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.

@TrueCrimeWave

Presumed innocent until proven guilty is simply a legal principle within criminal trials to the effect that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution

It ought also to be how decent people react when others are accused of wrongdoing.

No need to “presume innocence” but a simple benefit of the doubt would be sufficient.

But I suppose “paedo prince” is a much more exciting narrative for the hard-of-thinking.

Let’s be honest here and say he didn’t do himself any favours when he gave that interview on TV and he really didn’t come across very well at all or even likeable but that doesn’t mean he is Guilty of a crime.

They are an embarrassment. Andrew has always been an entitled, grade A cunt, I'm old enough to remember him turning a paint sprayer on photographers, ruining thousands of pounds worth of equipment and clothing and laughing as he did so.
I was at uni in the early 80s at the same time as a minor royal, and the money spent on his security (24 hour armed guards, bullet proof glass and bomb proof doors in his student accommodation) was eye watering.
I've always seen it as a major character flaw in the queen that she has such a blind spot when it comes to Andrew.

@girlmom21

We don't pay for them, realistically. They bring in more money in tourism etc than they'll ever cost us.

My understanding is that people the same money would come in regardless of whether or not we have a royal family. Tourists do not come to meet the Queen. They come to look around palaces etc. They could still do this with no royal family.

What about, how embarrassing some of the uk's general publics behaviour is at times ? Especially when viewed by other countries ?

@ancientgran But you actually aren't free to say he is guilty, that's why they have slander and libel laws.

Of course I’m free to say I think he’s guilty in my everyday life. If I say it publicly in the media which includes social media, that’s when defamation laws kick in.

Even so, legally I’m entitled to my ‘honest opinion’.

Andrew should accept service via his solicitors and just deal with the legal case (like everyone else has to). Don't understand why the Queen hasn't told him he must do this.
Charles has been selling access for years and I am surprised it has taken so long for people to notice.
As for feeling sorry for the Queen, I get what people mean. But she did bring these men up, so she is somewhat implicated in their crappy value systems.

@Sagaz

how can they skip Charles though?

I think what will happen is that Charles will not live to be as old as his mother. his reign will be shorter and William will take the helm at about 52 -54

What helm?

@Hawkins001

Have you researched how they have and what they have contributed to our society?

You can’t, that’s the problem. It’s impossible to quantify how many tourists come to London purely because we have a RF or whether they would come anyway. It’s impossible to really say how much money things like ‘royal weddings’ generate. It’s all one big estimate. Versus the known enormous cost of keeping them.

The crown hints that Andrew is the favourite child. Wonder if that is true in rl. Seems to be. Love the fact that show dosn't sugar coat the royals completely.

I don't understand the argument that the RF contribute to tourism. If we didn't have a RF we would still have tourists.
Tourists still visit Versailles...,

[quote Realyorkshiretea]@Hawkins001

Have you researched how they have and what they have contributed to our society?

You can’t, that’s the problem. It’s impossible to quantify how many tourists come to London purely because we have a RF or whether they would come anyway. It’s impossible to really say how much money things like ‘royal weddings’ generate. It’s all one big estimate. Versus the known enormous cost of keeping them.[/quote]
Fair point

I grow up not a royal fan, then had a brief interest in them in my early 20s thinking it better system than the USA president. At that time my in-laws were vvvv royalist. Now like everyone I know I not bothered and think the whole thing should stop at the queen. Even my ultra royalist fil says the same. It's just become a circus recently. Andy is hiding behind his mother and security instead. Harry seems to just want to be nasty about his family...the fact he did this whilst his 99 year old grandfather was dying is just awful behaviour. The whole lot is an embarrassment and although I've commented on here I can't even be bothered to read anything on the royal family now. Not that anything I say or do effect anything. Just not interested now.

Have you researched how they have and what they have contributed to our society?

Countries like France attract millions of tourists and they are a Republic. Versailles attracts countless visitors without a royal in sight. People are as likely to go to see the Eiffel Tower, Notre Dame and the Museums. Likewise the USA - people falling over themselves to get to Disneyland while we think we have to perpetuate a human Disneyland attraction called The Royal Family. The USA has enough 'celebs' and movie stars to keep the interest of the public and the tabloids in 'hair, dress, new babies etc. Russia, likewise - countless visitors to the Hermitage and other old palaces - no Royals.

In the UK we have enough world class museums, stately homes, NT properties and castles to keep the tourists coming all through the year. The Edinburgh Tattoo is always sold out if we want to see impressive military displays.

The laugh is the royals don't want to see the public - can't flee their residences fast enough when visitors arrive. Nobody actually thinks they will see the Queen when they visit Buckingham Palace. She can't wait to get away from the place!

