To think the royal family are a bloody embarrassment

[MariaAngustias]

Just that - why are we paying for this bunch when we could be spending the money on essential services? Let the Queen continue then after her just get rid of the whole bloody lot of them. We have and alleged paedo, a whinging multi millionaire in his 30's moaning constantly, an allegedly corrupt heir to the throne meeting dodgy russians for money....... just go, enough. Seriously - this is all Jeremy Kyle for poshos.

I don’t need telling about the monarchy, I know how it works, but I am allowed an opinion.
Not all posts need a reply.

I'm sure I've read an article somewhere that Charles will not automatically become the Head of the Commonwealth after the Queen dies. Commonwealth leaders are apparently saying they'll elect their next head

No ... they were making those sort of noises, but that's when the Queen stepped in to say it was her "sincere wish" that Charles follow her www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43820328

Imagine how embarrassing it must be to have mummy plead for a job for you - except embarrassment doesn't seem to come into it where his own wants are concerned

I like the queen and I think William and Kate will do a great job.

Yes there are some embarrassing family members - but isn't there in most families?

The republic movement is small and our political system is stable. Governments come and go and can be toppled but the monarchy give us stability. The monarchy is not going anywhere - just yet.

Also republics cost a shit load more than monarchy . Have a look at what the French and Italian President cost a year I think the Italian president costs nearly £200 MILLION a year. Where as the UK monarchy costs around £80 Milliion and £69 million of that was on official duties. The Monarchy does bring a lot of money around £19 BILLION according to Forbes, and that offsets what they actually cost us.

Countries with monarchies are less corrupt. I know some British people like to hate the U.K but we fair a lot better than most republics which are riddled with corruption and severe abuse of power and money.

On a whole the monarchy does stabilise us.

I'd actually prefer it to skip over Charles and go straight to William but it is what it is.

So whilst in the age of SM where every one is under scrutiny - and they should. Just because there are a few bad apples that shouldn't sway people to risk losing the stability we have.

or (god forbid!) a Catholic involved in the succession

I think that rule has now been rescinded.

When it was still in place, significance was attached to the fact that Camilla married a Roman Catholic (Andrew P-B), but didn't convert herself.

Agreed, we should get rid of them all. No need for them at all. We should have an elected leader like America do.

This argument doesn't hold. We'd make far more money from tourism if the royal palaces were open to tourists. People pay to visit Versailles etc. And no the royals don't really own those palaces. They didn't build or pay for them from their own private income, they have no moral right to them. Almost all crown assets should go back to the state when we finally get rid of this weird antiquated system

A quick google will clear up your confusion regarding Royal Palaces and other residences not being open to tourists.

Britain is a small country with beautiful and varied countryside, vibrant cities, and spectacular scenery within a relatively small distance of everything else. We’re never going to lack visiting tourism.

@SquirryTheSquirrel

or (god forbid!) a Catholic involved in the succession

I think that rule has now been rescinded.

When it was still in place, significance was attached to the fact that Camilla married a Roman Catholic (Andrew P-B), but didn't convert herself.

I was thinking more of James Stuart, but I’m glad of at least one nod to modernity.

@DismantledKing

Britain is a small country with beautiful and varied countryside, vibrant cities, and spectacular scenery within a relatively small distance of everything else. We’re never going to lack visiting tourism.

I agree that Britain will never lack tourism but people do really need to stop kidding themselves that the Royals don’t bring money into the country.

@SquirryTheSquirrel

or (god forbid!) a Catholic involved in the succession

I think that rule has now been rescinded.

When it was still in place, significance was attached to the fact that Camilla married a Roman Catholic (Andrew P-B), but didn't convert herself.

The rule forbidding the heir from marrying a Catholic has been rescinded, but because the monarch is Supreme Governer of the Church of England, obviously they have to be a member of said church.

@Rosehip10

Beatrice and Eugenie are absolute airheads.

They may be, but they don't receive any public funding, so I'm not bothered about them.

@VladmirsPoutine

How about a national lottery for who's family next becomes Royal - they could have it for 5 years or something till the next lottery and the next family wins.

That's a fabulous idea!

It would make a good concept for a comedy drama series.

@Hogwarts4Christmas

YADNBU, I can't stand the monarchy and think all their assets Inc money, property, etc, should be surrendered to the state and, bar the Queen, Phillip and Prince Charles (only due to age), the rest of them should all have to start working for a living and pay their own way.

All the money from the Crown estate, etc, should be used to fund essential services such as NHS, cheaper public transport, etc.

If you go back far enough their riches stem from taxing ordinary people and landgrabbing, etc, anyway so I don't see it as 'their money/properties' and I do think it should be restored back to the public.

Tourists would still come because the Palaces, etc, would still be there, same as people still visit Versailles, etc, so that's not a valid excuse. It's not like they get to meet the Queen when they're looking around Buckingham Palace.

Realistically what jobs do you think they would do though? They don’t need to work, they’re all privately wealthy. They’d either just retire to the country to ride and shoot things or end up on the talk show circuit likes the Sussexes (and who needs more over privileged whining on tv?!)

The money we pay them wouldn’t make a a blip in what’s needed for the NHS so that a dead end argument.

I’ve never understood the Versailles argument - part of its appeal is down to the excesses of the French court and the way they behaved while their subjects were literally starving. It’s massively entwined with the downfall of the French monarchy and the bloody revolution.

