[Apple Pro Underwear]

From all the Prince Charles/Camilla hoopla - I wondered this:

In America, we get all in a hissy fit whenever our government wastes money (see Iraq war). So don't you British folk get annoyed supporting the Royal freeloaders?

Where does their money come from?

Does it bother you their money and jewels came from the blood and sweat of your forefathers?

Does it bother you they live in splendor while the British less fortunate are suffering?

What do they mean to you? Or represent and is it worth it?




i peepeed wiki and it didn't say much:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_royalty

but i would like to hear what you folks have to say

[Ω]

NEWSFLASH FROM TEH COLON-E:

The Royals are arse.


If you can explain why these wastes of flesh exist then you are a better man than me.

[Cipher13]

I just can't believe that there exists such a thing in a supposedly civilised country.

[Ω]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
I just can't believe that there exists such a thing in a supposedly civilised country.

Fox hunting anyone?

[blue storm 1337]

Reason number 1: the naturally conservative English are fond of their traditions. and the English constitution is so complex that it would be a hassle to remove the monarchy from the state. Also, dozens of commonwealth countries would then have to alter their own constitutions.

Reason number 2: the royal family are such a big tourist draw that they actually bring more than enough money into the UK to justify their costs. furthermore, as a head of state, the Queen's lifestyle costs considerably less to maintain than that of an American president.

Reason number 3: European countries are becoming increasingly worried about the effects of globalisation (the EU) on their cultural identity. Having a royal family, even a simple bicycle monarchy as in Holland, provides a sort of cultural centre for a country.

4: the English love to complain about celebrities, what would they do without a royal family to tear down?

And keep in mind that the UK isn't the only country with a royal family. Spain, Holland, Belgium, Monaco, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Italy (in exile), Vatican, and Luxembourg all have royal families/monarchies. France has a royalist party, and a would-be heir to the throne should the country ever get tired of being a republic. Royal families are not an oddity found only in the UK. Oh ya, and the Empress of Iran lives in exile in Paris. We could move east and go over the thousands of princes and princesses to be found in the Muslim world, but I think you get the point

[ghporter]

First off, the Royals are "well off" to downright rich in their own right. They own a LOT of land, and legitimately lease parcels for legitimate purposes throughout England (and probably Scottland, Wales, and Ireland too). Of course J. K. Rowling is now wealthier than Elizabeth, but that's like saying that Bill Gates is wealthier than one of the Walton heirs-they're ALL way wealthier than me!

Second, most of what's done "for the Royals" is done with THEIR money. There are certain things, such as personal protection that the Government takes care of, but it's not like when Henry VIII was king; the actual "ruler" of the UK is Parliament and the PM. The Queen is "head of state," but has little actual legal power. Charles' autos, for example, are HIS because he paid for them.

And look at it this way, "watching the Royals" is one English sport that seldom leads to pub riots or mobs attacking the opposing team!

[Krypton]

Originally posted by ghporter:
First off, the Royals are "well off" to downright rich in their own right. They own a LOT of land, and legitimately lease parcels for legitimate purposes throughout England (and probably Scottland, Wales, and Ireland too). Of course J. K. Rowling is now wealthier than Elizabeth, but that's like saying that Bill Gates is wealthier than one of the Walton heirs-they're ALL way wealthier than me!

Correct.

The Windsor family own Regent Street I believe, thus they receive the rent from Apple et al for their flagship stores there.

As someone said, having a Royal family is both a big tourist draw and part of England's heritage - we have had Kings and Queens for more than 1000 years now. Also, the Queen does actually have, as head of state the political power to stop any bills that go through parliament, she just doesn't exercise this right.

[Ω]

Am I correct in my thinking that at one stage the Royals' were nearly broke. It took legislation from Parliament to save them by making them exempt from taxes.

Honest question, no barbs attached.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by Krypton:
As someone said, having a Royal family is both a big tourist draw and part of England's heritage - we have had Kings and Queens for more than 1000 years now. Also, the Queen does actually have, as head of state the political power to stop any bills that go through parliament, she just doesn't exercise this right.

Does it work the same way as in Denmark that, should she ever for some reason choose to exercise this right, she can only do it once, to any one bill; if she does it a second time (to the same bill), she is forced to step down as the Queen?

