The queen's decor

The monarch hasn't been 'above the law' since 1215. I believe Obama's MiL lives with them and there is no President in history whose family and extended family has not done well out of their exalted relative. Anniebach you keep confusing the privileges the sovereign of the UK has as sovereign and the advantages Elizabeth Windsor has that any very rich woman would have. You also keep referring to 'hypocrisy' but what you describe doesn't seem to me to be hypocritical. You really don't like the royal family, I think we've got the message even though it still isn't clear why!

I agree with your post POGS, I didn't always feel this way I can remember when I supported the idea of Britain being a republic and thought that having a royal family was hardly egalitarian. I'm not sure egalitarianism exists, there will always be those who rise to the top of the pile and lord it over the rest and for me the royal family is preferable to that. I'm all for a pared down one though, in fact I think it's essential for their survival. I don't think too many people want to see public money spent on say Andrew and his daughters. Prince William seems to demonstrate he is not "old school" insomuch as a sense of entitlement is concerned, and when his time comes I like to think he may make the monarchy in the direction of those in Europe who appear to have dispensed with some of the protocol that surrounds the British royal family.

I don't think we can hold dishonourable dealings of previous generations against the present day royals. As far as Anne Boleyn is concerned I think any programme/film/book about the unfortunate 2nd wife of one of our most notorious monarchs will always be of interest to a wide audience particularly those who have a fascination with history. It may be the case that future generations would be just as interested in our present queen, not for her notoriety, possibly more for her longevity and the backdrop her reign provided in a historical context, which might be more interesting then than it is now. A bit similar to Queen Victoria's reign which spanned such a large part of the 19th century sometimes social, economic, political changes and conflicts are more interesting when consigned to history.

POGS , the financial set up of the queen is not available to the public, we see only what they wish us to see. And the windsors gained much wealth over generations by less than honourable dealings .

It's the pretence which annoys me, and the fact the windsors are above the law is so wrong

If I take out the Republican/Royalist views and concentrate on the practical/financial side I say that Buckingham Palaces should have money spent on it.

It is an iconic building and whether or not there is agreement it is one of Britain's most visited tourist sites. It would probably cost a fortune to demolish it and what a stupid thing to do to leave it to dacay. Those are the alternatives.

To those who do not want the monarchy I say the alternative is either an elected president/leader, or god forbid a dictatorship. Even communist countries put their leaders in the best of properties don't they! As I hinted on a previous post there is as much money spent in countries of all forms of political hiarachy and it is the case they possibly spend disproportionately more on their buildings.

I agree with comments re the extended royal family but I believe the likes of a President Blair would nest their bank accounts and hide what they are doing , at least we know and are public ally informed where, what and how our tax is being used.

A series about Ann Boleyn was probably watched by many more than a programme about Queen Elizabeth, Annie.

Two million visit the Tower of London each year - the top tourist attraction, buck house is fifth. More than three million visit Versailles every year.

Seems tourists are more interested in where we beheaded queens than where a queen lives when visiting the UK

Excellent post, vampire. Many American tourists would go to London because of the buildings rather than the Royals. They know our history was their history.

It used to amaze me how many would head for the Borders, after London and York, because that was where their ancestors came from.

Lilygran, does America house the presidents children, grandchildren, cousins , aunts and uncles?

Do you think the tourists would stop coming if we didn't have a queen? It's not as if they get to nip in for a cuppa when she's at home is it? Do they stop coming in August when she's holidaying at Balmoral or all visit there instead. I'm sure Scotland would have mentioned the massive tourist boom in the Highlands each August if they did. And, if the tourists do come her because of her, which I doubt, they tend to stay in the London area. What good does that do the rest of the country?

Tourists come to the UK for our history. They come to see our castles and other historic sites such as Stone Henge. They're far more interested in our past than our present. The Royal Family is just an anachronism which many tourists see as yet another aspect of our British eccentricity along with our equally eccentric weather.

Many tourists are doing a tour of Europe taking in as many capital cities as possible. London is just part of the itinerary alongside the capitals of republics such as France and Germany.

