Are you in favour of the Royal Family?

[enzomari]

DM and I were discussing this last night, she's now in her Eighties and used to really like the Queen (not so much Phillip for some reason) but now really isn't bothered and thinks the RF, as is, should be abolished . I've always been a Republican but I was surprised at DM as she always seemed very pro RF but actually was pro the late Queen.

IMHO it seems so past it's sell by date but I'd be interested to know others opinions.

Andy is not on the payroll anymore so he's fair game now for more exposure, and rightly so. That's easy because he is persona non grata.

My concern would be what the rest of the Adams Family is up to behind the scenes. We have no idea do we?

Yes - that would be another popular move.
Elizabeth and Charles campaigned for YEARS to get the system changed to their advantage ( more money, little transparency)
How do they have the gall to describe their tax payer rip off as ‘service’ ?
Are we reaching tipping point yet ? I do not believe for a moment that the royals are as popular as we are told they are .

Sorry my post was in reply to @CathyorClaire

Andy is not on the payroll anymore so he's fair game now for more exposure, and rightly so

Sadly he's not.

TPTB have sealed his Trade Envoy records until he and anyone interested are long gone.

By the time they're unsealed they'll be for academic interest only.

Seems even disgraced, off-docket (and I don't believe that for a minute) royals get a pass 😡

You would think so. Apparently not.

Andrew is a loose cannon. Obviously, because all this chinese spy stuff is in the last couple of years.

"The duke met the individual through official channels, with nothing of a sensitive nature ever discussed. He is unable to comment further on matters relating to national security."
Yes rightio!

He was discussed on released documents that he was desperate for money and apparently Chinese spy was trying his very best to leverage Andrew's influence for dosh. Documents say 'he is desperate for cash and will grab onto anything'.

The Home Office said they believed H6 (chinese spy) had been engaged in covert and deceptive activity on behalf of the CCP and that his relationship with Prince Andrew could be used for political interference.
The judges said H6 had won an "unusual degree of trust from a senior member of the Royal Family who was prepared to enter into business activities with him".
They added that the relationship had developed at a time when the prince was "under considerable pressure" which "could make him vulnerable to the misuse of that sort of influence".

They don't care. Surely surely Charles would have been aware of this?

We tried being a republic once, it didn't work out. Maybe now times have changed...who knows? I am ambivalent. Couldn't care less. They are just...tnere!

I am ambivalent. Couldn't care less

Just the way they like it...

I would prefer to keep a monarch as head of state than have a president- I think it just gets too political then. The monarch doesn't really have any power anyway so it's not like it's important for them to be elected.
I do think it should be scaled back though, "working royals" should be the monarch, first in line and then his family- mainly the eldest child. So in our case Charles, William and George. They also don't need to do as many pointless "royal engagements" as they do now.
I don't think anyone should be "sacked" but just as the older royals get too old they quietly retire and not carry it on to future generations.

I think it will slim down eventually. Anne’s dc are essentially private people. As are Andrew’s. They are not working Royals. I suspect Edwards won’t be so that leaves the POW’s family. That will do but charities and civic leaders love a Royal Visit. An opening of something and local dignitaries having a day in the limelight is something they look forward too. Plus a garden party and a gong. They all need to stop too. Getting a gong for doing your job is wrong.

A president can be removed too. They serve for a fixed term. A monarch's fixed term is his or her lifetime.

They are there now it is not a new thing so now they do infact exist i see no benefit from them being removed

I’d hardly say Andrews children live a private lives, I was listening to Table Manners podcast recently and Eugenie was on there for some reason. Zara and her husband also seem to live life in the public eye.