[Krypton]

Originally posted by Oisín:
Does it work the same way as in Denmark that, should she ever for some reason choose to exercise this right, she can only do it once, to any one bill; if she does it a second time (to the same bill), she is forced to step down as the Queen?

I have no idea, but I may look into it - it just happens to be something I remember about her relationship with Parliament.

For instance the Queen still opens parliament after the summer, and dissolves it before the summer, which I believe is a legal requirement but is seen as just another traditional formality these days.

[nath]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
So don't you British folk get annoyed supporting the Royal freeloaders?

Yes. The monarchy is in desperate need of reform.

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
Where does their money come from?

From the taxpayer, and from their own enormous property holdings and other investments (example: I think Charles owns about 40% of Cornwall, and the Queen owns most of Regents Street, one of the most valuable shopping precincts in the world). However, as someone else said, they are generally thought to be self-supporting for the most part (due to you guys coming over and paying into Buck Palace, etc)

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
Does it bother you their money and jewels came from the blood and sweat of your forefathers?

Yes. Although to be fair most of the jewels were stolen from the Empire, not from my forefathers

One of the most important and necessary reforms as far as I am concerned should be that any and all Royal Palaces should be open with no admission charge to any member of the Commonwealth, on production of a valid passport. We paid for this stuff already, it's outrageous that they want us to pay again.

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
Does it bother you they live in splendor while the British less fortunate are suffering?

No. The 'splendor' is a myth. About a year ago The Daily Mirror managed to get a reporter into Buck House, who reported on the dreary day-to-day business of being a royal (this had never been done before in such detail). I won't go into it in great detail but they actually live rather like they are at a cheap English holiday camp. Most telling detail: all breakfast for Brenda* and Phil the Greek is served from tupperware containers on a little trolley!

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
What do they mean to you? Or represent and is it worth it?

In the shape of the current monarch, stability and a great source of knowledge and advice for Prime Ministers. Financial reform is desperately needed however, and after this monarch dies, root and branch reform of the entire institution, as part of the introduction of a written constitution.

None of which will happen under Labour or Conservative governments because what government with a decent majority is going to subject itself to a lot of rules about what it can and can't do?

Originally posted by Cipher13:

I just can't believe that there exists such a thing in a supposedly civilised country.

Originally posted by _?_:
Fox hunting anyone?

Fox hunting is banned in the UK. Discussions about the civility or otherwise of the monarchy belong in the Pol/War lounge. Alongside discussions about, oh, torture as a means of interrogation, and the death penalty.


*Brenda: affectionate name for ERII. Supposedly her SAS protection squad codename from the 70s, adopted and relentlessly applied by Private Eye magazine for the last 30 years.

[nath]

Originally posted by Krypton:
I have no idea, but I may look into it - it just happens to be something I remember about her relationship with Parliament.

For instance the Queen still opens parliament after the summer, and dissolves it before the summer, which I believe is a legal requirement but is seen as just another traditional formality these days.

You're both right, in a sense. We have an unwritten constitution, and there is very little about the way our institutions work that is predictable, or even logical. Things like the Queen opening Parliament or signing Parliamentary acts into law are all governed by convention.

There is actually very little reason to recommend the British system to anyone other than the fact that (a) almost every formative democracy in the world based their system on ours, and (b) we haven't had a proper civil war for the best part of 1000 years, which by any standard is something of an achievement.

Reminds me of Churchill's quote:
'Democracy is absolutely the worst form of government, apart from all the others which have been tried from time to time'

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by nath:
Fox hunting is banned in the UK. Discussions about the civility or otherwise of the monarchy belong in the Pol/War lounge. Alongside discussions about, oh, torture as a means of interrogation, and the death penalty.

I'll decide where my comments belong, thanks. I wasn't talking about politics, nor war; I spoke only of the appropriateness of a monarchy. I had no desire to turn that into a political commentary, it was a simple observation. As such, it'll remain here.

Edited for clarity. Beer good.

[nath]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
I'll decide where my comments belong, thanks. I wasn't talking about politics, nor war; I spoke only of civility. I had no desire to turn that into a political commentary, it was a simple observation.

Originally posted by Cipher13:
I just can't believe that there exists such a thing in a supposedly civilised country."

Who 'supposes' the UK is civilised? You? The British?

