I am confused........

Franbern No-one has called H&M 'scum' and it was their actions that caused dislike of them, not just the marriage and leaving the UK. Have you been living under a rock, did you miss the Oprah interview etc. etc.

Must say I have been amused at the public adoration at the little Louis being a difficult toddler. How the British public do love these cheeky young Princes ans Priuncesses - until they grow up and have the same actions and even dare to go off and marry a foreign girl/boy and even then leave UK!!! Then, instead of being 'cheeky' - they become scum111

Bridgeit

Good post Monica

Yes, Monica, very good post.

Good post Monica

Not only does the Queen read her red boxes on holiday, she also receives official envoys and has a variety of people she probably would rather avoid coming to stay. For example can you imagine anything more tedious that having Tony and Cherie Blair tor to stay.

But all these discussions are pointless, I hav every respect for people who believe we should be a republic and can argue their case sensibly and cogently.

This general and silly abuse of the Royal Family as individiduals, is silly and puerile and devalues the republican cause.

I have no doubt that she reads everything carefully. And you’re lucky not to have to work when on holiday. It was a regular thing for me.

Germanshepherdsmum

Whenever she had a holiday she always had her Red Boxes Glorianny, with the sole exception, I read, of Easter Day.

I always take loads of books with me when I go on holiday and carry one with me everywhere. When I don't want to socialise an open book is a great way to put people off. Perhaps HM uses her red boxes instead.
But I have no doubt she reads the contents with care when there's something coming up which might impact on her personally, like tax, or environmental protection, and gets onto her solicitor immediately.

Whenever she had a holiday she always had her Red Boxes Glorianny, with the sole exception, I read, of Easter Day.

Franbern, I have been thinking about your post all day. I think the word duty has several quite nuanced meanings.

A doctor, nurse, or any other person in work has their duty to their employer, who is paying them,. But that duty is limited to the conditions of employment and hours of work. duty, in the Queens sinse would be when they decide to work longer hours or call in when off duty because of their concern about a patient - and remember, medical staff like the rest of the world can be good bad and indifferent, and some will skive and ignore patients, or leave them waiting for care, just as some will go to great lengths to care and there are enough compensation payments and hospital scandals to show that not every problem can be blamed on inadequste staffing.

The same applies to the Queen, there are certain duties, in the term of things she is expected to do, and is paid for, but her determination to continue to do things well beyond the stage when she could reasonably pack it in and retire to Windsor and only be seen on postage stamps.
can reasonably be defined as committed to doing her duty well beyond what she is paid for - and still doing it very well at 96.

I think it's fairly obvious why we are celebrating this June, by next HM may not be capable of attending anything. As it is whatever they gave her to get her standing on the balcony for Trooping the Colour has obviously to be strictly limited. I wondered at George and Charlotte sitting at the front and centre for last nights concert and then realised they were probably a last minute substitute for HM and ? (Prince Andrew?).
Meanwhile the media continues to build the myth that is the RF and HM. Someone said yesterday that she "had never had a day off" and I wondered about all the time at Sandringham and Balmoral. But it seems to be a myth the British public are embracing this weekend.

We all have choice.

The Queens choices were either abdicate or get on with it.

Duty was drilled into many folks back in the day, that’s not such a bad think but it does have its draw backs.

I do wonder at this 'duty' thingie!!!

Does everyone do their 'duty' by going to do their job?

Doctors, nurses, Health workers, road sweepers, miners, bus and train drivers, teachers, etc. etc.???

Not really sure what is meant by that phrase that seems to be rolled out so often with regard to royals.

MOnica I think you are putting words into my mouth. This is what I wrote.
"I remember watching the Queen and the D of E standing in the freezing cold and rain whilst the flotilla sailed down the Thames in 2012 to celebrate the 60th year of her rein. (that was in the summer!) I felt very sad that such an old couple had to do that, I certainly wouldn't have wanted it for my parents or parents in law! "
Neither my parents or my parents in law would have listened to my opinion but I am still entitled to it. The duke was ill after that trip on the river! My lovely MIL came to my daughter's graduation as a doctor, it was the hottest day of the year, it was a long trip and a long day but it was what she wanted to do and at 94 I felt she was entitled to do what she wanted. I admit I was worried about her but the uni was fantastic, they recognised that she was very old and gave us different seats so she didn't have to climb stairs. She was able to have a very quiet day or two afterwards and we had some lovely photos of the day. She died at home with us aged 101. Would I have been happy about her standing in the cold and rain, no I would not, would I have stopped her, no I would not if that what what she wanted to do. It wouldn't have made me less concerned for her though. Thankfully she didn't have to because she wasn't head of state

foxie48 you are in danger of making that worst of mistakes and thinking that because the Wueen and her late spouse are elderly their children, or those their childrens age , know what is best for them.

