To feel extremely bloody proud to be British today?

[hehitmeanditfeltlikeakiss]

I take our country for granted because I live in a town that is the polar opposite of what Windsor looks like. But wow - watching the Royal family today I got shivers down my spine and felt so overwhelmed with emotion.

In the past I've looked at ways of emigrating because I've been fed up of living here, but I've just realised that it's a free country and to feel better about life I can actually make the move and go and live somewhere nicer (ok, maybe not Windsor but still).

We're so lucky aren't we?

Marchin

Britain likes tradition and the Monarchy fulfills this.

The money they get is called the civil list and is the name given to the annual grant that covered some expenses associated with the Sovereign performing their official duties, including those for staff salaries, State Visits, public engagements, ceremonial functions and the upkeep of the Royal Households.pays for the functioning of the RF in performing it's duty.

So there, I've educated you. We don't just throw money at the RF.

Sorry but you're wrong, there is no civil list anymore. The queen gets a "sovereign grant". from the treasury, which amounts to 15% of the profits of the crown estate....a huge amount of money.We literally DO throw money at the royal family......so now i've educated you.

I have worked in finance and as I said earlier, the RF brings in more revenue than we throw their way!

They have alot of business and contribute vast amounts to England.

A considerable amount of MN disagree with the RF but I don't know of any other privileged families helping charities and promoting business... like they do; so I for one would like to keep them.

Op I'm really pleased your proud to be British.

i have worked in finance and as I said earlier, the RF brings in more revenue than we throw their way! They have alot of business and contribute vast amounts to England.

What a vague and silly statement. And you expect it to be taken at face value because you 'work in finance'.

What they take is not as well documented as it could be and what they contribute is almost impossible to quantify.

What is this 'lot of business' you speak of?

So there, I've educated you. We don't just throw money at the RF.

somebody has already replied, but there is no civil list anymore. You have not educated me.

I have worked in finance and as I said earlier, the RF brings in more revenue than we throw their way!

Did you work at Enron?

yorkrose Do you have a link please to tell us how much revenue they bring in? thanks......I'm also puzzled as to what relevance your job in finance has to do with it.

A considerable amount of MN disagree with the RF but I don't know of any other privileged families helping charities and promoting business... like they do; so I for one would like to keep them.

really? It actually doesn't take long to find these people with a simple google.

and unlike the RF, they support charities with their own time and money. The Queen effectively gets paid for it (i'd consider these as some of her few duties as overpaid HoS), and the charity she gives is state money. Compare that to people like Gates and Buffet. Vast fortunes, self made, given to charity. Gates in particular is very active in the developing world.

May sound strange, but I can't help the way I feel. I live a wonderful life in OZ on on the day of the wedding my cousin commented that she didn't realise I "liked"the Royal Family.

you can't help the way you feel?

you can like the royal family, and you can also like the pageantry. but you can also look critically at public finances and morals. You can like things emotionally but recognize that they are that great for a country.

Also, if you live in OZ, you don't have to pay for them!

A considerable amount of MN disagree with the RF but I don't know of any other privileged families helping charities and promoting business... like they do; so I for one would like to keep them.

I think any family in the whole of the country would be helping and promoting charities if they got £345 million for it, which is the true cost of the monarchy, much more than they'd have us believe.

Are you seriously in awe of what they do, i mean what do you think they should be doing for the enormous amount they get, sit there twiddling their thumbs all day? Try not to be taken in by it all. They cost us a fortune.

there is no civil list anymore

Oh, for heaven's sake. No there isn't, but there is a pretty much identical arrangement called the Sovereign Grant. The only real difference is that the Civil List was reign-specific, whereas the SG is permanent. It is £76 million for 2017-18, and of course is in addition to the incomes from their own considerable investments and estates.

This, from a republican advocacy group, is from 2017, and makes nonsense of the argument that the monarchy brings in more tourism and trade money than it costs, because the SG fails to cover security costs for the RF:

www.republic.org.uk/sites/default/files/Royal-Expenses-Report-2017_0.pdf

I agree with the OP. Even though I am only British by heritage. For some reason the RF seem to be an anchor to my ancestors'past

It is part of the past. But we can't always live in the past.

For me, it doesn't matter if they bring in 'more money' than they cost - even if that is debatable.

It's about democracy and not having the Head of State passed down within one family. There are so many things wrong with that concept.

I do find it strange that people argue that it's right to have an unelected Head of State that runs in one family and yet be fans of democracy. It's not democracy.

