Royals

do Americans , Chinese, Australians , Europeans etc realy choose to visit the UK to see the windsors?

Can't speak for Americans as I don't know many, or for Europeans, but some Chinese and in particular many Australians are always very keen to ask about the Royal family. My favourite elderly Australian lady always asks me about 'Princess Kate' as if I know Kate personally
However, my SIL can't see the point of them at all.

I would think they, and the Americans, some of whom love the Royal family, are about 50/50 divided about them, as it seems people are on here.

Better than President Blair or Trump, being apolitical.

People like Green make me more annoyed.

sluttygran you were more cirucmspect than me

The Sovereign Grant is designed to be a more permanent arrangement than the old Civil List system, which was reign-specific. Funding for the Sovereign Grant comes from a percentage of the profits of the Crown Estate revenue (initially set at 15%). The grant will be reviewed every five years by the Royal Trustees (the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse), and annual financial accounts will continue to be prepared and published by the Keeper of the Privy Purse.

The income comes from the Crown Estates. It is reviewed every five years; perhaps HM should join a Trades Union and get it reviewed every year.

I don't attend football matches Jane, am I not allowed to post my opinions on the windsors? I don't like or dislike them, I don't know them . Do we pay for security for footballers? I am not upset by them, I do think such decadent life styles when we have so many sleeping on the streets is not what I expect from a family who are content to accept so many privileges yet keep telling the country how they care for the people

Hear hear Annie bach

If you put sovereign grant accounts into a Google search, you will get a PDF with a whole lot of information, probably more than you want.

For instance -
"Rates and council tax - £1.2m"

and

"Electricity
In 2015-16 approximately 7.8 million kWh (2014-15: 8.2 million kWh) were consumed across the Estate, a 4.9% reduction. The CHP units located at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle produced 2.5 million kWh electricity for use at these sites (2014-15: 2.6 million kWh).
The hydro-electric scheme at Romney Lock in Windsor produced 1.0 million kWh of renewable electricity for use at Windsor Castle (2014-15: 1.3 million kWh). Hydroelectricity output reduced this year due to equipment maintenance and low river levels."

You could do with experience in reading balance sheets and/or official documents to understand it all.

(The link is something like www.gov.uk/.../FINAL_Royal_Household_Annual_Report_2015-... but I can't get it to copy and paste properly, sorry)

Anniebach I think you're wrong about tourists as many choose to come here to see our pageantry, tours of Royal Palaces are popular. You stated that people go to see Buck House - why if not to view a Royal Palace & watch the Changing of the Guard.

I agree with icanhandthem back - no chance of living a "normal" life, none of them chose to be born Royal & before somebody shoots me down in flames their wives/husbands have to choose to live their lives in a certain way. Yes I'd rather have ny life I might not be wealthy & privaleged but I can live my life without being criticised in the press

I saw Prince Charles on our local news last night in an item on the Prince's Trust. A young woman I know used to work for this great organisation. Here is a snippet from their website:
Many of the young people we help are in, or leaving, care, facing issues such as homelessness or mental health problems, or have been in trouble with the law.
The Trust has returned £1.4 billion in value to society through our help for disadvantaged young people over the last ten years alone.
Our free programmes give young people the practical and financial support they need to stabilise their lives. We help them develop key skills while boosting their confidence and motivation.

I suppose he could just live a life of decadence and give nothing back, but I think the Prince's Trust is a wonderful organisation, as do the young people Prince Charles was speaking to yesterday.

Legs55, I said more tourists visit the London Eye than Buck house, yes people visit the palaces but I don't agree they are THE tourist attraction which bring visitors to this country. If this was true then surely London benefits, doubt tourists visit north England to see the windsors . Many have Stratford as their number one visit . So it is our history not the windsors living now that attract tourists

I agree the Princes Trust does much good , and Charles was younger than his two lazy sons when he started the trust .

I do think Charles is genuinely concerned about this country and often think the way he has been treated by Diana groupies is disgusting

Yes, they have lovely privileged lives with lots of perks. But their is always a dark side to that. I would hate not to walk out of my door without security. Or pop something into the bin without paparazzi taking shaming pix of me in my pyjamas.
Also, the alternative would be some sort or head of state or presidency. Would you really prefer Lord and lady Blair instead of a monarch who has been really quite amazing for 60 years? And the money the royals bring in for tourism is huge.
Andrew is a big twonk and should be given nothing, though.

I'm far from being a fan of the Royal family, but find it hard these days to get worked up about it. I certainly haven't noticed Kate and William being on holiday a lot (Beatrice seems to be though).

I respect for the Queen and Princess Anne because they appear to carry out their 'duties' in a conscientious way. I think Kate, William and Harry are the new and more acceptable face of the Royal family and seem to be on duty a lot. Eugenie too, to a lesser extent. Beatrice appears lets the side down.

Charles was a victim of his upbringing because he was not allowed to marry for love. In marrying Diana whilst continuing his relationship with Camilla, he was out of step with public perception. Diana was part of the future, Charles the past. I was on Team Diana, but I am glad Charles was allowed to marry Camilla.

There's been a changing of the guard and it is doing okay at the moment.

One other thing. After Charlotte was born, Kate was not in the public eye for much longer than I would have expected and it crossed my mind that she may have suffered from post natal depression. Even in this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised if this was kept secret.

Wilma I think that could be a possibility, particularly as Diana suffered with pnd and they did not seem to recognise that and failed her so dismally.
Otherwise, Kate could have just thought it was more important to take her full 'maternity leave' to enable her to feed and bond with her baby as so many young mothers do.

Yes, I don't have a problem with how much time she takes to be with the family. They both seem very down to earth with the children. The photos of when the Obamas came to dinner were lovely because of how informal they were, and I loved the joke Barak Obama made about the clear breach of protocol when George, having been was allowed up late to see them turned up in his dressing gown.

Of course she was 'bonding with her baby' along I suppose with the full-time nanny and the rest of the household staff. I suppose you could just about justify the expense of having some sort of royal person as a figurehead, but the rest of the family are just scroungers and freeloaders. I will say the Prince's trust is an excellent charity and does a lot of good, so well done Charles. But why isn't their an equivalent Royal charity if they are so concerned with looking after people? Doing bits here and there isn't good enough.

Fair enough if Kate wanted to stay with her children but William working part time because he wants to do the same ? , many fathers would like this choice but their fathers didn't inherit the duchy of Cornwall to support them

Blah blah blah. If only everyone was perfect like the royal bashers!

Equivalents of Princes Trust - The Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme 1956?

www.dofe.org/

I suppose you could just about justify the expense of having some sort of royal person as a figurehead,
If you mean Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth, then what, I wonder, would happen if we were to have a President and First Lady and associated hangers-on instead.
What would Commonwealth leaders think of, for example, TB and CB?
A rebellion in the Commonwealth would be the first thing I would imagine.

But we're not talking about other people Annie, we're just talking about William and Kate. He works 80 hours on average a month doing day and night shifts for the air ambulance, plus his Royal and charity work. He's hardly sitting around all day and would you want him to spend less time with his family because others are less fortunate?

Wilma, he has cut his hours to forty a month , he said he did this to spend the time with his children, and sorry but what royal duties ? He does very little compared to the older members of his family

For someone so disapproving of the Royal Family, you seem remarkably well-informed about their movements, Annie!