Edward not to become the Duke of Edinburgh.

Off to the tower ?? ??

Esspee

Personally I would like to see an end to the monarchy after our present Queen for whom I have a great deal of respect.
The thought of Charles and his ex mistress lording over us turns my stomach.
The recent expose on how the royal family interfered with law making to ensure that the family would not be inconvenienced financially by laws that now apply to the rest of us was the last straw.

I’m with you. They’ve served their purpose. They don’t fit in the new world we have now.

I’m not suggesting a President, I’m suggesting fewer ‘royals.’
When meeting the royals, I feel normal politeness should be the rule, not deference. No curtsying or bowing, none whatsoever.

*bend the knee!!

Philippa111

I have nothing against most of them as individuals but I dislike everything the royal family stand for... elitism, them and us, perpetuating class division etc and I certainly don't feel they are superior in any way... no curtsying for me! Who cares about their 'in house' giving of 'titles'. They are just other people who got where they are by oppressing 'surfs' a long, long time ago!

My feelings too! I hope I never have to meet any of them because I don’t know what happens to uppity commoners like me who refuse to end the knee… would I be sent to the Tower?
My guess is that when her majesty slips off this mortal coil, the rest of them will be of less interest and therefore we serfs will tolerate fewer of them. Looks like Charles might be getting that message too, hence the “slimming down” of the number of working royals of late.

I don’t think Edward should be Duke of Edinburgh.
I’m putting myself forward.
I don’t look too bad in a kilt and I’ve got the same amount of hair as Prince Philip had, so I think I’d be a good replacement.

Philippa111

I have nothing against most of them as individuals but I dislike everything the royal family stand for... elitism, them and us, perpetuating class division etc and I certainly don't feel they are superior in any way... no curtsying for me! Who cares about their 'in house' giving of 'titles'. They are just other people who got where they are by oppressing 'surfs' a long, long time ago!

I couldn't have put it better!

A Prince can mak a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an’ a’ that!
.
.
The man o’ independent mind,
He looks an’ laughs at a’ that.

Apologies for playing fast and loose with the Bard's word order

I have nothing against most of them as individuals but I dislike everything the royal family stand for... elitism, them and us, perpetuating class division etc and I certainly don't feel they are superior in any way... no curtsying for me! Who cares about their 'in house' giving of 'titles'. They are just other people who got where they are by oppressing 'surfs' a long, long time ago!

A lot of those Dukes and Duchesses are not related to the current royal family at all. Their ancestors were Dukified centuries ago for some service or other to royalty, probably either on the battlefield, with a cash loan, or in bed, and the Dukedom has been inherited down the line.

The current "Royal Dukes" are :-
Duke of Lancaster, held by Elizabeth II
Duke of Cornwall (England), Duke of Rothesay (Scotland) and Duke of Edinburgh (United Kingdom), held by Prince Charles, Prince of Wales
Duke of Cambridge held by Prince William
Duke of Sussex held by Prince Harry
Duke of York, held by Prince Andrew
Duke of Gloucester, held by Prince Richard
Duke of Kent, held by Prince Edward (who should not be confused with the Earl of Wessex)

Three of these are sons of the monarch. Two are sons of the Prince of Wales, and grandsons of the monarch. One is the Queen herself, and the last (the Duke of Gloucester) is the youngest of the nine grandchildren of King George V and Queen Mary

But the President won't think the have a God given right to be deferred to their whole life by the hoi polloi.

And they will be accountable.

I don’t get worked up about the funding, I get worked up about the deference.

Me too.

Alegrias1

Things that the public are interested in are not necessarily in the public interest ?

palace marketing machine with a product to sell

And there we have it.

And you don't think that a President will have a publicity agent feeding bits of news about their family to the media for the delectation of Joe and Josephine Public?

I think it’s quite easy to ‘get rid’ of them. Only the children of the king or queen should be able call their children Prince/Princess. That’s it, nobody else, no grandchildren of the monarch, unless in direct line to the throne. Too many Dukes, Duchesses, and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, I’d do away with them (the titles, not the people.) Laws should be passed to make this so. Not difficult, it just needs the will to do it.