There is no doubt tourists will flock to see the attractions of the UK, with or without the Royals.

These lists vary, but are remarkable consistent with the top countries to live in:

ceoworld.biz/2021/06/20/the-worlds-best-countries-for-quality-of-life-2021/

This one has Finland, a republic, on top, but Denmark and Norway also regularly take the top spot, both constitutional monarchies.

Other CMs in the top 12: Belgium, Sweden, Netherlands, Japan, UK and Canada. Other lists include Australia, New Zealand and Luxembourg, more well-governed constitutional monarchies.

Worst countries in the world, all republics:

worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/worst-countries-to-live-in

The terrible monarchies to live in are all undemocratic absolute monarchies.

Have you researched how they have and what they have contributed to our society ?

Can you expand on this?

I don't buy the whole 'they bring in tourist money' thing. I mean, how do we know why people are coming to the UK? Does someone stand at Heathrow with a clipboard, or is this statement just based on footfall at the sites with royal connections like the Tower of London etc. If the latter, then as several PPs have said, France seem to manage fine without any actual royals in place. Surely the draw of these sites is the history, not the present day.

This one has Finland, a republic, on top, but Denmark and Norway also regularly take the top spot, both constitutional monarchies.

I’m not sure how far correlation takes us. Countries with monarchies also tend to have long standing wealth, education provision and functioning systems of government, mostly by virtue of being western.

If a country isn’t functioning, for whatever reason, and has a monarchy, revolutions against that monarchy are common. The monarchy can be disbanded without fixing the multiple other issues.

It just strikes me as very childish and insecure to want a monarchy. I get that they were important in the Middle Ages when that kind of stability was very useful, but now? What grown up wants to unquestioningly hand such degrees of power and wealth to the deeply ordinary Windsor’s?

Why? Do they believe in divine providence? The importance of ‘blood’? I don’t understand why an intelligent person in the 21st century would think like that.

Even if ‘they bring in tourist revenue’ was true (it isn’t), it’s not exactly a stellar argument for holding on to medieval and undemocratic modes of government, now is it?

If Edward is permitted to evade these court papers by simply hiding behind his security, it surely sets a very worrying legal precedent. The UK courts need to step in on this matter & cooperate with the US court, who believe the papers were properly served. If the UK courts agree he will not be able to continue to deny the matter.

TheKeatingFive

In Norway's case it is new money from North Sea Oil, very wisely managed in a sovereign wealh fund and not frittered on sustaining mass unemployment to drive down workers' terms and conditions like UK in the 80s.

Or take the example of Canada vs the USA. The existence of an established system of loyalty and law meant the Canadian frontier was a very different experience to that south of the border. Settlement was never allowed to run ahead of the law, negating the Turner Frontier Thesis that explains so much about the USA.

When Sitting Bull and his warriors came north to 'The Land of the Grandmother' after the Little Big Horn fearing for their lives, they were visited by a single constable who told them they were welcome to stay, but the cattle were private property and if any were killed there would be a fine to pay.

The existence of an established system of loyalty and law meant the Canadian frontier was a very different experience to that south of the border. Settlement was never allowed to run ahead of the law, negating the Turner Frontier Thesis that explains so much about the USA.

Again correlation. There will have been multiple factors contributing that that. How strange to simply attribute it to one thing.

Plus the relevance of this 200 year old example seems rather limited to our 21st century existence.

In Norway's case it is new money from North Sea Oil, very wisely managed in a sovereign wealh fund and not frittered on sustaining mass unemployment to drive down workers' terms and conditions like UK in the 80s.

The U.K. also has a monarchy though. I don’t understand what point you’re even trying to make here.

You were the one who said these countries had long-standing wealth. Not in Norway's case, a relatively young nation that only gained its independence from Sweden in 1905, and chose to retain a monarchy.

You were the one who said these countries had long-standing wealth. Not in Norway's case, a relatively young nation that only gained its independence from Sweden in 1905, and chose to retain a monarchy.

I don’t think there’s any point in this rabbit hole (do you?) but Norway has never been a ‘poor’ county in global terms, though yes, oil wealth changed its status considerably compared to its wealthy peer group.

I really don’t know where this is getting us.

@Hawkins001 yes I do read and I am well informed thanks for asking

@TheKeatingFive

Even if ‘they bring in tourist revenue’ was true (it isn’t), it’s not exactly a stellar argument for holding on to medieval and undemocratic modes of government, now is it?

Exactly. I mean, if Fred and Rose West’s house had been left standing and turned into a museum, it would have brought in tourists, but that in no way makes it a good idea.