Oh dear, here we go again: twisting peoples words in the furtherance of your political point scoring. There are currently NO food shortages in Britain. There may however be a shortage of pickers which could result in a seasonal price increases of certain fresh vegetables such as potatoes and sprouts. In fact food banks exist partly because there is a glut of food. I did not tell you to move to Venezuela. I simply suggested that you might be happier there as its ruling regime is so admired by your Marxist leaders. And it has the benefit - from your point of view - of being a republic so you won't be subjected to wall to wall coverage of and outnumbered by those celebrating a royal wedding. Your (in)sanity will be preserved!
Did I say "you are thick"? No, I didn't think so. But there's a certain hypocrisy, well-practised by those on the left, that complains about one possible insult whilst labelling a large percentage of the population with one of its synonyms.
So is your pin-up, Comrade Corbyn. But you know what? Six years ago the said Comrade was exhorting everyone to watch the Muscovite channel Russia Today rather than Will's and Kate's do on the BBC and yet today he's congratulating Harry and Meghan on their forthcoming nuptials. You're out of step with your leadership!
No but I would say most republicans are socialists. This royal wedding is being paid for by the Royal Family. Maybe the DUP will give their £1 billion bung back.
Erm no. The cost of Policing and security for Prince Charles' wedding to Diana Spencer was £4 million in 1981 which translates to just over £12 million today. The same costs for William and Kate's wedding in 2011 - the most recent royal wedding - was just over £20 million, much of which arose through the Police being paid double-time. Both those weddings involved lengthy processions through London between the Palace and the Abbey. By comparison, however, Harry and Meghan will marry at Windsor which, by virtue of its natural defences, compactness and no lengthy processions, should mean a lesser demand on the Public Purse for Policing. The wedding is otherwise being paid for by the Royal Family.
well---as the majority of us on here have gone through a lot of stress and extra expense in order to marry our loved one---i will take the opportunity on behalf of British Flilipino to wish the couple every happiness for their future...just the same as we all hope for ourselves.
From what I've been reading, it seems that yes, she is required to submit to the same procedures as any other non-EU fiancée but only from a technical standpoint - it would be a very brave ECO who rejected her Visa application. As I understand it, she holds a Settlement Marriage Visa which, of course, gives her six months in which to marry but it's unlikely she will have had to undergo an IELTS test or submit Harry's payslips and bank statements! And that's just as it should be. The Archbishop of Canterbury has, as I understand it, granted her a special dispensation to marry in church and she will be both baptised and Confirmed prior to the wedding. That's despite the fact that St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, where they will marry, is a Royal Peculiar whose clergy is answerable only to the Queen.
I hope she doesn't do any work for charities etc before she gets Leave To Remain. That would be illegal. She's okay to attend job interviews ... with her new mum in law though
Are America Socialists? The public will have to foot the bill for policing costs. The police bill for the last knees up was £12,500,000. This one will possibly be cheaper, being held in Windsor, but I suspect security costs are higher with the recent terrorist incidents in Europe and the U.K. I'm not sure the Royal family will pay for that.
Windsor is a nice area I am sure we will see some supa dupa pictures. Are you buying a commemeritive mug or two?
www.etsy.com/uk/listing/561854540/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-ceramic?gpla=1&gao=1&&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=shopping_uk_en_gb_d-everything_else-other&utm_custom1=9f3a7ae2-b4dc-49a8-a2d3-8f1c9b4644f8&gclid=EAIaIQobChMItqPB48Pj1wIVDfEbCh3nggUQEAQYASABEgJLZvD_BwE
So that means Republicans are not democratic then? As the other party is called the Democrats... or does that mean the Democrats want to bring BACK the monarchy.... or maybe you are being too literal. Ironic as UK republicans are nearly to a person socialist yet one could not say the same about the US version... made me laugh.
Ah, so when you were talking about Republicans being Socialists you were talking about Republicans who happen to be Socialist, and omitting Republicans who are just that. Made me laugh. It is fair to say that all Socialists are "Republicans" in the sense that the Socialist ideology doesn't really work with elitism (which the Monarchy truly represents). I'd be a bit surprised to meet a Socialist who could then defend the concept of an unelected head of state. I doubt if overthrowing the monarchy is high on anyone's agenda (it's not high on mine, although I have the right to abhor it and many of the things it represents). I'd challenge your ascertation that most Republicans are socialist though. 10 years of Charles on the throne will bring the matter to a head, especially if poverty continues to rise (as it does, homelessness is increasing).
