Trooping the colour booing

Try a different argument. Why always suggest the worst option

Who would you like?

Try a different argument. Why always suggest the worst option?
At least we have the option to vote them out. Unlike say getting King Andrew. …which we nearly did.

To all the anti monarchists out there - you realise we'd just get Tony and Cherie Blair instead?

It's not like there would just be nothing.

I would start by proposing to massively trim down assets- look at how some of these castles and palaces might be better used? It is not 1870 any more.

Even now I understand that Freedom of Information requests are turned down to investigative writers. I know it may be different now that the police are examining Andrew's activities. I wonder what AMB and Fergie did with their vast amounts of money from family, Epstein, the Azerbaijani business man that paid over the odds for their house?

Part of it is the fact they have generational wealth (plundered), income from massive property portfolios and charging the likes of the NHS to use their warehouses along side private renters (though their grifting family memebers who are rich in their own rights pay nothing) etc, and public funding to the tune of 139.9 mil.

They could make do with one of the three. The greed is vulgar.

@IsawwhatIsaw
I asked my 20s DCs, they said the vast majority , maybe around 20 people. were completely uninterested. One or two were in favour .
I think they are irrelevant and their luxurious lifestyles are offensive given how many people now have to live in the UK

I’ll try my question on you;
Since they are so unpopular, do you think it would be a vote winner for political parties to put removal of royal family in their manifesto for the next election?

@Prombles It amused me when Charles married Camilla and someone was selling 'mug conversion kits' - a transfer of Camilla and the new wedding date to stick on the 1981 mugs.

I've never heard of this before - how tacky! Somehow encapsulates a very, tawdry tale.

I asked my 20s DCs, they said the vast majority , maybe around 20 people. were completely uninterested. One or two were in favour .
I think they are irrelevant and their luxurious lifestyles are offensive given how many people now have to live in the UK.
if we have to have a RF, why not a much slimmed down and modest one rather than the multiple castles palaces and vast estates that these get to enjoy?

Yes, quite possibly. Also, it was 2011 and London was gearing up for the Olympics in 2012 so events 'mojo' was being reserved for all that. The late Queen's Diamond Jubilee was happening in 2012 as well - W&K just didn't have the same feeling of being an island in an events desert that Charles and Diana had - there'd been nothing in 1981 since the Silver Jubilee in 1977 (which was also a massive deal if I recall correctly).

There was a fair amount of fuss for Andrew and Sarah in 1986 - certainly disproportionate for someone who was never likely to be King. I was a teenager by then and not interested in the Royals. We were on holiday so I think we just saw the highlights of it on TV.

I think after the debacle of the Charles and di wedding they wanted to be more low key as look how that turned out!

I was at primary school as well - we made a diorama of the wedding (I was disappointed not to get the bride or a bridesmaid) and we all got given a Royal Wedding mug. I think mine is still at my parents' house.

It amused me when Charles married Camilla and someone was selling 'mug conversion kits' - a transfer of Camilla and the new wedding date to stick on the 1981 mugs.

It did seem as though it was all anyone was talking about. I remember 'French skipping' was the craze at the time, you got a long piece of clothes elastic from your mum, sewed it together and two people stood with it round their ankles while everyone did a kind of skipping version of cats' cradle - and I remember we made up songs about the wedding to skip to: "The Royal Wedding is in July/It's for Prince Charles and Lady Di/They're coming in a golden carriage/They're coming to celebrate their marriage'

And all the tat that was on sale. Charles and Di Rubik's cubes, Charles and Di anything, basically; and how the tat was still being flogged off in seaside gift shops and the like for 5p for about three years after the wedding.

Compared to William and Kate's wedding it was such a massive thing - I don't remember anywhere near the fuss about W&K although of course I was about 40 when they got married so I don't know what it was like for schoolchildren.

I think that royal wedding is a good analogy of the whole thing. I was at primary school and it was a massive deal and great fun! The princess in her huge dress we all loved it. So that’s a positive.

But it was all a farce and a lie and ended up damaging Diana massively.

So no I don't support them and I don't know anyone of my generation who do.

@Futurehappiness Since they are so unpopular, do you think it would be a vote winner for political parties to put removal of royal family in their manifesto for the next election?

I know many enjoyed it & I joined in the celebrations at the time too. I remember just a very few dissenting voices as to the appropriateness of a 32 year-old man wanting to marry a young girl barely out of her teens - but those voices were swiftly pooh pooed as out of kilter with the mood of rejoicing. And the RF could do no wrong after all.

I was in a European country in the mid-80s where it was widely reported that Charles' marriage was in trouble; I dismissed that too as it was so at odds with what I was still reading in the UK press at the time about them being blissfully happy. What did these Europeans know about what was really going on?

Of course a marriage breakdown should be nobody's business but that of the couple themselves and their loved ones; but that is the absurdity of monarchy, that their private family relations are presented as public - so it is hardly the public's fault if they take a negative view. If you are going to make a big show about presenting the new bride as the nation's future Queen with flummery and ceremony, then unceremoniously discard her a few years later and shunt in the new wife - 'This one's going to be your queen instead' - you can hardly expect all of the public to just roll over and accept it without hurting your popularity.

What I learned from that story for the first time, was how the RF lie to the public without a qualm for the sake of good PR, and the Andrew/Epstein situation is yet more evidence of this.

People did enjoy it, though. I had a whale of a time at a street party, and watching fireworks afterwards, although by the time I was in my teens a few years on, I'd become very anti-monarchy.

Looking back The Royal Wedding of 1981 was like a light interlude between the discontent, striking, droughts and power cuts of the 1970s and the 1980s troubles that were fast on their way, such as the Falklands War and the miners' strike.

I am near pension age and I am old enough to remember the fuss that was made at the time of Charles's marriage; a lavish taxpayer-funded wedding at which we were all instructed to rejoice and welcome Diana as future Queen (I did too.....in those days I was quite a monarchist).

It turns out that it was all a farce as Charles was lying the whole time he made his marriage vows with his fingers crossed behind his back. And slotted in Camilla once Diana was disposed of and expected the public to suck it up. Just the word 'tampon' is enough to recall their behaviour. So no I don't support them and I don't know anyone of my generation who do.

Yes - it was only when his back was against the wall and members of the public shouting at him that he stirred. Hardly an impressive display of probity there.

I didn't mean to look as if I was arguing with you @JuliettaCaeser, apologies. I just wanted to further clarify that Charles wanted to look decisive through making a show of taking action against his brother despite it having no negative impact on Andrew (despite him being a probable sex offender and even traitor) and only because he felt forced into it by the public outcry.

If he & the rest of the RF really were outraged by his conduct they would have taken action years ago. Instead of which it seems they conspired to raise £12 million to protect him from the consequences of his actions

Sorry. My irony detector is usually quite sensitive.

No one is forcing them to parade the kids in front of the cameras.

I still don't think that the RF have done enough to answer valid questions. There is all this trade envoy cover up. MP Rachael Maskell called for a public inquiry: "the system built around the Royal Household has to be reviewed".
She said: "The web grows ever darker and that is why we have got to address the issue of unaccountable power and also the abuse of power in high office."

Personality wise he definitely would not be even in the running if we had a free choice of a leader.

I've said before there's nothing to stop a royal running if they genuinely think they're the best fit for the job.

'They' paid a combined £12m to make it go away.

No clarity on who 'they' are.

Although future is arguing with my post I actually agree with her! My point is that Charles clearly gets upset about negative public response. He seems pretty thin skinned. Personality wise he definitely would not be even in the running if we had a free choice of a leader.