To think the royal family should end at the queen

[Letshaveablackcelebration]

I have respect for the Queen’s sense of duty but I do genuinely believe that it’s time for a conversation about the royal family. Honestly, who cares about the coming King Charles- is that really right? People mostly respect the queen but not the rest of them.

I read this article and I was one of those who thought their interview showed up some horrible stuff- there are clearly issues with the royals

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/13/prince-harry-royal-family-like-being-in-the-truman-show

Apart from all of the drama, I don’t think that we should be funding a royal family with tax payers money when the country is in such a state & the queen is literally one of the richest women in the world. I know royals in other countries are funded differently. The fact that the tories are mooting the idea of spending millions of public money on a ne boat to remember Prince Philip is a classic example.

Aibu?

That's s perfectly fair view.

Of course we've had plenty of elected politicians who were paedophiles.

@Letshaveablackcelebration

Not nescessarily the Prime Minister *@Quincie* but we could look at other models where people are elected like in Ireland or France (obviously not advocating for guilotines to get there though)

Cos elections are really a thing Britain has been good at lately!!!

We'd end up with some vacuous celeb or influencer!

No thanks, would rather have Royals to represent the Country.

Of course we've had plenty of elected politicians who were paedophiles.

Sure, but you could get rid of them.

If you had ended up with Andrew, you would have been stuck with him til he died. Because that’s the whole point of monarchy. And it’s not that far fetched either, all it would have taken would be Charles failing to have kids.

I'd vote for rylan now you come to mention it.

Politicians are accountable to the public, kings are not. If you'd rather trust sheer chance than the electoral process and are happy to potentially end up with a disgraceful king that you can't do anything about as a voter, then democracy isn't for you.

@Hanidjed7 And what makes you think royals are less vacuous than random celebrities or influencers? Because of the posh accent and titles?

Erm

President's and prime ministers have done bonkers stuff recently and it's become clear that it's nigh on impossible to actually get rid of them if they just say nope in the face of all the evidence!

We haven't had a royal actually veto a law or anything for yonks have we?!

I'm just meh about the whole thing. Maybe a royalist type could respond as well. That might help.

President's and prime ministers have done bonkers stuff recently and it's become clear that it's nigh on impossible to actually get rid of them if they just say nope in the face of all the evidence!

You turf them out when their term is over.

Something you don’t get to do with monarchy.

[quote Frezia]@Hanidjed7 And what makes you think royals are less vacuous than random celebrities or influencers? Because of the posh accent and titles? [/quote]
Really! Nothing to do with accent or titles; education, manners, well spoken, think (or appear to) before they speak, dress accordingly.

Compared to some 'sleb' who doesn't know that the letter 'T' even exists, that wears inappropriate clothing, that thinks it's all about them. You'd rather be represented by someone like that!

Compared to some 'sleb' who doesn't know that the letter 'T' even exists, that wears inappropriate clothing, that thinks it's all about them. You'd rather be represented by someone like that!

Not all slebs are like that. How strange.

But even taking this at face value, the picture you paint is definitely not worse than Andrew. Or do you disagree?

Really! Nothing to do with accent or titles; education, manners, well spoken, think (or appear to) before they speak, dress accordingly.

Compared to some 'sleb' who doesn't know that the letter 'T' even exists, that wears inappropriate clothing, that thinks it's all about them. You'd rather be represented by someone like that!

You come across as a snob. I'd rather be represented by someone intelligent and thoughtful. How they speak is neither here nor there.

Someone suggested on another thread a while back about our country being represented by our Nobel Laureates on a rotational basis. There is all types of specailisms within this system, ranging from Physics, Literature, Chemistry to Economics.

There's plenty of very worthy people who have received a Nobel prize and I think that's a great idea.

If having Standards makes me a snob then yes.

Being okay with Andrew is ‘having standards’

Wow 😵

I thought having standards would include getting paedos prosecuted but I guess YMMV.

I need a definition of ‘standards’

It obviously means something different than I thought 🤔

Also am wondering about "standards" in the context of an unemployed adulterer chatting about how much he wants to be a tampon.

Standards... well... a person can be as posh, well spoken, private school educated as they like and they can still be an arse. Look at Boris for instance, posh as they come. Yet he is a serial philanderer with a child he doesn't acknowledge. Oh and he's economical with the truth.

I really don't want posh or well spoken or any of that. I want honest, principled and true. (hence my Laureate suggestion!)

I honestly think being a member of the RF fucks you up (not their fault), so I just don't think they are suitable.

I used to be a Republican when I was younger but successive PMs have persuaded me of the value of a Head of State who is not a politician. Presidents cost much more and the Royal Family is part of the tapestry of our tourism. So, no.

People need to educate themselves on different presidential models.

You can absolutely have a president that isn’t a politician.

You can also have a model that’s very cost effective. Again, see Ireland. Their president costs very little.

It is totally incorrect to assume that all presidencies are like France or the US

I really don't feel Harry's motivation is to free his dad and brother. There is nothing altruistic in anything he is doing.

Maybe Charles has been reading our thread....

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/16/charles-to-open-up-palaces-to-the-public-when-he-becomes-king-reports

I've been banging on about this for days now, so glad Charles is listening to me

However, I'm a bit taken aback with the Times headline...
King Charles to open palaces for the people
Heir consults family over greater public access

Last time I looked the Queen was still around

I've been banging on about this for days now, so glad Charles is listening to me

Haha, nice one

@OneFamilyToRuleUsAll

I still maintain it's a backwards culture. You can call it small curtsey all you like and claim people choose to because they've written you don't have to. That's the conditioning speaking. Can you imagine if Meghan chose not to? That's how you know you still have to - written or not.

Who cares what Meghan does. It’s not like she’ll be in that position to curtesy or not ever again

Well done Rousette