William and Harry - I'm puzzled.

rosequartz , if we chose to turn republic it doesn't mean we have to follow the USA, First Lady is not an elected position anyway , if Hilary Clinton wins next year there will be no First Lady !

The number who turned out for the jubilee was not a large percentage of the sixty million in this country and many of the young are not interested in the royals

One thing which puts me off a republic is the thought of yet another election

My gripe is the cost of so many homes and the number who have security , plus the fawning over - the two boys ! if the due baby is a girl we will have Diana mania again , wouldn't wish this on the child or the country

Sorry! I have fallen into my own trap !
parable of the moat and the beam comes to mind!

This makes it a very different comment but is still not proven. We are too fond of generalisations and hyperbole in this country and language is beginning to lose its meaning.

Most people dont want a republic? That is probably all she is missing.

I've not been reading this thread have no interest whatsoever in The Royals but the statement above caught my eye: But people don't want a Republic.I am very wary of generalisations and assumptions and do not wish others to speak for me.

But people don't want a republic. Quite noticeable that for the diamond jubilee the crowds were out for the Queen- the organised alternative republican gathering was a non starter.

I shall have to stop reading this entirely because it is going nowhere and getting sillier and sillier!

My conclusions are:

1. It is entirely reasonable for merlotgran to be puzzled.
2. It is entirely reasonable for me not to be ( It fits my picture of a slimmed down, modern monarchy.)
3. Some people will agree with OP, some will agree with me, some will agree with neither and some will be puzzled by Harry and not William- or vice versa.
4. Lots won't care- it is of no interest. Very true of the majority of Gransnet , you notice the same few people are posting on here.
5 there is no point whatsoever in William or Harry taking note when one opinion is that Harry is too young and irresponsible at 30yrs and yet a criticism of William is that he is too old and boring at 32yrs! Personally I think that is the right way around and you want responsible and reliable for King- but not what everyone thinks if they want charismatic or are republicans.
6 the conclusion to draw is that you can't please all the people all the time and so you might as well be true to yourself. In 20/30/40 years time people might come to respect that rather than having a PR machine trying to bend public perception when it is shown to be an impossible task.

( apologies if I have guessed ages wrong- can't be bothered to look them up)

I agree with rosequartz - I don't think they are like marmite- the vast majority of people don't love or hate them. I don't know them- although judging by this thread I am surprised to find that I know more than I thought I did- but I love history and like having a monarchy. I don't think Charles will make a good king ( too self indulgent) but I don't think that we should alter the line of succession. I have hopes that William will be better-mainly because he is meeting all sorts in the air ambulance.

After leaving this twice I will try to be third time lucky and not come back to it!

rosequartz It is not possible to integrate an American-style presidency, which is what you seem to be describing, into the British political system and, albeit unwritten, Constitution. Something along the lines of the Irish system – pretty economical and without any suggestion of a First Lady, First Cat, First Dog, Camp David, the White House, the Beast, Hail to the Chief and a massive Secret Service – would work quite well if people wanted to have a republic.

Someone posted earlier that the Royal Family are like marmite - you either love them or hate them.

Well, I, and I am sure many people, neither love nor hate them.

I think, from a pragmatic point of view, that a very slimmed down monarchy would be far better and better value for money than the alternative Presidential system.

I did ask for suggestions earlier for President and First Lady but have not noticed any suggestions for candidates.
Even the Presidential elections would cost the taxpayer a fortune - more than a nuclear Royal Family costs - and the hype and rigmarole every four or so years would be unbearable.

When he chose to lecture the Chinese he put himself forward for criticism and embarrassment .

Leticia He also gets plenty of undeserved adoration and hero worship so it evens out. There are loads of posts on an old Gransnet thread and articles in about every magazine I see at the supermarket checkout about what a good king he will make – all assertions without any a) definition of a "good king" and b) any evidence.

If he sticks at 2 he will be OK - anything more will be up for criticism. However- well done! An heir and a spare probably OK - unless someone has something to criticise I haven't thought of!

Leticia I've answered your question. Do I get a prize?

We are lucky. We all have embarrassing moments - they won't be played to the public in 30 yrs time.

Well even Christ didn't manage that Leticia and he walked on water

Making babies?

I may be harsh on Harry but I see another Andrew in the making

Off topic, but what on earth happened to Williams team that they didn't notice a circus close to the elephant sanctuary , I felt so sorry for him when the media just had to shout out about it,

When someone can tell me something he can do without criticism I will stop calling him the underdog. No one has come up with anything.

He is the underdog because he is criticised and yet he can do NOTHING. He will be criticised whatever he does. Most of us don't get that- I don't.
How horrible to know there is no way out.

You do not have to belong to something to be the underdog.

When did Prince William [user name underdog] join Gransnet? I think we should be told.

Eh?

An underdog on this thread.

If he isn't willing to grow up then there is no hope for me!

Oh for goodness sake.

I don't, classing William as an under dog was the daftest

I said Peter Pan because he isn't willing to grow up , a teenage prankster is amusing, not so a man in his late twenties , not in public

I think a 30yr old being described as 'a Peter Pan' is sillier than any of my statements!!