To think the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge need to work on their PR strategy?

[SamanthaBrique]

In recent months they've been accused of being work shy and what's their solution? To release photos of them and the children on a luxury skiing break! Now I don't begrudge them a holiday, but why make it so public? If they wanted to release photos of the kids then they could've just released a few shots of George and Charlotte at Kensington Palace or Anmer Hall. I don't know who is advising them on their PR but AIBU to think they need to engage someone a bit more in touch with public sentiment?

"By the time William accedes, I wonder if there will be any real appetite for an unelected head of state and he can call time on the whole institution."

Approval ratings are high and rock solid. And it's a model that is working well, and in many places across the globe.

As they say, one day there will be only five monarchies left: Hearts, Clubs, Spades, Diamonds and England.

The days of the royals not being accountable to the taxpayer are long gone.

spat out my tea on that one.

Why, do you not think they are chilli?
To a certain degree they're not but compared to how it was years ago, they certainly are. Why do you think they have such a good team of PR working for them. They do care how the public perceive them, unlike years ago. All for their own self interest of course.

Farahilda are you sure the crown would be able to do that. I thought they'd immediately revert back to the people of the U.K.

Why, do you not think they are chilli?
I am saying they are still not accountable to the taxpayer. Charles voluntarily pays tax on the Duchy.

I've often though their PR/lack of public awareness or just lack of any genuine concern about how they come across can be shocking at times.

By taxpayer I mean the public and they are accountable as that is how they are funded. The fact that Charles voluntarily pays tax only shows how wrong the whole system is. But he is actually better off financially paying tax than he was before.
Imagine a world if we could all voluntarily pay tax, lucky for the royals it isn't.

"are you sure the crown would be able to do that. I thought they'd immediately revert back to the people of the U.K."

They can't revert to the people of the UK because they've never belonged to the people of the UK. They are owned by the Crown, who can do with its property whatever it sees fit. And the voluntary surrender of the entire proceeds, in return for the civil list (or whatever its called these days) which has always been much smaller, is a remarkably good deal for the revenues of HM Govt.

Who owns The Crown Estate?
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

The best deal for the revenues of HM Govt would be no monarchy. Better off by approx £365 million.

I feel sorry for William as he has never had a choice to be in the public eye and has had his whole life played out in the media. I would not want to be in his position of being scrutinised and talked about even with the enormous wealth and privelege, and personally i would choose my own very ordinary but private life any day.

The press seem very annoyed that they have not allowed full access to their holiday and are spitting the dummy out. Surely any normal person reserves the right to control which images they share of their private moments. I don't think this is unreasonable behaviour.

Yes, the sovereign only owns it as sovereign, not as an individual, and holds it on behalf of the monarchical institution. But could keep its entire revenue and use it however it saw fit for the upkeep of the institution (its original purpose) and give none of it to HM Govt for other uses.

That is not true Farahilda

If William gives up the throne he does too for his issue, so win win for George and Charlotte to privacy. He won't give up the throne yet complains about privacy. You can't have it both ways.

It is true, but it's also delving in to constitutional history. It is quite a long time since the monarch granted revenues to the Government (George III) and if you said it was so unlikely that the monarchy would reverse that decision that it's just not on the table in current circumstances, I'd agree with you. But there is nothing that makes it actually impossible.

"If William gives up the throne he does too for his issue"

Not necessarily. Edward VIII did, because had Mrs Simpson been pregnant there would have been yet another mess. That precedent is not binding, though it is possible.

Been very naive, just realized this whole issue was started by The Sun.

The monarch only granted revenues to the government because George111 got into debt. He surrendered the revenues from the crown estates in return for an annual grant (civil list) off the government. If the queen really was free to do what she wanted with the crown estates it could then be argued that she is liable for the salaries of all ambassadors, civil servants and judges, (as George had to, and couldn't)....they can't have it all ways. (Much as they'd love to) It's all one big joke anyway because the lands weren't gotten legally.

Exactly! The land was all stolen originally, it's not a little farm that was expanded by the royal family and bought legitimately

Why shouldn't they be 'work shy' if they want to be anyway? I would be if I had as much money as them.

the question is why do we continue to support them?

I'm sorry but all their money would not make me trade places with them for the world. William was a child when he lost his mom. He had to walk behind her coffin with the whole world watching. Then he had to read about her private life from all the vultures that came out of the woodwork.

Kate had to be on display to the world the day after giving birth, to be criticised and commented on whilst probably still in pain and bleeding.

If they want to enjoy their money then let them- the downside hardly makes it worthwhile.

If they want to enjoy their money then let them

sure. i just don't want to pay for it.

The downside is, they cost us a fortune. Their round the clock police security (highly experienced police officers devoted to minding them) costs millions alone. If they were to only just enjoy their money it probably wouldn't be long before we became a republic. They have duties, which they are expected to do. They're massively rewarded for it, if they don't want to, fine, let them bow out. Somehow I don't think they'd want to.

They have duties, which they are expected to do. They're massively rewarded for it, if they don't want to, fine, let them bow out. Somehow I don't think they'd want to.

of course they wouldn't. as you say, they have light duties and are massively rewarded for it. why should they give it up?

we need to take it away.

Bit of an aside, but in response to some comments about Diana, please do read this Guardian article below. In case anyone interested has not seen the documentary, it's really very good (you can get it online).

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/07/unlawful-killing-film-you-wont-see

Hmm that's very interesting. A few years ago I'd have thought it a wild conspiracy theory proposed by the tinfoil hat brigade but now that we know about Jimmy Savile, and the coverup over the Westminster pedophile ring, I wouldn't be so dismissive.