Royalty the queen and her family.

I don't care how much the RF costs us. I don't care how much a democratically elected HoS would cost us. A democratically elected HoS would be representative of the public and wouldn't be in a job for life.

We wouldn't expect a democratically elected HoS to stay in post until they were 94 years old. We wouldn't expect them to expect so much deference that their in-laws flee the country to escape them. We wouldn't expect to support their extended family and to turn up and wave flags when the democratically elected HoS's fourth child's wife comes along to say hello.

And as I always say when someone comes up with the "Oh but we might get Blair!" defence. Yes, we might, if we vote for him. That's the point. Or we might get David Attenborough (although he's 94 so probably wouldn't stand now ). We might get Sarah Gilbert. We might get JVT. Just imagine.

Galaxy
Is that a serious question? Prince Andrew was sacked immediately following his interview (another interview I didn’t watch.) He’s now out of the picture, and in any case, he was never Head of State. How would we get rid of a President with his/her fingers in the till, or who has allegations of abuse made about him/her? If the best anyone can do is cite Prince Andrew, who is gone, no enquiry by RF, just gone in one day, then it’s a poor show.

He's not our Head of State nor ever likely to be thank goodness.

Would they be any more awful than Prince Andrew.

Precisely, maddyone, and probably not half as well.

Callistemon
Yes, I know, I was being a little disingenuous. The point is that it would cost us pretty much the same to have a President as a RF. And imagine some of the awful people we might get. Tony Blair comes to mind, but I’m sure there are worse. Trump? OMG, no he’s American. And I can’t see the point, because if the President would have no power because the government run the country, then all the President would do is what the RF do now.

But don’t we already have someone to do that?
Yes, we do, maddyone, well spotted
And they do it very well indeed.

A President certainly wouldn't be subsidising all this by paying for his or her private life from their own money - they wouldn't just need expenses for the running of the household, travel etc, they would require a very large salary for doing the job.

It would work out far more expensive because we would have the additional expense of elections.

There are none so blind as those who will not see
At last we are in agreement, paddyanne!

^Well if the President would have only one home, wouldn’t that be 10 Downing Street?
No, maddyone we would still have a Prime Minister who would reside at No. 10

The president would require a presidential palace as Head of State and all the trappings that go with that. They would be entertaining Heads of State of other countries for a start - there would still be State banquets and receptions etc.
Presentations to people who have earned The Order of The Great British Republic etc.

Well if the President would have only one home, wouldn’t that be 10 Downing Street? So wouldn’t dear old Boris be our present President? No? So we’d have Boris and a President. Hmmm, so we’d be supporting two households at great expense. What would the President actually do? Support charities, hold garden parties, give people honours, host official banquets? But don’t we already have someone to do that? And would the President be elected? But if the Prime Minister runs the country with government and Parliament, what would the President do (at our great expense)?

Well said Paddyanne

Very well Said and to the point paddyanne

No matter how many freebies Cherie was happy to take they dont add up to a single % of the goodies stashed by Lizzie and her parasites ..mind you the royals have had far more experience of taking stuff and money from other folk ...hundreds of years of experience.
Why DO you insist that any president wouuld be a Trump clone or worse? There are many countries indeed probably most who have Presidents who work FOR the people and who have ONE home and no hangers on or yachts etc .There are none so blind as those who will not see....or who live in hope of a wee title to set them up for life !!

I know!!
We could have a President with a new palace that doesn't leak and a new Presidential jet.
And a spiffing yacht while we're about it.
All at twice the price.

Tony Blair perhaps? And Cherie could run amok on First Lady charity visits, filling her trolley full of freebies like she did in Australia.

Grany

How will queen and RF be transported to fill crucial Royal responsibilities HA HA could pension them off.

A bit of cost cutting yes start with these people

Agreed.

Keep scrolling, keep on scrolling??

Scroll on?

Maybe H & M could arrange for them to use one of the private jets they love so much!

How will queen and RF be transported to fill crucial Royal responsibilities HA HA could pension them off.

A bit of cost cutting yes start with these people

The Queen’s official fleet of planes is set to be sold off next year as part of government defence cuts.
It will be the first time there isn’t a dedicated aircraft for the Royal Family during the Queen’s reign and may mean senior royals will be forced to use Boris Johnson’s jet instead.
The decision is part of the Ministry of Defence’s Integrated Review, and there are currently no plans for a replacement for the four BAE-146 passenger jets, according to Mail Online.
The BAE-146 regional planes are part of the RAF’s historic 32 (Royal) Squadron, known as The Queen’s Flight.
The Queen, Prince Charles and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will have to share the Prime Minister’s RAF Voyager plane, which underwent a controversial £900,000 makeover in 2020 and was rebranded with a Union Jack flag.
Tobias Ellwood, chairman of the Commons defence committee, said: "The selling off of the BAE-146s will leave a gaping void in the RAF’s ability to meet military and civil taskings.
"The BAE-146 is a highly valued versatile aircraft that has served senior members of the Royal Family, military commanders and prime ministers with distinction for decades".
Labour MP Gareth Thomas, whose Harrow West constituency is close to RAF Northolt, said: "Ministers need to explain as a matter of urgency how the Queen and Royal Family will be transported to fill crucial royal and Commonwealth responsibilities.”
The MoD’s Integrated Review also reveals plans to reduce the Army by 10,000 soldiers which have been met with criticism.
Important ships and frontline aircraft are also set to be withdrawn from service.
The results of the review are due to be formally revealed in two stages later this month.

foxie48

As others have said, just keep looking down the ‘active’ threads. If you see anything that remotely relates to Royalty, avoid them and move onto something else that looks more interesting to you.
You can get caught out though, as threads diversify somewhat on occasions.

There are only a few Royalty obsessed posters foxie48, most of us are interested in a much wider range of topics.

I always click on the title to see what a post is about, because quite often they go off at tangents and aren’t about what you would think. Some of them are really funny too (try the Potato Head one from last week for a sample).

Fewer than 4% of the commonwealth population outside of the UK has the Queen as their head of state.

The royals relationship with the commonwealth is as self serving and nonsensical as everything else about the monarchy.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=FwVqFSCByvs&feature=youtu.be

Foxie48
you obviously haven't finished' finding your way round the forums' so carry on looking. Lots of interesting topics.. or start a thread yourself

foxie48 If you look at the list of forums, or the active topics I'm pretty sure you'll find plenty that isn't focused on the RF. It's a diverse place with lots of very different posters and most people will find something they feel they want to chat about.

Boredom isn't an age thing, I used to get very bored, very easily when I was young. I am just genuinely intrigued to see 35 pages about the Royal family. I'm new to GN so finding my way around the forums, in my 70's so hardly young anymore but I have as much interest in the goings on of the RF than I do my next door neighbour's dog, (actually less). Is there a Royal free zone?