Could this be the end of the Royal family?

[BeijingBikini]

I don't mean if they die of the virus...

But there's nothing like a lockdown to really highlight inequality. I saw an article yesterday about Kate + William "isolating" at Anmer Hall, having done a photoshoot where they pretend to be on the telephone and writing ("working").

I think if people are going to have to spend months at home, in small flats with kids, still going out to work or trying to WFH, queueing for supermarkets with empty shelves......that could definitely breed some discontent. Or if people catch it and have to be treated in makeshift hospitals, not getting an ambulance until they're struggling to breathe, while the RF can be whisked away to a private hospital for treatment. I've already seen a lot of comments along the lines of "why don't they offer up their many palaces to be used as hospitals, rather than doing newspaper articles".

Opinions?

Haha. Bring on the revolution.

Lifeisabeach09, sorry yes I know you were being sarcastic, apologies that I didn't make this clear. I don't believe it for a minute either, we hear all about their good works, however trivial, after all.

The idea of Queen Camilla is on it's own completely enough for me to hope for the death of the monarchy once HM passes on.

Clavinova - I'm afraid you really just sound like a loon. Not saying you are one, just that you come across like one on here.

I am still waiting for a well reasoned argument in favour of monarchy but don't believe it exists.

Let's not forget that the close friendship of many royals with Jimmy Savile greatly assisted him in hiding in plain sight to abuse sick children in their hospital beds (just for that I hope he is burning in Hell now btw).

If you or I had had a close friendship with a creature like that we would expect to be questioned and scrutinised about it. 'Prince' Andrew has deservedly had his reputation damaged by his association with Epstein although of course he will never have to account for his actions in a courtroom.

But of course the publicity about Andrew has taken the focus off all the Royals' other friendships with perverts and paedophiles.

And btw the Palace opposed retroactive stripping Savile of his knighthood: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/palace-opposed-stripping-jimmy-savile-of-knighthood-after-his-death-bf3d3qlgf

You swear a lot for an officer's wife

Clavinova I have to assume that you were never a wife at Staff College yourself! Dream on!

Wolfgirrl
I see now why you like the Irish head of state. grin

"After praising Fidel Castro, Michael D Higgins becomes first Irish statesman to visit Cuba."

www.thejournal.ie/michael-d-higgins-cuba-3239200-Feb2017/

What the fuck has this got to do with anything? I'm starting to suspect that Clavinova is a bot. I really am.

On another thread, this same Clavinova told me I didn't exist....

I am still waiting for a well reasoned argument in favour of monarchy but don't believe it exists.

I thought the Charities Aid Foundation argument was pretty good;

"The Royal Family are an incredible force for good when it comes to supporting charities.Royal patronage adds status to an organisation as well as giving them some much needed publicity, but perhaps most importantly it can have a positive effect on donations."

"CAF [Charities Aid Foundation] research shows that these royal patronages can be vital for charities, with one in eight people saying that the patronage of a member of the royal family makes us more inclined to give money to a charity."

"If you add that to our research from 2012 which showed that charities of which the Queen is patron raised more than £1.4 billion every year, it becomes clear that having a royal name atop one’s charity is a big deal."

"The royals are afforded both a platform and an audience simply because of who they are. We cannot underestimate the impact that has when they use that platform to promote charities. All of a sudden a charity can find itself on the BBC, the Daily Mail, plastered across Twitter–attention that it may not have been able to garner by itself."

"The Prince of Wales, who founded the Prince’s Trust more than 40 years ago, has dedicated much of his life to supporting charitable organisations.The Trust alone has helped over 825,000 young people across the UK since its inception, and quite easily raises upwards of £60 million every year to keep it running."

www.alliancemagazine.org/blog/charities-should-be-thankful-for-royal-philanthropy/

Clavinova - I'm afraid you really just sound like a loon.

On another thread, this same Clavinova told me I didn't exist

I don't remember that at all - what did I say exactly?

And btw the Palace opposed retroactive stripping Savile of his knighthood

Your article is behind a paywall for me but another source suggests that royal officials and the cabinet office didn't want to amend the rules to allow posthumous stripping of a knighthood because it might open the floodgates - if they amended the rules for one person they would have to do it for others;

^"2012 Jimmy Savile cannot be stripped of knighthood, say officials.
David Cameron raises prospect of presenter losing honour, but Cabinet Office says people cease to hold title after they die."^

www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/09/jimmy-savile-knighthood

goodbyestranger

I'm wondering if you have mixed me up with someone else - I certainly believe you have multiple children/grammar school etc. etc...

I couldn't recall the exact words Clavinova but there were lots of things and aspersions cast as to how many DC I actually have and how many went to which uni etc. I'm not offended or anything, just thought well that's fucking batshit crazy etc but hey :) (Shrivenham and Camberley Class of 199*).

goodbyestranger
Well it certainly wasn't me.

Cross post. No Clavinova I think I recall it was you. On the Oxbridge 2020 thread to the best of my knowledge (although you disappeared fairly early on tbf). And please, I really couldn't give a fig, just adding to what others have said.

Ok well let's leave it there and continue with the premise that the monarchy are a total waste of space :) More interesting tbh.

On the Oxbridge 2020 thread
Nonsense.

So true OP, tbh I hadn't given it much thought until I saw this thread but it's actually quite a pisstake!

I am sure that many people see Hedge Fund Managers as parasites, but have we been treated to pictures of them 'working', or seen pictures of their children 'leading' the clapping in the daytime for something which happened after dark?

I thought Cuba had an oversupply of Doctors, who they are prepared to send to other parts of the world, where the need arises.

What is wrong with that?

'Your article is behind a paywall for me but another source suggests that royal officials and the cabinet office didn't want to amend the rules to allow posthumous stripping of a knighthood because it might open the floodgates - if they amended the rules for one person they would have to do it for others'

There is enough of the article accessible to get to the point even with the paywall. There are also a lot of precedents for stripping individuals of honours. The notion that posthumously stripping Savile of his knighthood would 'open the floodgates' implies there are many other unworthy recipients of honours as well.

But you go ahead and make a case for supporting the Palace in their determination that Savile should keep his knighthood. It just reflects really poorly on them. Never mind the feelings of his many many victims, or the public outcry eh?

The notion that posthumously stripping Savile of his knighthood would 'open the floodgates' implies there are many other unworthy recipients of honours as well.

I thought the same. In that case, the Palace ought to do more thorough checks.

I thought the same. In that case, the Palace ought to do more thorough checks.

Well I suppose it depends on how far you go back - there are all sorts of petitions to remove statues etc.

Peregrina
In that case, the Palace ought to do more thorough checks.

Oh yes, Sir Cyril Smith - he was a Liberal [Democrat] MP wasn't he - shifty lot.

So the main reason for the royals seems to be 'charities'
Then again charities are things which have to exist because of the failings of government/democracy, so you could say that royalty is looking after its own interests there by legitimising institutions which don't really in line with the ethos of democracy, philanthropy is inclined to be (in part at least) an indulgence of the philanthropist ... is it not?

@Clavinova more deflection.

@UYScuti that's a very interesting point, I never considered that.

Yep when you boil it all down, theres a vague argument about charities and not much else. I think the idea that the royals are a solid bunch who have a steadying effect on the country has been well and truly lost in their scandals over the years.

If I hear one reasonable argument, supported by fact, as to why they serve a useful purpose that could not be fulfilled by anyone else, I will accept it. But there simply isnt one.