The family firm.

Turn the properties owned by the state into flats ?

Be less work to pull Windsor Castle down surely

Of course they don’t need them, no one is going to buy them are they, it’s all an accumulation of our past history.
Buckingham Place is unliveable in places with antiquated plumbing etc. .
Have none of you visited old houses owned by the National Trust. They are not luxurious, they are not economic.
They could be pulled down I suppose , but how sad that would be to eradicate our past history, so as long as people visit them they do bring in some income.

Why would you want to pull down Windsor Castle.
Would you also want to pull down Churches etc ?

But most of those houses are not visitable Bridgeit. I can't see anything wrong with asking them to choose one property and live in it. The rest could be flogged off, converted to flats, opened to the public or any other practical use.

Well that’s not a bad idea, but practically speaking probably not really viable, because the modernisation would not be cost effective.
Doesn’t the Queen alternate between Balmoral & Windsor.
Apparently the loos are very cold & draughty.

The privately owned houses are not visitable , the rest are

Wonder who would buy Windsor Castle

9 of the 21 properties are privately owned.

The Queen owns Balmoral ,others held in Trust by the Crown Estate.

And I think Sandringham.

Monarchy annual contribution to Uk each year= 1.8 billion each year
Plus an increase in trade of £550 million from revenue

Why was the childrens play house incuded and derelict castles ! And Ascot ?

That's a lot of properties they have, agree do they need them all. And acres of land too so not hemmed in or overlooked by neighbours. It's an awfull extravagance for one family.

Just checked the OP for this topic. Oh, it was all about Princess Charlotte’s first day at school. Has now digressed to the RF being fortunate enough not to have their homes overlooked by neighbours, and the proposed demolition of Windsor Castle, for no justifiable purpose other than the fact that none of us live in a castle.

And much fault lies with Henry 8th ?

All because a little girl started school and her mother didn’t have to put the washing machine on or prepare packed lunches

The question should be while so many families dependant on foodbanks will be grateful their child is starting school, because she will get a cooked meal at lunchtime,should one family, who arguably contribuute nothing useful to society, be able to send their child to an expensive private school because of their birth?

Sad isn’t it Annie, that the first day at school for one little four year old, should bring out such bile and hatred.

I’ll repeat again what I’ve said through this thread, the royals have enormous privilege and wealth, but it comes at a cost, the loss of privacy, and many obligations.

Who wants JC or BJ as president? And MPs claim enormous expenses, flip their homes, have a better by a long way salary than most others, have just about the best state paid for pension scheme in existence and work so hard that they often have several directorships in other areas/companies.

And does anyone think that a president wouldn’t cost us an enormous amount of money. We’d still need state occasions and banquets to entertain others wouldn’t we?

And if we want to criticise obscene wealth, take a look at footballer’s pay, the rewards of being a successful pop singer, the wealth of people who own mega big companies ie Virgin, Dyson. The pay of those who run our utilities. The people who receive bonuses of over a million pounds plus their pay.

Envy is an unattractive quality, particularly in grannies.

I agree with most of what you say, maddyone but footballers, pop singers, TV presenters etc., etc., pay for their own security and house renovations. They do earn obscene amounts of money but they don't have it handed to them on a plate for doing very little.

I'm not anti-monarchy but I can see the point of those who criticise them and I really can't understand the slavish devotion of some people in the 21st century.

They need to change if they're going to survive.

Totally agree with you maddyone. Unfortunately we now seem to live in a country devoid of any decency from top to toe, so I guess one little four-year old girl on her way to school is almost bound to be a target for bile and actual hatred solely because of the family she was born into, something none of us can help! It's a very sad reflection on the nation we've become!

I agree Maddy I have asked those who want rid of the Windsors to name who they would support for President.

merlot slavish devotion? Rubbish .

Oh come off it, Annie. I'm not talking about posters on here but those who camp on pavements in cold weather or travel miles just to get a glimpse of a car speeding past.

This thread has wandered off track like a lot of them do. My comments have nothing to do with Charlotte's first day at school.

I certainly don't do, 'bile and hatred!'

Trump? Macron? I bet their wives clothes budget could probably rival Kate’s. And Jackie Kennedy was not noted for her frugality.

There is nothing wrong with supporting an institution like the monarchy while criticising some aspects - like hypocrisy.

It doesn't mean you have become a republican.

merlot if people want to camp on pavements it’s their choice. How is this slavish devotion ?

And are footballers at risk of being attacked as the Windsors are ?

The Queen is head of the commonwealth, leaders of the commonwealth have elected Charles as the next head of the
Commonwealth. Would they have elected a president?

No, they respect the monarchy because respect works both ways.n