Oh, for heaven's sake. No there isn't, but there is a pretty much identical arrangement called the Sovereign Grant.

I know. I didn't like the condescending reply, which happened to be wrong, so I replied in kind.

Marchin1988: The Queen is head of state in Australia and Canada, but the de facto head is the GG, which effectively is effectively ceremonial

Until you get get a GG like John Kerr who brought about Australia's constitutional crisis in 1975.

Sorry - that should be marchin1984.

I do find it strange that people argue that it's right to have an unelected Head of State that runs in one family and yet be fans of democracy. It's not democracy

I think people like myself see it somewhere in the middle. Look, we have 'democracy' and I'm still disenfranchised as fuck. We have food banks, while our elected heads claim expenses for their biscuits! The gap between those who have and those who don't gets wider by the day. Young people are pretty much getting shafted too.

And this is with democracy. It really doesn't feel like its working much in a positive way where I'm standing.

And frankly, we've seen increasingly that democracy is pretty much defined by the Daily Mail, Telegragh, Guardian or take your pick! Our elected officials dance to whatever king-making device they're played
The Brexit debacle is a shining example.

So really, I can't get meaningfully annoyed about the Royals. At least they're nice to look at, and they do a lot of good. Prince Charles Trust and the Edinburgh Award has done more to help ease inequality and engender a sense of confidence among young people than this present government has.

I think the Queen proved her usefulness during the Grenfell travesty. There was outright animosity for politicians, but her presence was above all that and served as a reminder that although they were downtrodden, they were important in the eyes of their sovereign and the highest ranking family in the country. That was great and I think helped ease serious tension.

I have more respect for the Queen than any politician. And the fact I'm talking this nonsense is testament to how bad things have become.

We could get rid of them tomorrow, and the country still wouldn't be a fairer place. You trust this lot to be fair? Nope.

This thread makes me embarrassed to to be British! Bunch of Googling housewives.

You're Disenfranchised with the inequality in the country but want to keep the largest figure head that reinforces this and keeps the wealth concentrated within a few people

Until you get get a GG like John Kerr who brought about Australia's constitutional crisis in 1975.

someone somewhere made a bad decision. Nothing about the monarchy follows.

I think the Queen proved her usefulness during the Grenfell travesty. There was outright animosity for politicians, but her presence was above all that and served as a reminder that although they were downtrodden, they were important in the eyes of their sovereign and the highest ranking family in the country.

so, she is good at placating people angry after a tragedy, without really meaningfully affect it. Well, she could. Apparently we could replace all the cladding and then some on affected buildings with the sovereign grant.

Of course the queen had to do something for grenfell. I think people would be lightly pissed off if someone we pay millions to didn't do anything.

Yep. The Queen did an excellent job of deflecting some of the righteous anger that was being directed at the Government. Gawd Bless 'er.

There was outright animosity for politicians, but her presence was above all that and served as a reminder that although they were downtrodden, they were important in the eyes of their sovereign and the highest ranking family in the country

Important temporarily, a useful distraction for the Government and K&C council who still have Grenfell residents in temp accommodation waiting for suitable local housing.

I think the Queen proved her usefulness during the Grenfell travesty. There was outright animosity for politicians, but her presence was above all that and served as a reminder that although they were downtrodden, they were important in the eyes of their sovereign

If there was outright animosity for politicians there should have been equal animosity for the elitist royal family....a family quite happy to be at the receiving end of huge privilege and wealth whilst at the opposite side of the scale the poor continue to get poorer and have to live in such death traps as Grenfell because of the governments callous disregard. The queen shows her "concern" for her subjects by showing her presence in a tragedy that should never have happened, but at he same time quite happy for the government to bail out £369 million for her crumbling palace. The absolute hypocrisy is astounding. That all those lives were lost because of the governments failure to make those buildings safe but have absolutely no problem throwing millions at the queens home is obscene.

The queens "concern" only runs as far as putting on a sympathetic face and offfering a few words of comfort. How hard can that be, as a monarch she couldn't have done much less.

The palace PR works well, people fooled into thinking they're special. Job done. It's all about preserving the monarchy, why are people so gullible.

The callous disregard is shared by every single Labour-run council in Britain, they all used the same cladding.

Exactly Abra1de. And whether or not Grenfell survivors are in permanent accommodation is probably not the best measure of the Grenfell response. Looking at how many of all K&C’s tenants are now in safe, up to standard accommodation should be more important than a small subgroup having specific, exacting requirements met/