Prince Harry’s engagement

*what's the betting that, if we had an elected President, the system would cost even more.
I can't see a President walking around turning off lights in empty rooms or putting up with a leaky roof.*

I agree Jalima. I like her Maj.
I want a monarch, not a president, but, I think we need to limit, quite severely, the amount of taxpayers money which is used to ensure the royal family live as they do. I know the royals have to fork out for some things themselves but they are heavily subsidised.

We need a cull....not in the violent sense, but we do need to pare down the expense of the family. I don't want a penny of taxpayers' money to go (even inadvertently) to the likes of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, for example. I am sure they are nice girls but.....

Agree, Mawbroom has commented for me too. Goodness this has brought out a few mean spirited girls.

Definitely not Welsh Jalima, enought the use a title which does not belong to them.

Absolutely agree Day6.

We don’t need an elected President - we have. Prime Minister. The Queen is a constitutional Monarch and holds no actual power. Her ‘giving of consent’ to various matters is a traditional formality.
I guess we all like the parades, pomp and pageantry, and I’m ok with that. It’s the Royals job after all, but I really think they should live less expensively. No one needs the pampering that they receive. I gather that HMQ herself is more frugal than the others, bless her, but Prince Charles is said to have sent a helicopter to fetch his cuff links from Glos to Windsor - how much must that have cost?!
I think they should be more like the Scandinavian Royals, who still live jolly well thank you, but definitely less extravagantly.

No problems with the helicopter sg, so long as HE paid for it!,!! Surely we didn't?!!! Yes, apparently HM is more cost conscious than her offspring, and like you, bearing in mind their own enormous personal wealth, imo they should certainly foot the bill for their own personal jollies/foibles! Prince Andrews girls now have to pay for their own security, and, they say, he was said to have been very put out by this edict! Did he seriously think the state (i.e.. us) should pay for that. I don't think so!!!! ditto this wedding , which of course they are (wisely) paying for!!

I agree with all those who say that the RF needs “paring down” financially. We should pay them for doing their job but nothing more. Things are changing, slowly, and I think by the time William is king they will have changed dramatically. And quite right too.

Charles has started to change things, it was he who stopped the body guards for Andrews daughters. Edward and Sophie do work but this is rarely reported, now no chance of it being reported, we will get Megan and her clothes and the pair of them clutching hands on public appearances . Quennies second son and Charles second son ?

they might pay for the wedding but WEpay for the security...wasn't it around or over 35 MILLION last time? Really people who think monarchy is acceptable in this day and age are deluded.Its a very flawed system as are the so called" Honours" handed out to the supposedly great and good...or bought by a lot of them.It really is time the UK moved into the 21st century.These royal ,and yes that is exactly what they are because they live off others while doing damn all for it , should all be WORKING for their living not living off the state

I think that is unfair, some do a lot of work raising funds for charity, and the thought of a President Corbyn fills me with horror , plus only wealthy people could stand for any election for president

I wonder if the members of the RF ever stop to consider how they came to be in the position they are in now.
It is certainly not by divine right.
It is because their ancestors were very unpleasant people who raped, pillaged, grabbed land and did anything possible to better themselves.
The present generations are of course not responsible for that but maybe they should think about it and be more humble.
I read once of a young woman born into enormous wealth and privelage who gave it all up when she discovered all her family's fortune came from the slave trade. Her conscience could not let her enjoy her lifestyle.

sluttygran - I'm with you on a more Scandinavian approach to the RF. I'd extend that the the entire country, we'd all pay more taxes and have better public services to name one overall benefit.

Sadly for you paddyann, the monarchy is extremely popular by all these deluded people, (how patronising is that?!) and probably will stay that way for the foreseeable future. Again, sadly, they are all vastly wealthy in their own right, which would make 'having to work' for their living completely unnecessary even if they were banished into outer orbit. As for security, do you honestly believe that a President pays for his /her security or that of his family - I don't think so.

But Ann, should we not all think of the wrong our ancestors did?

Of course we should Annie but I certainly don't know how my ancestors became so very poor as it isn't in the public domain.
The ones I have managed to research as far back as 1780 were all labourers of some sort so no wealth there.
I did discover some very strong women who were widowed very young with families and they managed to keep them together and thrive. I wonder if there is a backstory there.

My ancestors were dock workers which, living in Bristol, means they would have unloaded goods which had been produced by slaves - does that mean I should be ashamed of them or should I admire the fact they managed to overcome the poverty to enable their descendants to have better lives?

I'm the product of, somewhere in the 18th C, a coupling between a WI slave and a slave owner. Can anyone advise me what I'm supposed to do?

It amuses me that people keep accusing anyone who criticises this wedding or the RF as "mean spirited" and other ridiculous remarks. Some of us bring our critical faculties to all areas of life and don't stand gawping at the spectacle of the RF staging yet another publicity stunt. It is perhaps a sign that the days of the RF are numbered when even the Telegraph finds it slightly unbelievable and begins assessing the chances of divorce.

Was there much rape and pillage in the 18th century

they might pay for the wedding but WEpay for the security...wasn't it around or over 35 MILLION last time?

We pay for security at various events eg football matches, concerts, etc but how many of us go or even enjoy these things? And exactly how much does Tony Blair personally cost the taxpayer in security? Remember him anyone? He who has put the security of all of us at risk.

I will not be "standing gawping at the spectacle" but neither am I trying to predict when this newly engaged couple will get divorced!! How many other couples have to contend with strangers stating their marriage won't last or even (as I was told yesterday) that she is pregnant so it is a "shotgun wedding" (do people have those these days?). I had to point out that if she is pregnant and they are getting married in the Spring of next year that would make her 6/7 months pregnant!

I'm surprised at the predictions of divorce so quickly - I would have thought they would be predicting how soon the babies would arrive

The Daily Telegraph is extremely spiteful and should be ashamed of itself. It's beyond me why it could possibly imagine that its readers would be remotely interested in such rubbish usually the reserve of the tabloids. I would think a decrease in circulation would be result of such trash.
Of course we're all entitled to our view about the RF, but the vitriol aimed at a newly engaged couple simply because of who they are was, for some of us, spiteful and unnecessary. Even that arch republican Jeremy C, wished them well, and sounded sincere.
Rape and pillage annie?!! Well, maybe not up to Viking standards, but I think depending where you lived and your situation, it could be a bit lawless/violent!

I wish them every happiness and I'm so glad that the RF are paying for the wedding.
Mischievously, I wonder what the reaction would be (in the palace) if Meghan has a baby with very dark skin, which is quite possible.

Oooh now the Daily Telegraph is "spiteful" and I always thought it was such a bastion of the establishment!