It was a 'simple' observation though. You're right about that. Real simple.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by blue storm 1337:
Reason number 1: the naturally conservative English are fond of their traditions. and the English constitution is so complex that it would be a hassle to remove the monarchy from the state. Also, dozens of commonwealth countries would then have to alter their own constitutions.

Reason number 2: the royal family are such a big tourist draw that they actually bring more than enough money into the UK to justify their costs. furthermore, as a head of state, the Queen's lifestyle costs considerably less to maintain than that of an American president.

Reason number 3: European countries are becoming increasingly worried about the effects of globalisation (the EU) on their cultural identity. Having a royal family, even a simple bicycle monarchy as in Holland, provides a sort of cultural centre for a country.

4: the English love to complain about celebrities, what would they do without a royal family to tear down?

And keep in mind that the UK isn't the only country with a royal family. Spain, Holland, Belgium, Monaco, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Italy (in exile), Vatican, and Luxembourg all have royal families/monarchies. France has a royalist party, and a would-be heir to the throne should the country ever get tired of being a republic. Royal families are not an oddity found only in the UK. Oh ya, and the Empress of Iran lives in exile in Paris. We could move east and go over the thousands of princes and princesses to be found in the Muslim world, but I think you get the point

1. fine. then the british should forgive some of our American stupid customs too.

2. i believe that, i visited all that crap when i was in england. we have a president, you have blair. i suppose they need protection for the "work" they do... the queen is more like a celebrity the way you describe it.

3. fine. then the british should forgive some of our American stupid customs too.

4. so being british involves dissing people for enjoyment? then the british truly are the darth vader to our luke skywalker selves.

Keep In Mind:

fine. then the WORLD should forgive some of our American stupid customs too.

[Millennium]

As I understand it, most people actually do consider the royals to be annoying twits, but dammit, they're their annoying twits.

[turtle777]

From all the Billionaires-in-the-US hoopla - I wondered this:


Where does their money come from?

Does it bother you their money and riches came from the blood and sweat of your forefathers?

Does it bother you they live in splendor while the Americans less fortunate are suffering?

What do they mean to you?

-t

[Krypton]

Originally posted by Millennium:
As I understand it, most people actually do consider the royals to be annoying twits, but dammit, they're their annoying twits.

Yes, but that's the fun in it!

We can criticise them, and parody them but it should be our privilege for having to put up with them. BTW, there are a lot of people who admire the Royals, possibly amongst the older generations more so - the 'down with the Windsors' argument only seems to have become popular in the last decade.

Also, the Royal family do raise awareness of good causes and do their bit for charity even if the cynical among us think it is a facade.

Maybe I'm wrong, but Diana seemed very popular in America as well as the rest of the world...

[nath]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
fine. then the WORLD should forgive some of our American stupid customs too.

Er, no. We don't do forgiveness for colonials darling.

Maybe when your own nascent empire is just a little more impressive. I mean really, some oil-infested sand dunes and an Asian mountain range really don't cut it. /sarcasm

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by nath:
Who 'supposes' the UK is civilised? You? The British?

It was a 'simple' observation though. You're right about that. Real simple.

Yes, me, actually. Are you having comprehension problems? Would you disagree? Are you unaware of the definition of 'civilised'? You seem to be struggling here.

Yes, it was simple. Why complicate it? What exactly are you trying to do here? Demean me? Oh, right, this is the part where you go "I don't need to". Wow. Hole in one? No. Go home.

[Jellytussle]

Originally posted by nath:
...we haven't had a proper civil war for the best part of 1000 years, which by any standard is something of an achievement.

Aren't we forgetting something?

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by nath:
we haven't had a proper civil war for the best part of 1000 years, which by any standard is something of an achievement.

I guess that little disagreement with Charles I in the 1600's was not a "proper" civil war, then...?

Still, 350 or so years since then without commiting Regicide is quite an accomplishment....

[RonnieoftheRose]

America has royal families too. Cue King George, the Bush Die-nasty and all those eccentric billionaire cowboys.

[nath]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
I guess that little disagreement with Charles I in the 1600's was not a "proper" civil war, then...?

Originally posted by Jellytussle:
Aren't we forgetting something?

Not really, no. It's a typically grandiose piece of English self-promotion!

