Prince William to leave the armed forces

We should care - we're paying for it all!

If the royals were to leave the country tomorrow I don't think it would make the slightest difference to tourism. I just can't accept the tourists who come here do so to see the Windsors. I am basing this on a number of Americans, Australians etc who I have and do exchange emails with. People want to find where their British ancestors with. They say they are coming here for a holiday and can we help with look ups for them, In the years I have exchanged mails and so had chats not one has ever said 'we want to see the queen. They want to see London - The Tower, Hampton Court, Buck House etc, Stratford , Bronte country, Dorset, Castles are popular, they want to see where their ancestors came from, get very excited if a home still exists, or we can locate a grave. so in my opinion it's our history and their roots which brings them here plus the areas where they can see the likes of Hardy/Bronte country . Quite a few if going to Scotland say a visit to Loch Ness would be fun.

So it's where were Henry 8th wives behead not will the queen be in London

We have to have a Head of State and in my opinion, having a sovereign is by far the most attractive option. As for how much the Royal family costs us, any Head of State has to be maintained in the manner the country feels is appropriate and the royals contribute a great deal in cash terms, let alone what is offered in terms of tradition, buildings, art, jewellery, frocks and uniforms. Prince Philip, Andrew, Charles, William and Harry have all served this country in the military and they and Princess Anne do inestimable work in sponsoring many charities and projects. They bring pleasure to thousands when they arrive to open, unveil or launch and although a number of people who post on GN appear to be anti-royalist, they surely cannot deny any of this. [where's the crown emoticon?]

But Lilygran does the country feel we need to maintain the royals in such an opulent lifestyle . I have 'a thing ' about the number of homes we have to pay for security cover . It quite angers me that we have to pay for so many homes.

I am happy for my taxes to contribute in some small way to maintaining the monarch, heir and so on down the direct line. I don't relish keeping the minor royals, but it is hard for them because if they start a business or get a job they are accused of trading on their royal connections.
I hate the idea of an elected Head of State - at least Charles has not had to bribe or soft-soap his way to the job. The thought of Cherie Blair as First Lady gives me the shivers.
Personally, I wouldn't cross the road to see any celebrity, royal or show business (in fact, I didn't) but I believe that many people do really get excited and enjoy meeting them. Diana turned round the public perception of people with HIV/Aids almost single-handedly and was much mourned by homosexuals.

Annie security would have to be provided for any Head of State. And, as I suggested above, what you call the 'opulent' lifestyle is partly paid for by them and partly paid for by the nation because we want our Head of State to have status. They can't invite visiting Heads of State to shepherd's pie in the kitchen. And they have to accommodate all their entourages.

Lilygran, I agree that the queen must have security, I did say I object to the number of properties for which we pay security. That we paid for a building to be erected on Camillas family home to house full time security and just because she needed 'a bolt hole' where she escapes to relax, given she has Highgrove, Clarence House, Burkhall and Wormwood to escape to for 52 weeks of the year and not one is a three bedroomed semi why on earth does she need another house ? Let her keep the house but she should have paid for the extra building and she should pay for the security. Why should we pay for security of Wormwood? They don't even holiday there, their friends use it for fishing holidays, no Windsor there. Sorry but this is so wrong. I do not expect the queen to eat pie in the kitchen, doubt she knows where it is, I object to the fact that people are living in poverty in this country whilst this family carry on living such an extravagant life style. When people are in dispair over the bedroom tax we pay for William and Kate to have a ten bedroomed apartment undergo extensive renovations . For me this is wrong and shows little thought for the country

My understanding is that the members of the royal family cover the cost of the expenses they incur as private individuals. They have ceded a great deal of property and revenue to the nation over the years en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family. The fact that they live in style while other people don't is a matter for their consciences, surely? Taking away their privileges might make the envious feel better but I doubt it would make the slightest difference to the poor. There are lots of other very rich people around, I doubt many of them make the contribution the Royals do. You should also remember that many of the anti-royal stories in the media are found in Murdoch organs - and they sell papers and add to his unbelievable wealth.

Exactly, Lilygran - if the government withdrew all financial support for the royals overnight, it would probably not make the slightest difference to the amount allocated to the poor and needy. Any surplus would be absorbed immediately.

The monarchy costs each of us a matter of pennies per year... big deal.

Is any one suggesting that the Obamas or Putin do not have an opulent lifestyle? If we became a republic tomorrow people would still be living in poverty and I can't see any of our politicians handing over any state assets to help any of them. Remind me again - how many houses has Tony Blair amassed now and how many are 3 bed semi's?

Well Obama didn't become President because his father did ( argument doesn't work with Bush of course) and for both of them it's not a lifetime gift!

I don't see why an accident of birth should confer, in perpetuity, enormous wealth and privilege upon one family.

When these sorts of familiy dynasties occur in less developed countries we tend to view them with disapproval because their leaders wield absolute power rather than act merely as figureheads. But historically our monarchs were absolute rulers too, and power was only relinquished when it became expedient to do so.