The Queen and Prince Philip would have been where they were, inspecting the fleet in the cold and the wet, because they wanted to be there and wanted to continue to be there.

Otherwise the Queen would either have abdicated like Dutch Queens did, or planned a descent into old age that allowed her to stop attending such events. It is easy to talk about her sense of duty and to think as a result that she does what she does because she feels she has to, but, her sense of duty is what she is and it has been the driving force of her life.

We have seen in recent months, that when she cannot do something she doesn't. I am happy for her to make her own decisions, and not have lots of well wishers trying, for the best of reasons protect her when she does not want protecting.

I have nothing against the RF,except for those 2 idiots Harry and Andrew.Quite fancied Anne when I was 20.My problem is with the fawning BBC,which has taken the art of patronising to the next level.Looks like a Netflix afternoon today,and thank goodness I have a 12 mile walk.booked for tomorrow.

Who says how money should be spent? If I and my neighbours and friends want to splurge on a jubilee celebration then we will - and have!

Money could be better spent

I think the Monarchy is outdated and that it is wrong that at 96 the Queen is still required to fulfill her role as Head of State. I remember watching the Queen and the D of E standing in the freezing cold and rain whilst the flotilla sailed down the Thames in 2012 to celebrate the 60th year of her rein. (that was in the summer!) I felt very sad that such an old couple had to do that, I certainly wouldn't have wanted it for my parents or parents in law! However, if there was a referendum I very much doubt that we would vote to remove the Monarchy.

And equally, offering up an example of an unsuitable leader Nanny27, when countless other posters have done the same thing, countless times, in countless threads, not a valid argument. It has been addressed countless times in GN, but every time it comes up the poster saying it thinks they've found the perfect answer to sticking with a monarchy. But I'll address it again.

An elected President would not be a direct replacement for a monarch, or a prime minister. It's an opportunity to reframe the role of a UK Head of State to represent the people of this country and to take responsibility for defending their rights. This is what Heads of State do in other countries. Presidents are not all in the mould of those in the US or France, this is important to understand.

Perhaps we would vote for another Johnson. If that's what the country wants, that's what we get. Or perhaps we could find someone like Zelensky. In democracies, you get who you vote for. Then if the population later think that person isn't good at the job you vote for another person next time. And next time is 5 or 7 years later, not 70 and we don't have to wait for someone to die, and we don't expect someone to do the job until they are 96 years old.

If you use the argument that we might end up with someone you don't want, basically you are saying you don't think we should have a democracy and people shouldn't be allowed to choose what they want.

You’re beginning to sound like a broken record sazzl.

But the fact remains * volver* that those who call themselves republicans are wanting an elected head of state. BJ is our elected prime minister so would therefore be an example of who you would get.
Repeating an opinion that still hasn't been addressed is no reason for your rudeness.

I'm not for or against royalty, (neutral?) just totally bored by the big fuss. Still, any excuse for a celebration and street party is fine by me.

It's just like when the football/horse racing/tennis is on - I'm ignoring it as far as possible. I like watching people enjoying themselves, and yes, I'll be out there for the bbq - but I don't think I'm a misery for not decorating my house (don't do that at Christmas either) as only three houses on my street have.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

A republican here as well, but I can still admire the Queen for the way that she has conducted herself over the past 70 years. She has simply done the job with no controversy (apart from the minor comment during the Scottish referendum), and kept her personnal thoughts to herself. Unlike Charles who used to comment on all kinds of subjects. It's not the role of royalty to offer personnal comments.
I wonder how the public will view the royal family when Charles takes over.

Too true, Toscalily.