To think seeing an older lady curtesy to KM is sad to see

[Julia2016]

Just saw a photo of an older lady curtesying to Kate Middleton, I felt so sad to see it. Sad as to why anyone would feel the need to bow down to another human being.

Every day I shake my head with who people admire in this world and how the general public swallow all these pr machines. 😒

Mwah ha ha. Love the idea of them claiming back 'their' properties.

Some are owned by the Crown Estate aren't they, so neither the british publics or the royalties? But they do have some which are definitely privately owned and thus theirs.

I get the impression that financing a big country pile is a challenge unless you are cunning or heavily subsidised.

I suppose they'd open it for the public, generate a bit of revenue that way. I don't think they'd last long though.

I was wondering what actually would happen if the monarchy ceased to exist, would the queen get a pension?

You are not curtseying to the person but to the position they hold

Much like saluting (while in uniform and wearing your hat) - but unlike saluting it is not compulsory.

The lady chose to curtsey - her call.

YABU

Curtseying is ridiculous but it was the woman's choice and she was probably delighted to do it. If there'd been someone with a pointy stick shouting 'curtsey pleb, curtsey now I say!' I'd be more concerned.

I didn't think of it like that BMW6. Good point.

Would you rather she just gave her a wedgie?

curtseying is silly isn't it. i remember taking ages to learn to do it properly at ballet class, it was so important!

I have a lovely picture of my 88 year old MIL with the queen, mil is pulling the most fakest smile ever

Why do people think the lady choosing to curtsey refutes OPs point? She seems pretty clear in the OP itself that she knows it was something the person felt the need to do, rather than being obligated to do it.

I'd hope GreysAnalogy that she and Phillip would get some kind of pension in recognition of their wartime service. Their assets should disqualify them from income based benefits of course, and I'm not sure whether they'd have the NI contributions for a state pension, but they both contributed to the effort to defeat the evils of Nazism. Phillip more so, obviously, but both were involved and deserve our gratitude for that alone and fuck all else.

bonersibary ah I didn't think of that either. I suppose she would get money from other 'parties' who support her anyway

I am always confused why people call the Queen and the Royals scroungers. The Queen and the Royals receive a small percentage of the proceeds of the Crown Estate - properties they surrendered control over under George III and agreed to by each monarch (previously, there proceeds were administered by the monarch and the proceeds were used to fund the government). This estate is worth 8.1 BILLION and the proceeds principally go to the government. If the monarchy were to be abolished, they could rightly claim back their properties and would be much, much better off than they currently are. So no, the taxpayer does not fund the monarchy in reality. The government actually earns quite a pretty penny off of the Royals.

This argument is nonsensical. As you rightly note, the money was not personal spending money; it defrayed all costs of government, and if and when more was needed (wartime being the typical example) the monarch had to go cap in hand to Parliament and ask them to levy taxation. So if the royal family want to claim the Crown Estates back that's no problem at all, as long as they understand that the costs of running the state (police, courts, civil service, army, schools, hospitals, roads, security services, etc etc etc) are taken as first dibs and then they get to keep whatever is left over. I mean, obviously what would be left over is a whacking deficit, so sure. They can knock themselves out.

Suggesting that we profit because the royal family worked out that it would be better for them to end the public impression that they were personally responsible for levying taxation over and above Crown Estates funding of the state, and shunt that PR problem off on Parliament completely.... is really contorted logic. You might as well suggest that every PLC is generously allowing the shareholders the company's money when they pay dividends. It was always intended to pay for the state apparatus, and that's what it is used for to this day. On what planet could someone argue that their ancestor's role as national trustee over 200 years ago should entitle them to defraud the descendants of the original beneficiaries of that trust - us?

^
I was just about to say that (!)

Seriously though, v.good post.

I'm usually a very logical person but for some reason I just don't want to see the monarchy abolished. I see the logic in the argument for abolishment, it's perfectly reasonable and I cannot argue with any of the points put forward (in an appropriate way, not slagging off individual members for personal attributes and apparent failings like has happened here). But I don't know, I just want to see us maintain something that is part of our culture, or whatever you want to call it. I want us to have our queen and our royal family. It's nostalgic nonsense I know, but I feel if we lose them we lose a big part of our identity.

Big applause for sleeponeday

Aww bless her.

has anyone been watching The Windsors on ch4?

hilarious!

Time for a revolution, me thinks.

The idea of curtseying to a commoner is odd, though

The idea of prostrating yourself in front of anyone is absurd. I go by my grandfather's maxim: 'shake hands with anyone, bend your knee to no one.'

If she's happy to curtsey to a member of a family who spend 52 weeks a year on holiday while greedily consuming a massive piece of the publics pie who are we to argue?

So if the royal family want to claim the Crown Estates back that's no problem at all, as long as they understand that the costs of running the state (police, courts, civil service, army, schools, hospitals, roads, security services, etc etc etc) are taken as first dibs and then they get to keep whatever is left over

Presumably, if that were the situstion, there would be nothing preventing the former Royals disposing of the assets though? Yes, the same condition would apply in terms of state costs which you might argue would reduce the value of the asset, but even so, I'm sure they could live comfortably on the proceeds of a sale - owning that much land in GB would be a very attractive proposition to overseas investors.

Staying with the us presidential example or that of a bride walking down the aisle

Shall we also stand in the Us For the president's heir? Will that heir be the next president?

Oh I see. So you stand in respect for a democratically elected office which is opened up to massive democratic processes every 4 years.

I see. That's just like standing for members of a monarchy then.

I curtsey every time I see a member of the Royal Family on TV. Even Mia Tindall.

For all the people who commend the queen for all her hard work and the number of appointments she still carries out - you do know that she's often/generally represented by equerries, lord lieutenants and other royals at them, don't you? So it's registered as her duty but someone else does it for her. Check the court circulars.

Derxa you're joking right? You don't actually curtesy in your living room that you presumably clean or pay for or both when you royals on telly that you pay for do you??