divine intervention, not.

    4. Anon. It's not class war, although I'd admit to a considerable amount of dislike for royalty.

      It's the institution I loathe, more than anything else, but I also abhor some of the ones who abuse it. Charles is a case in point. His duty was clear. In return for a life of unimaginable privilege and wealth, he had certain duties. He was obliged to meet people, say nice things to utter bores, be pleasant to foreign dignitaries, get married and continue the line and above all remember who he was and keep his private parts in his pants and behave in a way that was suitable for the head of the Church of England.

      He failed dismally in the private life stakes.

      I agree with you, although the queen made a mess of bringing up her family, she has at least until recently been polite to foreigners, opened things and more or less kept her politics to herself. Anne is hard working too. The rest of them seem to me to be a set of spoilt brats, and Air Miles' kinds are beyond the pale. (Still with him for a father what would you expect?)

      It was the Keeper of the Privy Purse who came up with it. The Treasury and the Scottish government pointed out it was not true, but the palace maintained it and numerous papers ran with it as their front page. The Times which once upon a time was a respected paper, wrote a leader on it without checking any of the facts.

      I've heard it suggested that the argument from royalty is that you would get President Blair or President Thatcher. I doubt that you would for a start (when Blair wanted to stand as President of Europe in a new executive role, the petition to NOT have him went Europe wide. He humiliatingly withdrew. Can you imagine Thatcher at the end of her primeministership being elected president?

      Ireland and Germany, Iceland and Finland manage to elect presidents to largely ceremonial roles without getting failed politicians who are roundly hated. I'm pretty sure Scotland could do that too.

    5. The time for royalty is past.

      Some blame Phil for introducing a human face to the monarchy, getting rid of lots of the tra la la, like débutante's balls and "the season for 'gals' of a certain class... and "letting light in on the magic".

      I just think that the age of deep respect for ones "betters" is long over.

      It's not fair on them to expect that they live like examples to us all in a "first family" kind of way in this day and age, and it's equally not fair to expect us to keep a bunch of scroungers like Andy and his daughters who do nothing for us, in such incredible luxury and privilege.

      It's certainly not their fault they were born royal, but if they take the privilege they should behave accordingly. If they don;t want to behave like moder royalty, then they shouold stand down, reject their titles and styles and get a bloody job.

      You are right. Kings are only kings because they stole and murdered to get get the money and power. None of them worked for a living.

      The extravagance is fantastical Just watching Neil Oliver's History of Scotland. Apparently for his visit to Edinburgh George IV spent the modern equivalent of £300,000 on his outfits.

      In modern times, I knew someone who worked in Clarence House. The Queen mother insisted that every room that she was likely to be in have massive bouquets of flowers...even if she would only be in the room for 10 minutes. Bedroom, dressing rooms, morning rooms, dining rooms, Office, reception rooms, hallways, landings... She also insisted that they be fresh every day. There were a team of florists employed by the state to ensure that her orders were followed. Charlie and Mrs Parker Bowles once took a private jet to London from Aberdeen to attend some function, and came back the next day. It cost £20,000. I could have done it for around £200.

      Princesses are fine in fairy stories for little children. In reality, we want someone who, if they displease can be removed in short order.

    6. "Princesses are fine in fairy stories for little children."
      I wholly disagree with you there, Tris.
      It's the same kind of lie as the "little baby Jesus", that Sunday schools use to indoctrinate.

      Why don't we have stories of ordinary people, doing the real heroic stuff; that is getting through life, raising a family, keeping a job, or feeding your loved one's via the " benefit" system, through no fault of your own.
      The little victories, in life, that make all the difference. A returned smile, from a stranger on the escalator in Tescos. Someone letting you out of a side street, seeing the moon in the day time.
      Real stuff, some of its important, a lot of it isn't but, by f***, it makes us human.

      I have no time for royalty, real or imagined. They were all, thieves, murderers, whores, baistards (in all uses), liars and manipulators.

    7. LOL... I think maybe some young kids like the idea of beautiful princesses and frogs...

      But I do see your point...

  8. And yet France, which has been a Republic for a few years now, gets more tourists than the UK. Perhaps its just propaganda that the Saxe-Coburgs are such a great draw.

    1. In any case, Liverpool, Cardiff, Dingwall and Belfast don't get any benefit at all. London may get some... but not much. They come to see the paraphernalia. Let's face it they don't get much chance to see the people. So it's pretty much like France.

      I went to Dublin... Saw the castle... didn't see the president.

    2. "I went to Dublin... Saw the castle... didn't see the president."

      Don't know if it was meant, to be funny but, I laughed like a drain reading that.

    3. LOL, no, it wasn't particularly meant to be funny. Just really a statement of fact, although reading it back now, it seems a bit daft.

      Anyway, obviously, if Munguin had been with me, we'd have been received by his excellency, but as it was... Dani and I went to the pub and had a Guinness... and very good it was too!!

      Point is, it was the building I went to see... not anyone who lived in it.

      To be honest, I've been to the London and seen Buckingham Palace. never saw the queen, Bute House and never saw the FM, and the Grand Ducal Palace in Luxembourg and ... you guessed...not a grand duke in sight!!!

      I should take Munguin with me more often.

    4. I think it made me laugh because, it sums up the argument of "people go to see the buildings not the people" rather well.

  9. tris and other republicans..........

    An Ode to the Queen

    All hail to the Empress of India, Great Britain’s Queen!
    Long may she live in health, happy and serene;
    Loved by her subjects at home and abroad;
    Blest may she be when lying down
    To sleep, and rising up, by the Eternal God;
    Happy may her visions be in sleep …
    And happy her thoughts in the day time;
    Let all loyal subjects drink to her health
    In a flowing bumper of Rhenish Wine.
    And when the final hour shall come to summon her away,
    May her soul be wafted to the realms of bliss,
    I most sincerely do pray, to sing with saints above,
    Where all is joy, peace and love –
    In Heaven, for evermore to reign,
    God Save the Queen. Amen.

    1. Did you write that all by your self... or did Taz help you out with the big words? :)

    2. Tris, have to say I have a good regard for Taz, he would sort out those pesky corgi's once and for all, mind I had one, once, but she was a rescue. I have a Pug these days to annoy her Grace, but then I live to annoy.

  10. I am not convinced that the "Royals" are a tourist attractions. For instance, how many tourists book holidays in Britain solely in the hope of seeing her majesty? They may well come to look at the various palaces but that would be it. As far as the refurbishment of the castle are concerned they should do what the rest of us do in that situation and that is to pay for it themselves. It is not as if they need any help in that direction. For once I disagree with Nicola Sturgeon and would not hand the parasites one penny, In saying that I love the Queen as much as she loves me!

    1. Nope. Paris apparently gets more tourists than London, and their king got the chop (quite literally) some time ago.

      I heard on the News Quiz that there asbestos in Buckingham Palace. As the queen mother lived there for many years and managed to make 102, Phil 93 and Liz 89, I don't think it's doing them any harm.

      They should turf that lazy scrounger Air Miles' daughter out of St James's palace and move in there.