From the first para of your Wiki definition:

'The English Civil War refers to the series of armed conflicts and political machinations'

You couldn't really call it a Civil War on the scale of the US internal conflict, for example. The British 'state', if there is such a thing, is and has been incredibly stable by any measurement.

Originally posted by Cipher13:
What exactly are you trying to do here? Demean me? Oh, right, this is the part where you go "I don't need to". Wow. Hole in one? No. Go home.

Calm down cup cakes. Like I said, wrong forum for this silliness. There is really no need to get so excited.

[nath]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
America has royal families too. Cue King George, the Bush Die-nasty and all those eccentric billionaire cowboys.

Yeah. Always a little strange to hear our transatlantic cousins bemoan the hereditary principle....

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by turtle777:
From all the Billionaires-in-the-US hoopla - I wondered this:


1. Where does their money come from?

2. Does it bother you their money and riches came from the blood and sweat of your forefathers?

3. Does it bother you they live in splendor while the Americans less fortunate are suffering?

4. What do they mean to you?

-t

1. Business, our country is a capitalist country. So is yours.

2. My forefathers got paid for their blood and sweat. Their tax money went for the most part back into the county/state. Never went into buying jewelry for a princess.

3. Our rich folk "earned" their riches, it was not gained through taxing the citizens to keep up their lifestyle.

4. They are role models. You can look at one and say, I can earn a fortune too.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
the Bush Die-nasty and all those eccentric billionaire cowboys.

We voted for Bush. I may not like him but my country voted him to be our President. He does a bad job, but a job none-the-less. Also, he gets paid 250,000 a year (I think).

What about the eccentric billionare cowboys? They don't represent our culture or country. They pay taxes, the are not leeching off the rest of the country.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
We voted for Bush. I may not like him but my country voted him to be our President. He does a bad job, but a job none-the-less. Also, he gets paid 250,000 a year (I think).

What about the eccentric billionare cowboys? They don't represent our culture or country. They pay taxes, the are not leeching off the rest of the country.

Ha! to every pointless point. All the above are owned by the Arabs and Chinese.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
Yeah. Always a little strange to hear our transatlantic cousins bemoan the hereditary principle....

That's a rather silly point to try to argue. Out of 43 presidents since 1787, six have been relatives of one another. Those are two father/son duos (two Adamses, and two Bushses) and one set of cousins (the Roosevelts). In each case, power was not handed over directly, other, non-related presidents intervened. And of course, their offices were still not "inherited," they were elected. Besides, for every silver-spoon president like the Roosevelts, Kennedy or the Bushes, there is a genuine rags-to-riches president like Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Lincoln, Grant, Truman, and so on.

It is true that being a relative of a successful politician is certainly a huge leg up into politics. There are quite a few political families in politics, it goes well beyond the Bushes. There are the Gores, the Daleys, the Jacksons, etc. But in practice, the advantage has rarely gone for more than about 2 generations. It's not quite like a family that traces its lineage on the throne to William the Conqueror.

I mean really, do you think that Charles could be elected King? On what basis, his dashing good looks, good judgment, and his common touch?

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

I mean really, do you think that Charles could be elected King? On what basis, his dashing good looks, good judgment, and his common touch?

I would elect him. The Windsors are not corporate lapdogs. You'll notice that nations with a heritage, a constitional monarchy and a long history have less corporate influence in government than those who don't. That doesn't mean the US should have a monarchy. It's too late for that. You've got other problems to sort out like the multi-trillion dollar deficit, increasing poverty and ignorance, rising nationalism and religion, the inability to take criticism from abroad...from those nations you descend from.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's a rather silly point to try to argue. Out of 43 presidents since 1789, six have been relatives of one another. Those are two father/son duos (two Adamses, and two Bushses) and one set of cousins (the Roosevelts). In each case, power was not handed over directly, other, non-related presidents intervened. And of course, their offices were still not "inherited," they were elected. Besides, for every silver-spoon president like the Roosevelts, Kennedy or the Bushes, there is a genuine rags-to-riches president like Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Lincoln, Grant, Truman, and so on.

It is true that being a relative of a successful politician is certainly a huge leg up into politics. There are quite a few political families in politics, it goes well beyond the Bushes. There are the Gores, the Daleys, the Jacksons, etc. But in practice, the advantage has rarely gone for more than about 2 generations. It's not quite like a family that traces its lineage on the throne to William the Conqueror.