Go, Grans, go!! Brilliant discussions.

The Queen of England ? Now I understand, the windsors bring money in for England but Scotland, Wales and N Ireland must pay for this queen of England and her extended family

Now if you want to talk about greed and exploitation.......!

Thank the Lord for that. I have this image in my head of Tony Blair riding side-saddle down the mall.

A president is elected.

How do you know the queen does it better than anyone, merlotgran? We have no experience of anyone else doing it.

I agree, Lilygran and the Queen does it better than anyone.

And then you would have someone else doing what she does, and you would complain just as much! I would argue that the royal family are, in a sense, employed by the state. In the same way as a President is.

I have been paying attention Lilygran. Ambassadors, ministers of state, civil servants, MPs, NHS doctors and many others are employees and therefore earn a wage.

The Royal Family are not employees. They have not been employed my me or by the state on my behalf therefore I have no wish to pay towards their upkeep.

If she doesn't want to carry out her ceremonial functions then she can abdicate and live on her own resources in her own residences. No one can force her to remain queen.

I get the picture, soontobe

We're having a discussion and don't need a lecture.

I have been trying to understand this thread for the last few days.

Some people fail to see the big picture.

The big picture is that, in effect, The Royal Family are a brand, which rake in lots of cash for GB. Yes, they cost, but overall, they make GB a lot of money.

But some people only see the smaller picture, of posh people in big houses with lots of spare rooms etc.

I have realised, since being on gransnet, that on here and in real life, some people are only able to literally see the smaller picture.
And nothing that is said, is going to change that.
That is who they are. about this particular issue.

I think that we are all like that on some issues, and not on other issues.

She has been in a kind of prison: career determined from when she was a little girl, required to carry out endless ceremonial visits and functions....yes, she is fed and housed and also required to travel or entertain at the drop of a hat, dressed to the nines and listening to endless speeches. If you don't recognise the restrictions you are very limited in your outlook. If you don't think we need someone to do all the things the Queen and other members of the royal family do, that's a defensible attitude. Endless carping about privilege is another. I repeat: people who undertake state duties don't do it at their own expense! Ambassadors, ministers of state, civil servants, MPs, NHS doctors and many others. Even if they could afford to do so, the state pays. Pay attention!

I'm not bitter or twisted. I just don't want to pay towards the upkeep of an immensely rich family who can well afford to pay their own way.

Please explain what restrictions the Queen has had on her life? She is well housed, fed, clothed and has travelled extensively. She never has to consider what to have for tea or whether she can afford to buy the food she needs. Someone else does her cooking, cleaning and laundry. She has a fleet of cars, a private train and the Royal Flight. Up to a few years ago she also had a yacht. She never has to pack or unpack a suitcase or deal with the washing/ironing post trip.

She is feted wherever she goes and all she has to do is smile, wave and make the odd speech.

My feelings too, Lilgygran. No point being all bitter and twisted about things which really are out of our hands - unless some of you are hoping for a Revolution!

BTW she's not just the Queen of England...

I admire the Queen and don't give a monkey's about her privileges but I don't wear a set of blinkers where the rest of the Royals are concerned.

When the Queen dies, monarchists (and I am one) will be living in interesting times.

I won't be manning the barricades though.

My feeling is, so what? I don't mind the Queen of England being privileged in some ways. Heaven knows, she has had enough restrictions on her life a few diamonds and having someone draw her bath (thanks, merlotgran, common as muck,me. Never got the hang of 'U and non-U') hardly enough recompense!

Lilygran, difference between understand why people do things and agreeing with their action.

Why with fifty seven rooms are William and Kate so short of space they need their office in a separate building.

Anne does work which is more than be said for her two brothers and nieces
.may I suggest you read of the agreement set up for Andrew to live in Royal Lodge, Windsor ?
I can't agree that half written about the windsors is malicious , I think most is good press because they have a first class PR team

Merlotgran,if the queens sons and grandchildren did a quarter of public duties that Alexander and Katherine Kent did I would understand them being given apartments in a palace . Be it a party or the balcony we can be sure of seeing the two sisters