On borrowed time - the royals

And anyone who thinks I am a rabid sentimental monarchist because I object to the way they are demonised for every crime anyone throws at them is equally wide of the mark. i would be perfectly happy under a properly constructed presidential system.

However, I don't see the need to turn the inevitable transition into a witch-hunt and a media-show trial so as to justify the change. The changing times and the evolution of public life is enough of a reason.

Exactly Mollygo, that has always been my argument.sadly so sadly , third world countries ( I hate that term) are still as impoverished as they were when I as a child, I have mentioned on here before that as a child I watched slides about starving children in Biafra ..... more than half a century later , to quote a phrase ‘ Nothing has Changed, well certainly not enough has changed .

The fact that anyone thinks I am anti-monarchy because they are well off is so wide of the mark. I am anti-monarchy because I don't think the UK should be run like a medieval state and I object to people gaming the system to make themselves more powerful.

I'm not calling for the downfall of Selma Hayek and she's got considerably more money than the Queen.

Nellg there wasn’t a referendum or any kind of popular vote back in the 17th century, so I doubt whether people were clamouring for a return of the monarchy as much as getting rid of Cromwell and his ban on Christmas, drinking, and any kind of merrymaking. If that’s the best example you can find of a republic in the 21st century demanding to become a monarchy then it proves my point.

Bridgeit
The suggestion seems to be more that the RF give up their wealth and live differently. I can quite easily concur with that because it involves no effort from me.
I agree that they have a lot of money and it could do more good being spread around.
However, I am asking how many of the posters about the RF’s wealth on GN would willingly, and to what extent, reduce their own circumstances in order to improve things for others.

Sorry , Better Ways

What are the much better ideas please.?

Ahh yes I agree, but where would it go from there, ? We would then perhaps be thinking of communism etc, & that doesn’t seem to me to be a good idea either.
It seems to me to be an impossibility for a fair world to exists. As I have said before I watched footage of starving children from about the age of seven, now seventy , and so sadly nothing much has changed.

Bridgeit If you gave £1 every day to charity for the whole of your life it would still be nowhere near as much as would be saved by cutting the funding to 1 member of the RF for 1 year. And if 1000 people gave £1 to charity every day for the whole of their life it would e less than cutting the funding to 2 members of the RF for1 year
It may be laudable, it may make you feel good, but in the terms of making a difference there are much better ways.

There are coffee shops and businesses in many towns where you never see a Royal

Mollygo, years ago I remember being told , that any little thing or kindness we do may make a difference to someone just when they need it. Just stopping for a chat , if someone is ok etc.ask . ( note to self to behave better?!) especially on GN ?
Also helping or donating to charities will make a difference, imagine if 1000 people alone donated Just £1 each in one day . Best wishes .

Bridgeit

Yes you are quite right Trisher, but that also applies to us, we are sitting here typing away in our own comforts, far far better off than so many , will you change who you are and what you are to redress the inequalities?

Bridgeit I thought that the other day. There’s undoubtedly a wide range of income levels on GN, but I’m not sure what meaningful action I would be willing to take to, as you say, ‘redress the inequalities’.

The town ofWindsor & it’s inhabitants thrives on teashops, souvenir shops, tourists, bed & breakfast hotels etc .etc

The press who by the way make a fortune out of flogging photographs of them.

Many young people have acquired qualifications & jobs through Prince Charles,s trust.
All I am trying to convey is that there are more elements to the RF, than what is normally served up by the press.

Paid employment, not servants!

Employment by any other name .

It's not a "job" it's a sinecure.

But it is all relative, you would be happy for others to loose their jobs because you wish we didn’t have a Monarchy?

I don't have a huge income Bridgeit. Yes I have a comfortable life, but I worked for it. It's ridiculous to compare my "just about managing" existance with the life of someone who costs the tax payer £19 million. And who have enough money themselves to live in the lap of luxury.

Yes you are quite right Trisher, but that also applies to us, we are sitting here typing away in our own comforts, far far better off than so many , will you change who you are and what you are to redress the inequalities?

Bridgeit how many more people could be given jobs if the £354million spent on the RF was used to give jobs to essential workers?
Is it really fair that £19.1 million is spent on a single member of the RF. How many poor children could be fed for that? And the RF would still have their private incomes enabling them to employ people to wait on them.

If all their residences castles palaces were open all year as in a republic would privide a lot if employment and a major boost to a world heritage tourism And RF in a republic will still need people to look after them do all the jobs they dont do.

It is how we / this country haven historically evolved ,just the same as each and everyone of us have evolved from our own families.
To remain the same or change is another topic, personally when I look around the world I like the fact we have a RF,
I do get frustrated that many folks don’t seem to appreciate the fact that the employment provide for hundreds of folk would be lost, having the same effect as it does when a large factory is closed down .

Thank you Grany I do always read it with interest and admiration for your tenacity

Commonwealth

Bit more cut and paste for you NellG

The royals did not invent the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth does not need the British monarchy. Here are a few facts that help dispel the myth of the monarchy's importance to the Commonwealth of Nations.

It is called the Commonwealth of Nations, not the British Commonwealth. It formally recognises every member state as equal and is open to other countries joining as full and equal members, subject to certain criteria.

The Commonwealth understandably has its critics, but it does attempt to address issues of substance that affect member nations. The Commonwealth's current work includes promoting democracy, supporting young people, tackling climate change and supporting small nations.

That last point is understandable given more than half of Commonwealth nations are small or micro-nations, including island nations that could be destroyed by rising sea levels.

The royals barely feature in all of this, except when they arrange a trip to a Commonwealth nation or when the Queen or Charles attend a Commonwealth Heads of Government (CHOGM) meeting. Yet they claim to be responsible for the Commonwealth and key to its success.

The Queen is head of the Commonwealth in name only. It is a purely ceremonial role. The Queen is not responsible for the running of or decision making in the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is run by a Secretariat and the Secretary-General, who is currently Patricia Scotland QC.

The position of ceremonial head of the Commonwealth is not hereditary. There is no inevitability in Charles succeeding the Queen in that role. The decision was made after years of lobbying by the Queen and this open request that her wishes are met.