Sergei Gotsmanov

OK then heres a deal - I bet you £500 that Heineken is imported and when I am right you pay Jillyanne for her cat. That way we can do some good. Why don't you ring them up? Or maybe find a pub that sells a keg have a word with the landlord and ask if he minds if you can look in his cellar - I am pretty sure it tells you on the kegs that it is imported.

No I am a drinks consultant. You are wrong.

Well I am afraid that without sounding like a smart arse you are wrong. All Heineken sold in the UK is imported from Holland. That is since 2003 I think. It makes up most of that 5%. You need to do more research I am afraid.

Oh dear you better tell him it is all imported. Hasn't been brewed over here for ages.

Stockholm is nice.

Pleased you made it to the 40's but please try harder and get to today.

So you watched that Channel 4 documentary Verbal. Smearing the Royal Family using hearsay and gossip from the 1930's to support your prejudices against the British establishment. You clearly seem to ignore the fact that even in those days the Royals had to be popular and the British people did not warm to Nazi's. Try and look at the bigger picture without succombing to your petty bigotry and put together an argument relevant to the role of today's monarchy.

I think you could put a positive spin on him in terms of his work on the environment but he does come across as a bit of a prat. You have good kings and Queens and bad ones lets just see. What I would hate would be a sort of X factor election.

I am not sure who is responsible but when I take my children to the Doctors now it is like going into a bank or an insurance company; its all about making money and I think health and profit making are not appropriate. As for hospitals, I have spent much of the last few months in them and the nurses and Doctors with very few exceptions are the most caring and wonderful people in our society. I would respect their opinions on how to go forward and it puzzles me why they are not at the heart of the discussion on making the NHS function more effectively.

I think you exposing your chippiness again. You are completely unable to accept the respect that so many people have for the Queen around the World and the pride most Brits have in the way she conducts herself in public life. Her devotion to her duty is highlighted by her workload even at the age of 85. There are so many political debates to have, especially in Europe where you countries being run by unelected leaders and you choose to bang on about an institution that is political non active.

I brought them up because they lack the charisma that makes our parliament so much more aesthetic. The link with the past that the Monarchy gives the political process makes the pomp and ceremony more authentic. What I would suggest that your head of state is politically impotent so choosing one is irrelevant.

Being a republic is not a prominenet debate because it is a pointless one. Why be passionate about something that doesn't effect your democratic status whatsoever. I like the whole pomp and ceremony, pageantry and traditions. Compare it to the sterile atmosphere of the EU Parliament or the Scottish Assembly. Why not market that to make us stand out and bring a few tourists in.

I am told the Orkneys is fantastic. I would live there but the wife wouldn't let me. I was on the West Coast of Scotland for the last week of Sunshine at the end of July, swimming in the burn BBQs on th beach etc.

You do amuse me Verbal, totally unable to understand that the Royal family is redundant in every way; it is just cosmetic to a political process. You remind me so much of that fellow on the train in Dr Zhivago.

Your comparison to Micky Mouse is somewhat flawed. I think they contribute a lot to the UK brand. They have real power so why is it such an issue - as I said before you can call her a tosser if you want and nobody will come and knock on your door late at night, I am surprised you cannot see the difference? Who is it that is sucking up to the the Royals, I have never even seen them.

You are wrong in that if we were expected to be brown nosing Royalists then they would not be around. Chippy - resentful or oversensitive about being perceived as inferior. I think that is quite appropriate. The Queen, with no effective power, has overseen the economic decline of our nation - you are being delusional now.

You ignore the role that they play on the World stage representing our nation generating goodwill and hopefully contracts. You also seem to not understand that the fascination the World has with them is because they are still active in public life. People can go and see them in the flesh; they can see the changing of the guard or the Trooping of the Colour. If you think that taking their palaces and lands away from them is going to generate more for the nation because people can pay a fiver and go and visit them then you are delusional or stupid. I wouldn't worry about jug ears its the Wills and Kate you should worry about more. Anyway as it happens I think that you may well be right that when the Queen goes then the role of the Royal family will be examined. I don't think it will go just be cut down a bit. It is also likely that when she does go there will be a sentimental surge for the institution. You should be less chippy and more rational.

You prejudices are distorting your ability to argue. Finacially the Windsors more than justify themselves for what they bring to the UK brand, you should be able top recognise that. We live in a country where you can tell who you like you think the Queen is a tosser; isn't that wonderful? I think so.

You seem to have forgotton that the thread title focus's on the cost of the yacht. Our democracy functions very well as was proved by the overwhelming support in the recent referendum. If the people are happy with our system then would it not be undemocratic to change it?

The core of this thread is about money.

Not really factually wrong as Prince Charles was acting off his own back not in any legal capacity - they could tell him to get stuffed. Do you really believe that the Queen would not be sent packing if she tried to exercise the power that she has on paper or if she was not perceived to be politically neutral. In that sense her role is purely ceremonial and to act as an ambassador for the nation. She does a brilliant job at that so why get rid of her so you can have another politician. I would suggest another scenario which is very realistic. The Queen dies and their is wave of soppy national sentimentalism about the Royal family. The Coronation is watched by a global audience of however many billion as is the funeral. A million people line the streets to see the new King. My experience of politicians today is that they act in their own interests and not the nations- the side effect of the career politician that the system now encourages.

Great memories. Should have been an all time great though.

As ever, very eloquently put apart from the fact that you ignore the fact that the Queen's role is purely ceremonial - on paper she may have power but in reality if she exercised it she would be out on her ear. So what is the point of dismantling something that finacially justifys itself, is key to the UK brand and give's us a bit of identity. It sounds like you want to create a role for another slimey politician.

People simply do not like change. Change only happens when people have not got enough to eat and they blame the democratic process.

So we elect another politician. Have we not got enough of these.