Bush definitely dynastic but I think Obama brought very different things to the table
.We should really look at countries with a non-executive head of state if we want to compare e.g. Ireland. But as they don't sing on the terraces in Dublin "there's only one Mary Robinson".
The advantages of a non-executive president are that they are much much cheaper, you can vote em out, and they can bring "statesman like" influence to bear internatlonally, without sticking their finger in the day to day running of the country.
If anyone feeling in need of therapy I suggest a (re) reading of Sue Townsend's Queen and I.
I think the royals are a form of entertainment, thus providing more value than a president would, but I do think they should pay their taxes and that their business affairs should be transparent if they wish for a continued subsidy. A new funding model is perhaps needed. Pay them an appearance fee like other celebs. Make the royal family market led, like the rest of just about everything these days. You want the queen to show up somewhere? You shell out her current hourly/daily fee. Can't afford that? You could get Andrew a lot cheapern and you certainly wouldn't be able to afford Kate.

Jess I believe we are very near the kind of funding you are suggesting! And looking at Obama's family background, we can assume that he hasn't got the capital to pay the cost of entertaining VIPs and celebs, the White House, Camp David, Air Force One and the security services. A total cost to the citizenry, I think. Eloethan yes, there were absolute monarchs in the UK in the Middle Ages. The Queen isn't one. There are absolute rulers around the world now. 5 or 6 hundred years difference. So your point is?

Jess -

Lilygran There may be absolute rulers around, but there are also the Queen of Denmark, Norwegian majestic modesty and an interesting attitude in the Netherlands, among other monarchies. Was it not very recently that Queen Beatrice abdicated, just as Juliana and Wilhemina had done? And aren't the whole lot pretty laid back and non-pompous?

Lilygran, I assure you the what I said about the new building at camillas bolt hole was not from the Murdoch press or any press, I saw the application for planning.

I agree if Charles and his wife need so many homes it is a matter for their conscience, or rather lack of.

The homes of the American president cannot be compared to the homes of the windsors, we can compare them to the homes of the PM of the UK

We cannot compare the president of America with the windsors, surely America doesn't provide homes for his cousins,children and grandchildren, plus friends, how many grace and favour homes does the president have to bestow on friends?

We are told the queen costs us x pence each a year, this is the sum of what was at one time called the civil list surely , we are not allowed to know the full costs we pay for this family . Anne has her own home, fair enough , but does she need offices in St.James Palace and a private London flat.

When I spoke of three bed roomed semi, I was referring to the size of the homes of Charles and Camilla , why does she need another house to relax in, she and Charles are hardly overcrowded at Highgrove, Clarence House etc.

I doubt Charles pays for the army who patrol Wormwood or the river bank where he has fishing rights, there are quite a few estates in this area, the owners employ their own river patrol, these things annoy me, that Buck house employs someone in the kitchen to polish leaves is spending peanuts compared to the costs of security for so many homes.

In all seriousness I don't see why they ALL can't live in Buckingham Palace - it has over 500 rooms.

I agree Riverwalk, and if they want to buy any other houses they should do so entirely at their own expense. And maintain and police them at their own expense. They have quite enough wealth to do it, all accrued at our expense.

St James Palace is owned by the country - we pay the upkeep. Yet William, Kate and Harry have their offices there and Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie and Alexandra have apartments there . We are paying for Andrews house at Windsor and apartments in London for his daughters and I think he has rooms at Buck house too. it has been reported that the Middletons are to have an apartment at Kensington Palace, I hope this not correct and they will stay at Williams apartment when visiting

How can all this be compared with the president of the USA

Only just read this thread so just a couple of points. We have friends in The Netherlands and Canada and they all wanted souvenirs of the Jubilee so I do think that some tourists come here for the royals.

Camilla has been doing public engagements on her own for at least three years. I remember her at a school in Birmingham on her own about three years ago. She looked really frumpy!

Nothing, and nobody, really, can be compared to the US president lilygran. A one off. Ditto Putin.
I think if Charles does become king he will be pretty unpopular and we may get see the downscaling of the royal family in our lifetime. The trouble is that is it not a clear contract is it, between the people and the monarchy. We rely on them to behave themselves and stay within the unwritten rules. They get funding from the public purse but have huge personal wealth and don't pay taxes in the normal way. It's a mess.

How much does a soap star charge to attend an event? Princess Anne carried out almost 600 engagements in 2012. The Duke of Edinburgh carried out 340, in his 90th year. Their patronage means a great deal to charities.

But a soap star does not have us pay for their security or the security of their houses. Traffic is not brought to a halt to make way for their car. We do not pay for their housing, business premises etc

They are slimming down the number we see on the balcony but will we still be paying for homes for Beatrice, Eugenie and the other cousins when William is king

Margaret's children were grandchildren of a king but they - to my knowledge- go their own way, so should Andrews daughters and Edwards children when they are adults and not live in properties we pay for