look how important the monarchy is

[64]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63516054
the daily reminder

[Siderite]

Well, Charles is hosting. It’s standard news practice to report on such when it’s a national figure doing something like this.

[64]

daily brainwash the other day it was kate likes football or something like that,Bow and scrape and thank for for letting us watch them

[Siderite]

Being the Royal Family they attract attention.

[64]

they are promoted by the BBC to remind us that it’s normal to have unelected leaders in a democracy

[Siderite]

They are promoted because they think people are interested.

[64]

of course that’s it. chicken and egg.Political parties do not court TV and radio because they think people are interested,it’s to make them interested in them. We’re being sold to

[64]

we’re forced to learn God save the queen at school ,it’s part of it

[Northumbiron]

Siderite wrote:

They are promoted because they think people are interested.

And a hell of a lot of them are!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Siderite

[TwoWrights]

64 wrote:

we’re forced to learn God save the queen ay school ,it’s part of it

Breaking news…
She’s dead, ignore them if you don’t like them. On the day of her funeral I got both of my sheds painted, and didn’t see a minute of it.

[Northumbiron]

The painting or the funeral?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Iron-awe]

Siderite wrote:

They are promoted because they think people are interested.

TBF I don’t think the BBC is any different then the majority of the media be it left, right or centre when it comes to reporting on the royals, it’s the savvy thing to do when it comes to viewing figures or publication sales. As long as they keep hammering them when nob heads like Prince Andrew show up acting the privileged twat and being totally irresponsible then at least it makes their reporting balanced. I’m just sorry Guy Fawkes hadn’t got his way, perhaps we wouldn’t be having this conversation now.

1 user thanked author for this post.

64

[TwoWrights]

Northumbiron wrote:

The painting or the funeral?

Both in a way, the painting was done on autopilot and the daydreams were epic, as ever! 😜

1 user thanked author for this post.

Northumbiron

[64]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-63541633
Today’s promotion of inequality in our democracy

[Northumbiron]

Damn right, that Harry Kane is on £10.4 million a year!

[Siderite]

It’s just a fluff piece on a few famous men using their position to highlight an issue. If William was famous for something else this piece would likely still be run.

[Bucksiron]

“…it’s normal to have unelected leaders in a democracy…”

I thought this thread was about the monarchy, not the EU.

[Siderite]

2 users thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights, Iron-awe

[Heath]

Good to know that the Duke is getting to talk to a wide cross section of premier league footballers about this issue that only affects them.

[64]

a puff piece a day to remind us they’re important

[64]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63547165
Todays brainwash

[Gurnelista]

Anyone who still thinks they haven’t a problem with monarchy, its cost and influence, should read this…

1 user thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe

[64]

The daily be grateful
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63607986

[Gurnelista]

It’s a small gesture from one of the wealthiest people in the country.
Read that book above (which is well supported with evidence, not just a polemic) and see what it says about Charles – the tax dodges, attitudes to staff, hypocrisy about the environment and wildlife, and a lot more besides about him and all the other royals.

If you aren’t already, you’ll be up for a revolution.

[Siderite]

Norman Baker is a conspiracy theorist who thinks the British Secret Services were involved in the death of David Kelly, or they covered up an Iraqi hit team, based on nothing. I would take anything said by him with a huge pinch of salt.

[Gurnelista]

And rightly so, if the claims are based on nothing, and just personal opinion, like we often see on here.

However, the claims made in the book about the royals are almost all backed up with sources where the information first appeared. Some are so detrimental to their image there would be grounds for lawsuits, had proof not been available.

[Author]

Posts