I’m feeling sick

Oh come on Ginny, for donkeys years it worked perfectly for the W G. The clamping down by the home office on illegal immigrants and lumping all these poor people into a new draconian edict without proper thorough investigation is to blame. It's a quite shocking thing to have happened, but it is being put right, and hopefully 'lessons will be learnt'!!! (Not holding my breath though-sadly)

Ginny42, the mess up was dreadful for the WG but, it does seem serious attempts to mop up are being made. We aren't there yet but the public outrage and support for the WG generation says something positive about the UK after all.

It may not be perfect but it is certainly better than the alternative, Maizie!
As so many other countries are happy to be members of the Commonwealth and wish to join they must think there is some advantage to it as well - although, of course, not all of them have the Queen as Head of State.

The British Commonwealth started off with eight countries and now, I believe there are 53 members - and they have dropped the 'British' from the title.
In days of uncertainty it is good to realise that we are all part of such a great organisation which does not dictate political terms to each other.

Eloethan I would always read and respect your views in your posts as they are well-thought through and calmly stated, even if they may not always correspond with my own.

Well, being members of the Commonwealth has worked tremendously successfully for the Windrush immigrants to this country, who came to assist rebuilding of the UK after WW11.

Couldn’t agree more MaizieD

What exactly do the (mainly) english public see in them...

When I see the Queen I think of Donald Trump and thank my lucky stars for our Head of State.

If I’ve followed the media reports correctly, it’s my understanding that government cuts to benefits mean children born subsequently to the first two, won’t be eligible for benefits. The minister responsible was asked about this and said if the third child was born because of rape, could an exception be made. She argued that being asked to explain this would be therapeutic on the basis that talking is helpful. This has been outlined earlier in this thread I believe. Shocking, outrageous and unacceptable.

Well said Monica, exactly.

It is possible to be neither republican nor monarchist, but that still doesn't answer the question as to why an objection to a system has to be made offensively personal.

Were anyone to speak about any other group in society from the homeless to second home owners, the way some are describing members of the royal family there would be outrage.

I agree Chewbacca, such a statement needs clarification.

Please paddyann, come back and explain what you mean by "^WHY is Kates 3rd child a^ blesssing when other women on less benefits than Kate are being asked to prove their 3rd child is a product of rape.

I haven't seen or heard anything about women being asked to prove that their 3rd child is a product of rape but, if this is true, I would really appreciate more information please. This is such an outrageous statement to make, I'm sure there must be more information to support it.

No one can help the family they're born into, the financial situation of that family or the other people in that family. If you are ' fortunate' as the RF undoubtedly are then all you can do is to try your best to use that fortune for the greater good, and that is what I believe the RF, with maybe some exceptions do, admirably and sincerely.

Paddyann, what would you do IF you came from a family who had inherited property money & had a-family business , let’s suppose it was successful & enjoable for your family let’s assume you decide to do some good within your community, jobs , charities etc. Then let’s suppose someone told you ,you were a parasite & that you should be ashamed of what you have & that the best thing you could do was give it all up & disappear over the horizon or throw yourself on your sword so as not to offend anyone . Just saying ........

WHY is Kates 3rd child a blesssing when other women on less benefits than Kate are beingasked^ to prove their 3rd child is a product of rape^.

What on earth does this mean? Who is being asked to prove that their 3rd child is a "product of rape"? This is such an utterly bizarre statement that I think it deserves some context. Paddyann could you explain please?

Good post niggly, why is it assumed that because some would rather keep the monarchy than have a president they are fawning , royal worshippers. Just the thought of yet another election with very wealthy candidates wanting to be president is enough to make me support the monarchy

And if one wants to criticise the monarchy why the need to make personal comments about those who hold a more balanced view.

I don't think many people fawn, still less worship the RF! I haven't heard that he D of C's baby is a 'blessing'!! People are happy for her as you would be for anyone, and that's about it!! As they're not on benefits the fact of how many children they have is irrelevant.
I'm sure that all of us on here are very glad that you have a nice lifestyle paddyann, but to constantly bang on in a negative way about a family that the majority of us know little or nothing about on a personal level is both tedious and frankly boring - you deeply dislike the RF! You don't have to keep telling us, we get the message!!!

English public ?

but its quite all right to be a fawning royal worshipper of people who you have never met and dont know ? Strange that ..I dont "love" people I dont know and I dont "hate " people I dont know .I HATE the concept of monarchy.WHY should these parasites be treated like gods? What exactly do the (mainly) english public see in them that is so amazing that they are happy to keep them in an overprivileged lifestyle while huge numbers are living on the breadline.WHY is Kates 3rd child a blesssing when other women on less benefits than Kate are being asked to prove their 3rd child is a product of rape ? The mentality of the monarchists is something I will never understand .And no they aren't the main reason for tourism ...their residences are well down the list ...and they dont have their own money it ALL came from us at some stage .Not one of them has actually gone out and made millions ...think about it .BEFORE anyone says it I am not jealous .I have avery nice lifestyle ..all worked for by us .

I think the commonwealth leaders had decided Charles would be the next head of the commonwealth .

Queenie has had years of some in this country criticising her eldest son, wanting Charles to be sidelined for William who is soooooo like his mother , the 'I feel your pain ' Saint Diana. She remained silent through all the critcism of her son, her family , herself, whilst Diana chased every camera, ran to the press to speak of her suffering at the hands of the cruel Windsors.

When she said her wish was for Charles to be the next head of the commonwealth she really meant - I have faith in my son to continue my fathers and my commitment to this country

Just because someone takes a view that the majority disagree with, doesn't mean that that view is any less valid or that it is going to remain a minority view in perpetuity.

Nobody is arguing that, but just because you are in a minority doesn't mean you have to be gratuitously offensive but people you do not know and have never met.

Could well be kitty. The P of W gets such a bad press at times, that it overrides all the excellent work he done for charities young people the environment and much more. We can't all have film star looks and an adoring fan club to be considered 'the right person'. I think Charles is a deep thinking, earnest, flawed, (aren't we all?) sincere, deeply caring person. Prince William will do as well to observe this as he may find he's not so welcome time come, if indeed he wants to be?!

Maybe The Queen was actually, politely, showing the public that she has faith in her son. It will have been sorted previously in private so she didn't have to say anything at all.

I think the fact that new countries who had nothing to do with the old Empire want. to join the Commonwealth speaks volumes. Perhaps countries see it as a safe institution, run in a non political way with a serious, committed totally non biased person as its chairman. If the Commonwealth heads of state had any doubts about Charles, they would for certain have made this known. It's not the same as the 'Divine right of Kings' when there was no choice, it this instance the leaders have had choice despite what the Queen recommended, which they could have respectfully overridden.

jalima You said to maryeliza that she is "vastly outnumbered" with regard to her view of the royal family and Charles and the Commonwealth.

Yes, she is, and so am I. But throughout history the majority have been supportive of, or too scared, to challenge the status quo.

Once upon a time if a person had disagreed with the concept of the divine right of the king/queen to rule, they would have been executed. Practices that were commonly accepted in the past, such as buying and selling black people, are no longer morally or legally acceptable.

Things have moved on quite a bit since then and may well continue to move on in the future, despite the vast amount of propaganda that the TV, radio and newspapers churn out with regard to the royal family.

Just because someone takes a view that the majority disagree with, doesn't mean that that view is any less valid or that it is going to remain a minority view in perpetuity.

I'll put on a couple of links instead:

thecommonwealth.org/about-us
thecommonwealth.org/our-work

There are 2.4 billion people in The Commonwealth and more wish to join.