William and Kate’s rail trip

I actually don’t think ANYONE on GN loves harry and Meghan, there are those who find the threads constantly criticising them unpleasant. That’s different.
And Trisher had it spot on.

But the threads criticising the rest of the family is acceptable
and - pleasant ?

trisher you called Kate a 1950’s housewife , why is this acceptable but criticism of Megan you condemn ?

Annie for goodness sake nobody is criticising the rest of your precious royal family. Some people are against the concept of a royal family. Some people question whether William and Catherine’s trip was a good idea etc etc,
And I personally wanted to know why they are all held I. Such high esteem that’s all.

And why do you childishly persist in not spelling Meghan As she is called ?

I thought it was spelt Meagain or Megain.

From her name, I think Annie might be Welsh.
The name Megan is a girl's name of Welsh origin. Other spellings are probably more modern version.
I had a border collie from Wales called Megan. I often slip up with the Duchess of Sussex's spelling.

Yes Megan is a Welsh name, and I did explain when I was first
pounced on for saying Megan it was an error because i have /
had family members named Megan. This was not accepted so
I then chose to keep to Megan.

Lucca , I have just noticed your rather unsavoury remarks about Prince Philip.
You are entitled to express your opinion, but please do not attach it to my comments.

.? Just stating facts eazybee, not opinion,

My view of the Royal family, is yes, they are all in the positions that they hold by an accident of birth or by marriage, rather than by their own endeavour. As such they may or may not try to do their best to do what is perceived by them and the public, to be their duty and therefore they do this with various degrees of success. It is important to remember that in some cases this accident of birth may not be what they would have preferred given the choice, although all those that married into the family must have realised what to expect.

Speaking for myself, I intensely dislike personal attacks, ie on appearance, background etc., I think these are totally unnecessary, in any guise on any platform. However actions are a different matter, I see no reason why actions falling short of certain standards should not be questioned.

Like many families there are some whose behaviour leaves much to be desired. Some are likeable, others less so.
Some people admire efforts that are being made by various members. Others object to the amount of privilege that comes with their roles. However, judging by the crowds that royal events command, it seems unrealistic to assume that those preferring to live in a republic are in the majority and as for calls for money to be redistributed, it would take brilliant financial brains to separate inherited and private funds fairly.

The Royal family are not perfect, but I do believe that most of them are trying to do their best, and frankly the alternative seems to me to be far far worse.

Well thought out post Lexisgranny. Serious question - what do you think the alternative is and why would it be worse?

Unless there is a revolution (unlikely) we will never be asked to pick an alternative to the Royal Family so suggestions that the alternative would be worse are redundant. The real question is what do we want from the existing situation? My thoughts are that we are stuck in the past with ER who continues the traditions of her fathers’s generation. Charles won’t make many changes but William may be the one to modernise the Royal role. Unlike his Grandmother,he has been to school and university and had the nearest thing to a normal job of any of them. I hope I live long enough to see it.

Good post, Lexisgranny

I am a "pragmatic Royalist" ie I want a slimmed down Monarchy in preference to a republic.
The cost is not unreasonable and I believe that a Republican system would cost as much, if not far more. The stability that a benign, a-political monarchy brings to our country outweighs, for me, any uncertainties a constantly changing presidential system would bring. How many candidates could there be who would be apolitical, not interfering in the politics if the country or be making deals for their future?
The cost to the taxpayer is minimal, the Royal Family has its own wealth and, with a few notable exceptions no longer of importance, is not making underhand deals to feather their own futures.

Other countries respect our Monarchy as can be seen when so many countries wish to join the Commonwealth. They do not need to have our Monarch as Head of State but why else would they want to join with us?
As for four yearly elections and all the disruption and expense that would engender, well, I am with Brenda of Bristol
Not another election.

Although we do need an elected Upper House.

Alegrias. If you don’t mind I prefer not visit the political side, which I might add I have considered carefully but based on travelling and living abroad, the simplistic answer is that the alternative is a President, and I cannot think of one person in politics today that I would want to be President, and I feel that for all their faults, the Royal Family offer some stability.

I entirely agree that a slimmed down royal family is the way to go.

Of course not, no worries Lexisgranny, I was just interested. I think this is a very interesting and balanced discussion on this thread now.

As there now only eight working royals who else should be cut out ?

Callistemon I have answered every point you made about your reasons of wanting a RF

The cost is not unreasonable and I believe that a Republican system would cost as much, if not far more.
The cost is £345 million A president would be a lot less he/she would need an office and an official residence.

The stability that a benign, a-political monarchy brings to our country outweighs, for me, any uncertainties a constantly changing presidential system would bring.

Our monarchy is political it has a say and lobbies for its own interests. Countries without monarchies are stable as with thoses with monarchies. Nothing to do with having a monarchy. A president freely chosen by us can be for seven years at a time.

How many candidates could there be who would be apolitical, not interfering in the politics if the country or be making deals for their future?
There would be rules made law what a presidents role is He will be above politics Can step in only if the government does wrong like peroging parliament.

The cost to the taxpayer is minimal, the Royal Family has its own wealth and, with a few notable exceptions no longer of importance, is not making underhand deals to feather their own futures.

The RF spends public money day in day out week in week out on their private interests nothing is ever said about this and has millions in off shore tax havens.

Other countries respect our Monarchy as can be seen when so many countries wish to join the Commonwealth.

The commonwealth is not enhaced by having queen as is just symbolic The commonwealth would do better if the Queen kept out.

They do not need to have our Monarch as Head of State but why else would they want to join with us?

Lots of good reasons nothing at all to do with the Queen.

As for four yearly elections and all the disruption and expense that would engender, well, I am with Brenda of Bristol
Not another election.

It could be every seven years a democratically elected HoS which could be any one of the many good people in the UK It could be a doctor a scientist ect

Although we do need an elected Upper House.

Yes I agree with you there.

This needs some thought Anniebach, something tells me it would be prudent to wait until after March to make the definitive list!

I think these two do a good job. Let them get on with it.

Lexisgranny

This needs some thought Anniebach, something tells me it would be prudent to wait until after March to make the definitive list!

I agree Lexisgranny. Any decisions made on this issue will have future repercussions for Charlotte and Louis, and any younger siblings who might come along.

After March it will be the same number.

Forgive me for being thick. I've a lot on my plate at the moment but what's happening in March?

I assume merlotgran we are talking about when the year is up for Harry to have made up his mind?