then its god old prince Philip!!

I love it when he cracks a joke, im sure he does it knowing full well the PC gang will go completly insane!

put prince philip stripper into google

>then its god old prince Philip!!,

You're not selling it to me 😉

Aye, people see Prince Philip putting his foot in it and confuse it with 'being refreshingly down to earth' or 'refusing to bow to political correctness' but the fact is just an accidental side effect of being so frightfully posh that you just don't care about which of the proles one offends.
There is no good reason to keep the parasites!

Have a laugh at what they call the Good Old Times
I am a zero royalist

zero tolerance to the royals here including the bigotted @rsehole ones.
I always thought we should sell them to the yanks or on EBAY – bet we would help clear some of the debt.

So, I put "Prince Philip stripper" into google…

Nothing there for the PC gang to go completly, or even completely, insane about. 🙄
In fact, not really even a joke.

Money.they bring in double what they spend from tourism alone.

So President Cameron it is then 8)

ah, some of the comments above only go to prove i was right!

I'm no lover of the Royals, but if we did not have them I suspect having a President would cost us more, besides the royals causes London to take in millions through tourism.

Tourists come to see the estates and historic buildings.
They'd still come,like they do in France or Russia, but have more access to locations if the royals were removed or downscaled.

The Royal family are great you should all be hung for treason 🙂

Its always assumed that the automatic alternative to the royal family is an American-style presidency, but there's lots of less full-on systems.
I'd much rather have an Irish or even French system which at least has a degree of meritocratic corruption than the s**te, wretched one that we have.

I have a certain amount of knowledge about the Royal Family, that's facts by the way, not incorrect statements made by The Sun et al. I can tell you that they do not cost the taxpayer anything, and in fact, give more to the Treasury than they receive. After that, they do an absolutely staggeringly, enormous amount for charity, and after that, they are a tourist attraction and bring in lots of lovely tourists dollars, yen, euro, you get the idea.

they do not cost the taxpayer anything,

So what about when Andy was using RAF planes to go for games of golf, were they lies?

I think given a choice between Prince Philip and that awful little french chap, Sarkozy, I'd take PP every time.

And what kind of person would actually want to devote their life to becoming President of the United Kingdom? Tony Blair for President anyone?

Bleugh.

I have a certain amount of knowledge about the Royal Family, that's facts by the way, not incorrect statements made by The Sun et al. I can tell you that they do not cost the taxpayer anything, and in fact, give more to the Treasury than they receive.

So come on then, don't be shy……….what are the "facts" ?

How much do they give to the Treasury, and how much do they receive ?

I thought that that was a secret do you work for the tax office?
Can we see the audited accounts you have then?

Mentioned in Dispatches for service at the battle of Cape Matapan!

A genuine, bona fide war hero!

Theres a great many people I'd rather see out of this country than Phil the Greek! 😉

I thought that was a secret ……

Well how much the Royal Family receives certainly isn't a secret :

Cost of Royal Family rises £1.5m

So apparently about £1.33 per taxpayer per year. And that doesn't include security provided by the police and Army or the ceremonial duties performed by the Armed Forces. Nor the cost of Royal travel which is also paid by the taxpayer. And it would appear that Buckingham Palace gets to keep the £7m it makes from visitors every year.

I think that the official figure of what the exact cost to the individual taxpayer is is still a fairly trivial figure.
But that hardly justifies it either, I mean, for instance, the individual cost of buying an American nuclear defence system is, I'm sure 'fairly trivial'
The individual cost of a gulf war is 'fairly trivial'
The fact that these examples are financially cheap to each UK citizen doesnt mean its not a good reason to cut that s**t out.

London Parliament cost us £455 million last year…

Scottish parliament building alone cost us over £400 million, plus running costs, for a white elephant filled with a toothless debating society.

Get rid of that lot, and put HRH back in charge, the royal families £40 million a year becomes a bargain!

The fact that these examples are financially cheap…..

Financially cheap ? I figure that the soppy tart and her inbred children owe me a few bob …….. after what I've been giving them over the years.

I wouldn't mind, but they earn a lot more than me 😐

OK,Zulu-Eleven, I'll bite!
Its a toothless debating society that is so ineffectual that all we hear is English resentment of how the 'bloody jocks' have things all their own way on Health, Land access, Education etc! 😉
(sorry about the cost of the building though, old chaps)

Cambridgeshire Guided Bus cost £140 million for a giant ugly thing that's not even a decent cycle track.