6 out of 43 is still an amazingly high ratio, compared to the political fortunes in this country of say, Nicholas Soames or Churchill Jnr. Being the relative of a successful politician doesn't appear to have substantially helped anyone in the UK.

I guess we just haven't had any sons of politicians as gifted as George Bush Jnr.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I mean really, do you think that Charles could be elected King? On what basis, his dashing good looks, good judgment, and his common touch?

I agree entirely. In comparison, the current monarch has never lacked widespread public support, even in the worst times over the last 20 years. That's why I think this Queen should be the last monarch, under the current arrangements.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
6 out of 43 is still an amazingly high ratio, compared to the political fortunes in this country of say, Nicholas Soames or Churchill Jnr.

It's really 3 out of 43. Bush Sr. or John Adams didn't benefit from being the fathers of George W Bush or John Quincy Adams because of course, at the time George HW Bush was elected or John Adams was elected, nobody had the slightest notion that their sons would follow them to be elected president. So really, it's only two sons and one cousin who can be said to be advantaged. That's against the much, much, larger numbers of completely unknown families who have sent someone to the White House. Some of those families, as I pointed out, have been genuinely poor.

However, like a lot of Americans, I am concious of the fact that political connections from family ties can grease the path of less qualified people into office. I agree that GW Bush obviously benefitted, and also others -- Al Gore, most of the Kennedys, Cynthia McKinney, Hilary Clinton, and so on. But that is still a long way from actual inherited office.

Moreover, the fact that we are concious of it tends to keep the dynasties in check. For example, if Jeb Bush was named Smith, he'd probably be the front runner for the presidency in 2008 based on being a popular two term governor from a populous southern state. For him being a Bush is probably a disadvantage at this point, though I am sure it was an advantage in getting elected governor in the first place.

Likewise, recent Kennedys haven't done so well as the last generation. A Kennedy just recently failed to get elected to office in Maryland, and two "rising stars" among the younger Kennedy's have failed spectactularly to in fact rise. That dynasty is coming to an end, much as I suspect the Bushes are, and as the others already have done. As I said, they usually only last a couple of generations.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But that is still a long way from actual inherited office.

The majority of those related to the monarch, including her/himself, don't work in any government office or exercise any political power. Like we say, they're a lucrative tourist attraction. Oddly enough the vast majority of tourists who come to see the palaces and buy souvenirs bearing the Queen's image are American.

[wdlove]

The British happens to be among my ancestors.

[ironknee]

i happen to love british history...

i just watched a documentary about King Edward IV, and that he is/maybe illegitimate and therefore the royal blood line was broken back in 1441 or so...

and the real "king of England" lives in Australia... cool

[nath]

Originally posted by ironknee:
i happen to love british history...

i just watched a documentary about King Edward IV, and that he is/maybe illegitimate and therefore the royal blood line was broken back in 1441 or so...

and the real "king of England" lives in Australia... cool

They're completely disfunctional and in-bred, it has to be said. Our current Queen's real surname is of course Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Got a bit inconvenient once World War I came along, so they changed it to Windsor. Much more British!

[willed]

Honestly, I don't know why you Americans get so worked up about this. The monarchy costs about 50p ($1) per person per year in the UK, and this includes the upkeep of many historic homes and castles which would otherwise have to be kept up in another way. Everyone keeps getting angry about how they have done nothing to deserve their priviledged position, but how is this different to third-generation billionaires? Most of their money comes from the interest on money earned by their grandfathers. The ancestors of the monarchy conquered the whole country, which is a pretty good effort. Then there's the tourism economic benefit, and plus the most important factor: if it's not broke don't fix it. I enjoy history and the idea of a 1,200 year old unbroken institution, something which can't be found in the US. Hell, the Queen Mother was older than America itself wasn't she?

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by willed:
Hell, the Queen Mother was older than America itself wasn't she?

