Royal News

[Sgt Girth]

I’m going to hazard a wild guess and say that you’re not exactly a royalist then?

 

[Mythopoeika]

that is a terrible picture. She looks like she's had one too many gins and he looks like he's not had a solid motion for a month.

How many men in their 90s can stand like that, wearing a heavy outfit like that? And the Queen looks the happiest I've ever seen her.

 

[Bad Bungle]

I’m going to hazard a wild guess and say that you’re not exactly a royalist then?

I have the greatest respect for Princess Anne, because she has earned it. She would make a great Queen.

 

[Mythopoeika]

I have the greatest respect for Princess Anne, because she has earned it. She would make a great Queen.

Yes, she is the hardest-working Royal after the Queen.

 

[sherbetbizarre]

 

[Ogdred Weary]

I have the greatest respect for Princess Anne, because she has earned it. She would make a great Queen.

Christopher Biggins is a better Queen than either of them.

 

[pandacracker]

Christopher Biggins is a better Queen than either of them.

Not sure about better but definitely bigger.

 

[stu neville]

I bear them absolutely no ill will, however I stand resolutely by my belief that the Royal Family as a whole are an anachronism. We live in a society that on the one hand is deeply sceptical of cronyism and the old-boy /old-girl network, but then completely accepts the single biggest case of nepotism in the world: "I am monarch because of who my parent was". They haven't done anything to actually deserve the status they hold, they were just born to the right people. And yes, I know William and Harry both served in the forces, and I respect that, but so have a great many other people, a disproportionate number of whom are sleeping in shop doorways or prison cells riddled with PTSD. I also respect Harry's commitment to the Invictus Games - objectively a very good thing - and his position obviously enabled much of this, but my argument then comes back to asking why he's in that position in the first place. I'm really not advocating a mass-guillotining on the steps of the Tower of London, but I think it's high time the Royals as whole adopted the Danish or Dutch model, a dignified retreat into the background. They can keep their money, but the Civil List has to end. We all prickle at further enriching millionaires but at least in the case of Bezos or Gates or Branson we tend to get something in return. In the case of Liz & co we get to occasionally wave little flags at them and finance their lifestyle.

Oh yes, and before anyone starts up with the "tourism" canard - they don't come to see the Royals. They come to see the history, the pageantry, the buildings. If the Royals were the primary reason for visitors from abroad then pretty much everywhere else in the world would have zero tourism, however Versailles - as a convenient example - gets a million or so visitors a year and hasn't seen royal footstep in two hundred years.

Time for them all to go.

 

[Kondoru]

It keeps journos off the street...

(Or bothering other folk)

 

[Naughty_Felid]

How many men in their 90s can stand like that, wearing a heavy outfit like that? And the Queen looks the happiest I've ever seen her.

Possibly due to not having to do anything since about 1945?

Nope, my Dad, his brothers, his peers don't look like that as they had to earn a crust and that was before health and safety. They did physical work.

They are about 15 years younger too.

They didn't have access to 24hr medical care that was the best in the world either.

 

[Naughty_Felid]

Yes, she is the hardest-working Royal after the Queen.

Doing what exactly? (I actually like her, but I'm not fooled that it isn't an easy gig).

 

[Naughty_Felid]

Christopher Biggins is a better Queen than either of them.

I'd vote for him.

 

[Trevp666]

They can keep their money,......... We all prickle at further enriching millionaires

I think you'll find that the Queen and the rest of the upper echelons of the UK Royal family have a vast wealth which mainly comes from sources other than the Sovereign Grant.
Mainly through Ownership of both land and (probably surprisingly) most offshore areas, which oddly makes the Royal Family the largest owner of 'Wind Farms' in the UK.
Also a number of 'personal assets' and 'investments' which give a return.
The Royal Residences up and down the country are not personally owned by the Queen herself, they are more in the ownership of 'The Realm' and as such will pass on to to whoever succeeds her (Charlie I expect), and then in turn, his successor.

There's a lot of info about the Royal finances available here

 

[stu neville]

think you'll find that the Queen and the rest of the upper echelons of the UK Royal family have a vast wealth which mainly comes from sources other than the Sovereign Grant.

I think you'll find I already know this, hence the end of the sentence which you strangely haven't quoted in which I said...

but the Civil List has to end.

Don't care about the rest of it. They can pay for their next bloody family wedding themselves, though.

 

[Trevp666]

Nuffink strange about not quoting that bit. It was deliberate, lol.
You are right though.

I'm quite conflicted here though, because although there are some of the Royals that I quite like, there are others that I would not cross the road for.
Quite parasitic some of them (most of them).
Meghan and Harry.......hmm........although I feel that they ran away from publicity here in the UK, only to seek it in the US, I hope that having to now source their own funding (Assuming Charlie isn't going to wire any cash to Harry) that it might make them wake up to the real world a little bit.
Unlikely though I know.

