The family firm.

Envy is an unattractive quality, particularly in grannies.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

And I think Sandringham.

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

9 of the 21 properties are privately owned.

The privately owned houses are not visitable , the rest are

Wonder who would buy Windsor Castle

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.

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.

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

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.

Turn the properties owned by the state into flats ?

Be less work to pull Windsor Castle down surely

Can anyone really claim that the RF need all these residences? I'd never heard of some of them!
www.housebeautiful.com/lifestyle/g21562488/royal-family-homes/

We are all a product of our ancestors & what they did or didn’t, could or couldn’t do , the common denominator being the sexual act of procreation, which obviously they all did do??

Yes history

The rest is History ( as they say?)

Henry the 8th broke away from the Pope & the Vatican because he wanted to divorce & remarry .
He established himself as the Head of the Church of England as well as being King.
Changed whatever he wanted to, to suit himself.

I think I looked pretty good when I took my small children to school. I was young enough to look good without a lot of effort. I didn’t ‘drop them off’. We walked. It took about 15 to 20 minutes. Not a rush. Bags were packed the night before. They had school meals, so there was no problem preparing packed lunches. I just don’t recognise these stories of last minute rushing.

As soon as they were old enough, they were responsible for getting to school on time themselves. It was their fault, not mine, if they were late. This took a lot of hassle out of the later school years!

I realise this topic has moved on, but I wanted to put my point of view.

Should living quarters in KP be open to the public?

Eloethan do tell, what ruthless brutality and devious scheming is the queen guilty of?

My understanding is that the Civil List was replaced by the Sovereign Grant which comprises 25% of surplus revenue from the Crown Estate (a publicly-owned portfolio). The proceeds of this in the year 2017'2018 was £76.1 million. On top of this, income from The Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall (despite, in name, belonging to the nation) goes directly to the queen or Charles respectively - this amounts to tens of millions of pounds every year.

Posters have said that the royal residences and other properties owned by the royals are open to the public. It is true, they are but for limited periods, with very limited access and at a price - in some cases, a fairly substantial price:

Buckingham Palace - open for 10 weeks in summer and selected dates in winter and spring. In any event, access is limited to a few areas. Cost £25 per person (or, if state rooms, queen's gallery and royal mews are included £45 per person)

Kensington Palace - only state rooms open to the public _ £17.50 per person

Balmoral Castle - April to August only, £12.00 per person

Clarence House - only one month in the summer - no access this year. New prices to be advised for 2020.

Sandringham - open April to October. £17.50 per person.

How was the monarchy originally established and by what means did these families establish they were of inherently superior status and therefore entitled to rule? We know that royal families across the world are ordinary human beings who do not have "blue blood" - at one time it was thought they were ordained by God to rule over nations but I don't think many people believe this now. I would suggest that they acquired their wealth and status not through hard work and intelligence but by means of force - and they retained it through force and corrupt practices. There is plenty of evidence to substantiate the sort of ruthless brutality and devious scheming that monarchs used to maintain their positions.

The very limited and often costly access to royal properties is intended as a measure to convince people that they have some sort of ownership in them. But it is a nonsense.

Harry and Meghan have proved a useful scapegoat for this family. Charles has pontificated for years about saving the environment and wildlife while at the same time doing nothing whatsoever himself to further such aspirations. His father has in the past called for population control - though not apparently for himself or his own family. So hypocrisy is not new to the royal family but has never created the deluge of criticism that Harry and Meghan are now experiencing.