Seems like the Royal Family are actually doing us a favour by spending public money, because then there's less of it around for pig-trough politicians to spend on uglification and war mongering.

So my biggest complaint about the Royal family is that they don't cost enough.

OK,Zulu-Eleven, I'll bite!

But why bother ? ………he's just talking his usual nonsense. Firstly he's wrong in saying that the Royal Family costs £40 million a year – it's a lot more than that. And secondly, how much it cost to build Scottish parliament building is about as relevant, as how much it would cost to build all the Royal Family's palaces.

And of course the Queen and her inbred offsprings don't actually run the country – in fact they don't actually do much. So no great surprise if they don't cost as much as they would if they were running the country.

Note also how ratty commented : "Theres a great many people I'd rather see out of this country than Phil the Greek" despite the fact that no one, as far as I can see, suggested kicking anyone out of the country. The guy can't help it – he just spurts out the first thing that comes into his head. Sad really 😐

The Royal Family do not, in any sort of practical terms, rule or govern the country.

The Royal Family are not elected or in position based on merit and are not held to account.

-However, we the people of the UK & NI, fund them and are probably supposed to be deferential towards them.

The 'tourism' argument is weak. Having a pseudo-fairy-tale monarchy to bring in foreign punters is not justification for an unequal society. Tourists would still visit anyway -more dependent on the value of sterling, though, I'd suggest.

Arguing that an elected head of state would be somehow worse than an un-elected male (or female with no brothers), divinely-appointed leader of a church I've never belonged to & who was either born to rule (or inherited their position in line to the throne when her uncle abdicated because he wanted to marry a divorcee ) is nonsensical. 🙄

To all intents and purposes, the Prime Minister is the leader/figurehead of the country, whatever ancient 'Royal Protocol' might decree.

ps. The In-Laws wanted to watch the queen addressing us, her loyal 'subjects', at Xmas so we, unfortunately, did.

What made me laugh was when she suggested that,
"at this time of year we should look to those less fortunate than ourselves"
-For the queen, that would be just about everybody…..

I dunno, Geronimo, maybe she was refering to looks, or genetic health?
Theres only a few less fortunate there.

Aye, people see Prince Philip putting his foot in it and confuse it with 'being refreshingly down to earth' or 'refusing to bow to political correctness'

Dunno, I've spoken to him 1 to 1 for a good few minutes on a personal level. He seemed pretty down to earth to me. Everyone has their own view on it though I suppose.

Thats interesting, coffeeking, but I still dont trust the aristocracy not to be able to put on a bit of an act now and again.
I have met princess Anne, and was honestly expecting, after hearing the 'down to earth ' stuff, to be won over.
What I found was someone who looked utterly joyless and without the manners even to disguise her obvious boredom (breeding eh?)
And thats not to mention the group of loathsome royal hangers-on that accompanied her.

Friend of mine was his personal guard for many visits, it's his sense if humour he knows fine well what he is saying and is apparently very down to earth.

If that's the best reason to keep the Royal Family, then why not get Jim Davidson to do it? He's just as much a historical relic and I'm sure he'd do it much cheaper.

The Royals = Tourism argument is nonsense. Millions of people show up to see Versailles, the Kremlin and Neuschwanstein even when their aristocracies have been given the elbow and their assets nationalised.

And that doesn't include…

…and nor does it include the land that was stolen.

it's his sense if humour he knows fine well what he is saying and is apparently very down to earth.

he's just ****, in that case.

He could well be but I've never met him, clearly you have.

I've just Googled "Philip stripper"………… and I take back everything I said !

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/royal_family/Prince+Philip-53459.html

That really cracked me up, that did. And fastindian is right ….. good ol' Prince Philip!!

He's a boy that Philip ….. 88 years old but the saucy scoundrel still doesn't care what he says !
He must have had them in fits – wish I'd been there.

And his missus is a right laugh too ! ………."I'm wearing the wrong footwear" !!…… what is she like ! 😆

Yeah we need more people like them in public life – perhaps ratty is right after all and the Queen should run the country. Maybe Prince Philip could be given a job such as Mayor of London – it seems a shame to waste so much talent.