 

[Souleater]

I bear them absolutely no ill will, however I stand resolutely by my belief that the Royal Family as a whole are an anachronism. We live in a society that on the one hand is deeply sceptical of cronyism and the old-boy /old-girl network, but then completely accepts the single biggest case of nepotism in the world: "I am monarch because of who my parent was". They haven't done anything to actually deserve the status they hold, they were just born to the right people. And yes, I know William and Harry both served in the forces, and I respect that, but so have a great many other people, a disproportionate number of whom are sleeping in shop doorways or prison cells riddled with PTSD. I also respect Harry's commitment to the Invictus Games - objectively a very good thing - and his position obviously enabled much of this, but my argument then comes back to asking why he's in that position in the first place. I'm really not advocating a mass-guillotining on the steps of the Tower of London, but I think it's high time the Royals as whole adopted the Danish or Dutch model, a dignified retreat into the background. They can keep their money, but the Civil List has to end. We all prickle at further enriching millionaires but at least in the case of Bezos or Gates or Branson we tend to get something in return. In the case of Liz & co we get to occasionally wave little flags at them and finance their lifestyle.

Oh yes, and before anyone starts up with the "tourism" canard - they don't come to see the Royals. They come to see the history, the pageantry, the buildings. If the Royals were the primary reason for visitors from abroad then pretty much everywhere else in the world would have zero tourism, however Versailles - as a convenient example - gets a million or so visitors a year and hasn't seen royal footstep in two hundred years.

Time for them all to go.

In theory this is a good idea, but so is communism, the problem you have is how you replace them? and who with? we all know politicians are corrupt and we all know that absolute power corrupts absolutely, so we are in a bind, we dont want what we've got but we dont like the alternatives.

 

[stu neville]

In theory this is a good idea, but so is communism, the problem you have is how you replace them? and who with?..

Do we have to replace them? To be honest, the "but who would we put on the stamps???" Daily Express style argument isn't all that strong.

..we all know politicians are corrupt and we all know that absolute power corrupts absolutely, so we are in a bind, we dont want what we've got but we dont like the alternatives.

What, the alternative that virtually everyone else embraced decades or centuries ago? And who's "we"?

 

[Souleater]

Do we have to replace them? To be honest, the "but who would we put on the stamps???" Daily Express style argument isn't all that strong.

What, the alternative that virtually everyone else embraced decades or centuries ago? And who's "we"?

But how many Monarchs/Prime Ministers have been assassinated in this country in the last 300 years compared to other Democractic Republics, i can only think of Spencer Perceval, as i said im not against the concept of replacing the Monarchy im just not sure going with a President/Chancellor etc is the best way forward.

 

[stu neville]

But how many Monarchs/Prime Ministers have been assassinated in this country in the last 300 years compared to other Democractic Republics, i can only think of Spencer Perceval, as i said im not against the concept of replacing the Monarchy im just not sure going with a President/Chancellor etc is the best way forward.

That's it, is it?

 

[Naughty_Felid]

But how many Monarchs/Prime Ministers have been assassinated in this country in the last 300 years compared to other Democractic Republics, i can only think of Spencer Perceval, as i said im not against the concept of replacing the Monarchy im just not sure going with a President/Chancellor etc is the best way forward.

So we don't replace the monarchy in case some future person might possibly get assassinated? That's a good enough reason not to reform?

 

[Xanatic*]

Battle Royale. They all fight and the last royal standing gets to be King.

 

[Souleater]

That's it, is it?

What im saying is if someone can come up with a replacement that is as stable, as unlikely to lead to rebellion, dictatorship, meglamania etc, that is not going to end up in endless complicated coalitions that cant ever agree to get anything done then fair play, i agree with the system that countries like The Netherlands and Sweden have, and i agree that the civil list should be guillonined (the payments not the people) i just cant see the this country going for it.

 

[Souleater]

So we don't replace the monarchy in case some future person might possibly get assassinated? That's a good enough reason not to reform?

What do you suggest?

 

[Naughty_Felid]

What do you suggest?

get rid of the royal family once the queen and phil have moved on.

 

[Mythopoeika]

get rid of the royal family once the queen and phil have moved on.

'Get rid' sounds a bit sinister. 'Retired' might be better.

 

[Souleater]

get rid of the royal family once the queen and phil have moved on.

And with whom do we replace them?

 

[JamesWhitehead]

I'm all for ending, when the curtain comes down on Mrs Queen but things will hinge on the way the monarchy plays with the rising generation(s).

I have only the vaguest of notions of the younger royals; my impression is that people who do follow them see them as fashion-plates and gossip-column fodder. Staunch royalists are - surely - a dying breed.

 

[Naughty_Felid]

What do you suggest?

As we've seen by recent leaks they have/are already manipulating the government to feather their own nest. Also as their popularity continues to decline who knows what "the firm" might be capable of to maintain the status quo?

After all, a fair few of the previous kings and queens of the UK haven't been shy about using force to stay in power.

 

[Souleater]

get rid of the royal family once the queen and phil have moved on.

I'm all for ending, when the curtain comes down on Mrs Queen but things will hinge on the way the monarchy plays with the rising generation(s).

I have only the vaguest of notions of the younger royals; my impression is that people who do follow them see them as fashion-plates and gossip-column fodder. Staunch royalists are - surely - a dying breed.

Bearing in mind that QE2 is the soverign of 15 other nations and doing away with the monarchy would throw all of those in to a situation too

Queen Elizabeth II is also the Sovereign of 15countries in the Commonwealth of Nations: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.

 

[Naughty_Felid]

And with whom do we replace them?

Why do we need to?

If they are purely symbolic, (as they'd like us to think), and are just there to open garden fetes then why are we paying millions of pounds on their wages?