On borrowed time - the royals

Spending money on the purposes for which it is paid to her? (Money which was granted to the Sovereign for those purposes centuries ago in return for the surrender of he profits from land and property which were at that time privately owned by the then sovereign and gave them their income 85% of those profits now go into the state purse and 15% to the sovereign or the expenses of the job.)
The idea that the Sovereign grant represents the real cost of the RF is ludicrous. Their total cost including security is considerably more. It is estimated at around £354 million a year that's £19.1 million for every working royal. Protection for Obama and his family cost around $97million in the 8years he was in office. So are they good value?

It is noticeable that the " insistence on the antiquated protocols and pointless archaic etiquette " is more in evidence with the event organisers and a few lesser royals from lower down the list of heirs than with the Queen. I have never heard of her having a strop because someone got the etiquette wrong, but I have heard of minor royalty being put out if they are not shown suitable precedence.

trisher How much did the state get from the deal centuries ago for the Sovereign to hand over the income from the Crown Estates and instead get money as the Civil List (now renamed) to pay their expenses? At the moment that income is 85% to the state, 15% to the Sovereign. How much in £££ has the State received? That can be set against what is spent on the RF on top of the 15%

Elegran I thought we weren't going back into the past and the many anachronisms and disreputable incidents in the RF. But if we are let's be honest. The RF as such has no hereditary right to anything. It's been imported from various foreign families and used to keep protestantsm as the major religion of the country. But any idea that they are somehow British with historical rights over any land is completely wrong. And why something insituted in the 1700s should be considered applicable to life in2021 I don't know.

When it was instituted isn't in question, but it is a fact that the state gets an income in perpetuity from the lands it acquired in the deal.

Don't agree with having what amounts to a whole weird extended family as our head of state - surely we only need one person as in Scandinavian model - if we stay with monarchy at all? (Still to see proof that their blood is actually blue rather than red like us peasants )

I would rather have a royal family than a president anyday. Just seen a photo of Prince Philip leaving hospital. Don't think he has much time left. Hope he spends it with people he loves.

Elegran

When it was instituted isn't in question, but it is a fact that the state gets an income in perpetuity from the lands it acquired in the deal.

I can't think of many situations where a legal precedent set in the 1700s is still applicable today. Most are updated to fit in with democracy and human rights. This whole thing is an anachronism introduced because a profligate king couldn't pay his debts and maintained to benefit a family who do very little but cost much. I'd rather have one HofS and the £19.1million each of the others costs spent on the NHS, education and policing. The RF is anyway just a 20th century invention. It didn't exist in the past as a state entity. Indeed most of the monarchs spent their lives at odds with their children.

trisher is right again. Or should we not have changed any laws or institutions for the last 3-400 years.

The question of the monarchy could be addressed as part of a Constitutional Commission.

If it was decided that we'd have a better future without a monarch, then Queen Elizabeth II, our longest reigning queen and so widely admired and respected, would be a fitting Last Monarch.

If we needed a president for purely ceremonial and symbolic reasons perhaps we could, say every five years, invite applications from citizens over the age of eighteen and chose a president randomly from those that apply.

Very Well Said trisher

Meanwhile, income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall – despite belonging to the nation - goes directly to the Queen and Prince Charles respectively, depriving the treasury of tens of millions of pounds every year. Plus P Philip I know he's not well now at 99

He gets 400,000 a year so The RF have a ton of money receive a ton of money

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.

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

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 .

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

Employment by any other name .

Paid employment, not servants!

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.

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

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