They are an outdated and archaic institution. They are here, today, because one of their ancestors had a fight, a battle, with someone else, in some muddy field somewhere, over a thousand years ago, and they won, and they got a crown for the effort. In the subsequent 1000 years, they managed to maintain in making us believe, the plebs, that they were better than us, more important than us, and that we should continue to keep paying them to keep them better, and more important than us, and that we should keep bowing down to them because they have convinced us that they are indeed more important than any of us could ever be. Throughout this period they have become unimaginably wealthy, of the back of Empire and colonialism, but to mention just a few examples. Charles personal wealth stands at about £1.8 billion, (and he and his family are getting incrementally richer) but his and his family's royal grant will increase from £86m to £125m in 2025 - that’s the tax payers money. The coronation was £72 million pounds. There are so many people, right now, in this country, who are awake, whilst it’s still dark, who will dare not put the light or heating on because they are shitting themselves with worry whether or not they will be able to afford these bills, when the bill does come. And yet we fall over our selves to keep this one family in unearned privilege and status, throwing money at them, that could be better used, to help those who need it the most our society. B

Just because something has always been the same, doesn’t mean it has to stay that way. It’s possible to evolve and do things differently, in a better way which enriches and benefits everyone in the wider society, and not just the royal family and their cronies I.e the top 1% in this country. How can anyone continue to support such a system in 2024, and all because one of their ancestors won that battle, in that muddy field somewhere, over a thousand years ago?

Absolutely. Anne's children are private when it suits them yet are wheeled out for public events like garden parties and photographs splashed all over the media. And of course all the minor royals milk it for money for all it's worth. Peter, Zara. York sisters who have been cozying up to different people in the middle East, they are supposedly UK cultural ambassadors over there but are no doubt hustling for money if their father is anything to go by.
Sarah too (30 years divorced from a royal but still living on a royal estate, I doubt she pays half the heating bill !)

Thank you @enzomari @SleepyHippy3 and@Extiainoiapeial for having the patience to type out yet again corrections to posts repeating ( unconsciously or otherwise) the same old ill informed PR lies re the Windsors.

The quality of the posts on this thread from those trying to defend the indefensible Windsors tells its own tale …

charities and civic leaders love a Royal Visit.

Shame then that so many charities with a royal patron see so little of them.

@Anne’s dc are essentially private people. As are Andrew’s. They are not working Royals"
Well, they all "work" on occasion. And they all trade on the name to bring in significant amounts of cash in brand sponsorship and other lucrative non-jobs....

Still waiting for someone to explain to me why we need a Head of State at all......

Yes. I think it benefits them greatly to be splashed all over the media at a Royal garden party. So they will do bits and bobs to keep their royal status up. Then they can go off and procure more lucrative deals on the back of that royal connection

Neither Andrew’s DDs or Zara have official duties or get civil list money. They choose what they do, or don’t do.

As the monarch is a constitutional monarch and has no role in governance, why would they be removed? Or need to be removed - other than possible long term ill health? We have the issue that finding a president for purely this role is difficult. We would not want the French or USA models. We have a decent enough system that works well politically, what you think about wealth is another matter.

The Monarch may have no role in governence, has to sign off all laws but managed to exempt themselves from 160 laws the rest of us have to abide by. And the Monarch is able to lobby for changes on draft legislation.

We would not want the French or USA models.

This is such a weak-ass argument. There are about 150 other countries to choose from. We could go Ireland, or Germany, or Uruguay.

That’s hilarious. That film was an emergency attempt to try to make the public tolerate a reactionary, anachronistic institution completely at odds with a modernising country. Of course it was going to make giant and completely unjustifiable claims for the importance of the RF!

You’d have to be monumentally underinformed about the demise of other monarchies to think a constitutional monarchy is a ‘defence’ against anything at all.

Yes

yes tall is such an important quality in a king 🙄

Someone posted about their charity work upthread. Aside from the whole issue of whether society should be dependent on the individual largesse of billionnaires to tackle pressing social issues (hint: it should be done through progressive taxation), research shows that royal patronage is highly uneven, heavily slanted geographically to the south-east within easy reach of London, and significantly favours "nice" causes like the arts over tough social issues like drugs and knife crime. Most charities with a royal patronage get little to no tangible benefit.