Almost, apart from her hip which was much newer.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by willed:
Honestly, I don't know why you Americans get so worked up about this. The monarchy costs about 50p ($1) per person per year in the UK, and this includes the upkeep of many historic homes and castles which would otherwise have to be kept up in another way. Everyone keeps getting angry about how they have done nothing to deserve their priviledged position, but how is this different to third-generation billionaires? Most of their money comes from the interest on money earned by their grandfathers. The ancestors of the monarchy conquered the whole country, which is a pretty good effort. Then there's the tourism economic benefit, and plus the most important factor: if it's not broke don't fix it. I enjoy history and the idea of a 1,200 year old unbroken institution, something which can't be found in the US. Hell, the Queen Mother was older than America itself wasn't she?

Fine, cut us some slack too when you hear of crazy American customs or you see an American ask for ketchup at a restaurant in England...

[nath]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
or you see an American ask for ketchup at a restaurant in England...

We've got used to that one actually.

[Krypton]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
Fine, cut us some slack too when you hear of crazy American customs or you see an American ask for ketchup at a restaurant in England...

Are you sure you mean customs? I thought it was burgers and guns we gave you stick for

[RonnieoftheRose]

The best is American tourists. You'll see them halfway up Ben Nevis in the middle of winter wearing bermuda shorts and checkered short sleeve shirts complaining about how cold it is. Their daughter, in a white T-Shirt, denim shorts and flip-flops, tells her parents, "Gee, don't ya think we shoulda packed for winter?".

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
The best is American tourists. You'll see them halfway up Ben Nevis in the middle of winter wearing bermuda shorts and checkered short sleeve shirts complaining about how cold it is. Their daughter, in a white T-Shirt, denim shorts and flip-flops, tells her parents, "Gee, don't ya think we shoulda packed for winter?".

Two can play that stereotyping game. British tourists are kind of notorious for refusing to wear shorts in hot climates. I've seen this more than once, and even with a friend of mine. He wore jeans in Prague in summer, on the theory that he was only there for a weekend, so didn't see the point in buying shorts. The poor bastard had a miserable time, but it did create a good excuse to keep stopping for one more glass of Pivo.

But the best was the group of cockneys I ran into in the airport in Valencia. Jeans and denim jackets on the Costa Brava in July.

[Paco500]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
The best is American tourists. You'll see them halfway up Ben Nevis in the middle of winter wearing bermuda shorts and checkered short sleeve shirts complaining about how cold it is. Their daughter, in a white T-Shirt, denim shorts and flip-flops, tells her parents, "Gee, don't ya think we shoulda packed for winter?".

Yes, I'm sure this happens constantly. I sure we come over there and drive on the wrong side of the road and get confused about chips/crisps and pester the guards in the funny hats and complain about warm beer and annoy you with lousy Monty Python impressions and talk too loud and fart in public.

News flash- tourists from everywhere are reliative idiots.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Two can play that stereotyping game. British tourists are kind of notorious for refusing to wear shorts in hot climates.

You got me. I'm one of them. But if I showed my legs I'd have so many women running after me. I mean it. How do you handle that when even one woman can give you enough trouble

[Mafia]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
You got me. I'm one of them. But if I showed my legs I'd have so many women running after me. I mean it. How do you handle that when even one woman can give you enough trouble

i wear thigh socks with sandals that seems to drive them away.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by Paco500:
Yes, I'm sure this happens constantly. I sure we come over there and drive on the wrong side of the road and get confused about chips/crisps and pester the guards in the funny hats and complain about warm beer and annoy you with lousy Monty Python impressions and talk too loud and fart in public.

News flash- tourists from everywhere are reliative idiots.

Now I agree, but Americans know little about beers and ales ****, here in LA I can't smoke in a bar, I can't take my drink outside. I can't even order a cool pint. Cross an empty street and a cop pulls up to fine me for "jaywalking". You guys are treated like children.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by Mafia:
i wear thigh socks with sandals that seems to drive them away.

Oh I hate the sight of anyone wearing them. Especially Aussie tourists with their massive rucksacks and hats with cork dangling off them.

[Mafia]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Oh I hate the sight of anyone wearing them. Especially Aussie tourists with their massive rucksacks and hats with cork dangling off them.

[Mafia]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Now I agree, but Americans know little about beers and ales ****, here in LA I can't smoke in a bar, I can't take my drink outside. I can't even order a cool pint. Cross an empty street and a cop pulls up to fine me for "jaywalking". You guys are treated like children.

we have idiots that abuse those things. you'll do not (most of the time).