Buck house that the queen has voluntarily handed back to us whilst she sits safe and well at some other residence doesn’t have quite the same cachet does it? Without queenie it just becomes a big house in London with nice architecture.

When it comes down to Andrew, I don’t believe a single person on this forum wouldn’t use every legal means possible to avoid being sentenced in the US. Maybe I don’t have as nice a view of humanity as the rest of you but could people really, honestly say, that if they were in that position they would have handed themselves over if they didn’t have to? I don’t believe they would.

Add that in to the fact that there’s a definite proportion of the population who doesn’t believe he’s done anything wrong, because “she was 17 so it’s legal, she wore a short skirt so she was asking for it and well why didn’t she just say no” - you only have to look at the conviction rate for rape in this country to know that generally people believe the victims did something to deserve it.

@Hogwarts4Christmas

YADNBU, I can't stand the monarchy and think all their assets Inc money, property, etc, should be surrendered to the state and, bar the Queen, Phillip and Prince Charles (only due to age), the rest of them should all have to start working for a living and pay their own way.

All the money from the Crown estate, etc, should be used to fund essential services such as NHS, cheaper public transport, etc.

If you go back far enough their riches stem from taxing ordinary people and landgrabbing, etc, anyway so I don't see it as 'their money/properties' and I do think it should be restored back to the public.

Tourists would still come because the Palaces, etc, would still be there, same as people still visit Versailles, etc, so that's not a valid excuse. It's not like they get to meet the Queen when they're looking around Buckingham Palace.

I think we can excuse Phillip from getting a job 😬

I needs to be cut right back, Just as a previous poster says keep it at the Queen, Charles, William, George.

I do think the royals and Buck Palace and all the weird pageantry that surrounds them that you don't see elsewhere is a genuine tourist draw. But I don't think that's a good reason for keeping them on.

@BoredZelda

Trump held power for 4 years before he could be voted out, which he was thankfully. But still 4 years to wait and vote him out.

Only 4 years but the damage he has done will take a very long time to sort out. If anyone thinks they got rid of Trump, look at the current Republican GOP. Add to that what he did to the Supreme Court. Look at what is happening with HR 1, and with Texas’ new abortion laws. These are all a result of Trump and the resulting Trumpism and will change the face of the US for decades to come. “Just vote them out” is meaningless.

look what Biden has done in less than a year - your arguments are so one-sided just because you do not like Trump The democrats are in power and far, far worse.

Absolutely agree with majority here. I cannot stomach the idea of such a self entitled twat as Charles being monarch plus his work shy mistress as Queen. I’m sure there were mutterings at the time she wouldn’t be given that status but I’m sure he’ll insist, have a major tantrum and stamp his (hand made Loake shod) feet - or get a Butler to do on his behalf.

They’re all a rum bunch; 24 hour Golf playing Andrew - always at someone else’s expense or under guise of ‘duty’. He’s never felt the need to explain how he sold his house (gifted by the Queen) for vastly inflated price to Kazakh Oligarch - I wonder what the latter was expecting in return? His pointless kids being housed in grace and favour apartments within Palaces. His wife (beard) will do anything to cling onto her title of ‘Duchess’ (no one’s going to notice HRH is missing, right?). That’s before we get onto Edwards’s fake money making enterprises, his wife being caught out by Fake Sheik for cash for contacts, let alone the vile Kents .

@Comedycook

I like the Queen. She is an excellent monarch. I think William and Kate will do a great job.

I think we should keep them for entertainment value...it's the best real life soap opera ever.

I completely agree. It’s worth £2 a year of my money.

That's a fabulous idea!

It would make a good concept for a comedy drama series.

I can think of a couple who’d make a bloody good go of it.

The continuing mystery is the lack of curiosity about Ghilaine Maxwell's role in trafficking underage women to the UK for sexual exploitation, which is and more importantly was a crime at the time

Most of what we know has been rehashed pretty thoroughly but it's gone quiet now she's in jug. Ther will be plenty of interest once her trial starts.

The rule forbidding the heir from marrying a Catholic has been rescinded, but because the monarch is Supreme Governer of the Church of England, obviously they have to be a member of said church.

Yes - presumably the children of such a marriage would either have to be brought up in the Church of England or convert before accession to the throne.

That's another aspect of the monarchy that's out of date. Head of the CofE should be a clerical role, not a royal role. The Archbishop of Canterbury would be a more sensible choice. Ridiculous that this has stuck all the way from Henry VIII's wealth-grab from Rome and unwillingness to bribe the Pope for divorces.

I don't actually care whether William and Kate do a great job or not. How hard is it to shake hands with people anyway?

@TatianaBis

I don't actually care whether William and Kate do a great job or not. How hard is it to shake hands with people anyway?

Don’t forget the waving aspect. Very tough on the wrists.

I think the way the RF (well the Queen really) has harboured Prince Andrew is utterly digraceful tbh and it has finally settled any final doubts I had about becoming a republican. Yes she loves her son but in the past she was known for putting duty before family. Why in this case particularly out of all cases has that changed?

You can't have a royal family subsidised by the public purse and preach noble Christian values on the one hand, and then harbour someone alleged to have committed serious sexual misdemeanours on the other. The RF either embraces the public nature of their role and remains open and accountable or they don't. They can't have it both ways to suit the circumstances. The hypocrisy is astounding.