I don't get worked up about the funding. I get worked up about the deference.

And the absolute insistence that they abide by the "rules". Ref: the Sussexes

As for the funding for minor royalty that people get worked up about, they get no direct public money except security. (anything they are given by Granny comes under the same heading as anything that any of the fond grannies on here shell out from their salary or savings to help their families. It differs only in the likely amount)

Spinnaker

^Or wondering why the fourth son of the monarch won't get called by a title that was re-instituted for his father but doesn't have any meaning at all.^

Ooh I'm wondering now what Her Maj has been up to - I thought she only had three sons ?

I really don't keep up ?

Third son? Fourth child!

Things that the public are interested in are not necessarily in the public interest ?

palace marketing machine with a product to sell

And there we have it.

Or wondering why the fourth son of the monarch won't get called by a title that was re-instituted for his father but doesn't have any meaning at all.

Ooh I'm wondering now what Her Maj has been up to - I thought she only had three sons ?

But Maddyone said " If we have to have a royal family at all, there should be a king (or queen) plus their spouses and children, full stop. No need for any others. I appreciate that there are, at present, some hard-working members of the RF, but once they go, it should be . . .

That is nothing to do with the public interest you mention in the doings of the minor members of the Royal Family. It is advocating that those be somehow "pared right back to the bare minimum." Who is to do the paring, and on what criteria?

The "others" for whom there is "no need for them" are mentioned in the media because the media bosses know that there is the kind of interest you mention. They are not there under some kind of law that says they should be, they exist in the first place because they were born to their various parents, and the news about them that keeps them in the public eye is published by media who know what sells (both press maguls with empires to fund and a palace marketing machine with a product to sell) If there were no demand, there would be nothing about them.

Anniebach

The working royals are Charles,Camilla,Edward,Sophie, Anne,
William,Kate .

I am happy with the list Anniebach has given, I think they will all do a good job for the country.
My vote would never be for a Head of State/ President.

For me, Elegran, its the terrific interest in the doings of the second daughter of the third son of the monarch, and what she calls her son. (Actually I don't know if that's all accurate, I don't keep up )

Or wondering why the fourth son of the monarch won't get called by a title that was re-instituted for his father but doesn't have any meaning at all.

None of it matters

If charities and so on want to have particular people as their patrons, good luck to them. But there is definitely a correlation between the interest shown in some of these "minor" royals and your common or garden celebrity.

If Eugenie was just a nice posh girl who worked in a gallery and married a millionaire, would we be interested in what she called her son?

The working royals are Charles,Camilla,Edward,Sophie, Anne,
William,Kate .

Blondiescot

Anniebach

How would you get rid of them ? who would you want to get rid of ?

I'm thinking along the lines of what maddyone said. If we have to have a royal family at all, there should be a king (or queen) plus their spouses and children, full stop. No need for any others. I appreciate that there are, at present, some hard-working members of the RF, but once they go, it should be pared right back to the bare minimum.

But how would you "get rid of them" Blondiescot? You can't have them all sterilised at birth, that wouldn't be ethical. If they produce children, those children are part of the family, as much as your grandchildren, nephews and nieces are part of yours.

If you mean, you wouldn't have them supported by the state, very few of them get anything. If you mean, you wouldn't have them as patrons of charities, members of the boards of prestigious companies, and so on, that is up to the organisations to choose their officers, not up to the law to ban them. It is the same for opening new bridges, presenting awards etc. If a company wants to ask someone to cut the ribbon to open their new hospital or school, they don't have to ask government permission.

Recently, the Queen has cut back on her engagements - she is getting older after all - so younger members of the RF have been asked to do more things and be more visible. Under Charles, and then William, that need not be the case with younger heads of state.

BigBertha1

I like the Royals but this was a made up title for Prince Philip so let it go now. Not sure the Scots want it.

Not true. This is from the Times article:

"The Edinburgh title was first created in 1726 by King George I, who bestowed it on his grandson, Prince Frederick."