The family firm.

trisher her great grandchildren benefit? How ?

They live with parents, so do all children except the children abandoned. They attend private schools as do many children , is this your problem with the little ones ?

No one is jealous of her Maj’s lavish lifestyle and that of her numerous family members even though we ultimately pay for it. But no one can defend the hereditary principle in this day and age. In the past they were believed to be some kind of deity. Seems some people still believe that.

trisher "It shows a distinct lack of understanding of what constitutes real democracy "

No it actually means some posters have a different opinion to you, that's all!!!

I have no objection to people making money, no objection to them handing some of it down to their children. What I object to is a figurehead who is not only regarded as special but whose spouse, children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and others benefit from their specialness. I also don't see why my elected representative should have to swear allegiance to a monarch. I would much rather they swore allegiance to the country and its people. Perhaps if they did so they would then show more compassion and care for those people. I also still contend that an elected representative would not have been quite so ready to prorogue Parliament without consulting other elected MPs or the Speaker.
It really is pathetic that the monarchists on here can only see jealousy as a motive for opposing monarchy. It shows a distinct lack of understanding of what constitutes real democracy.

GrannyGravy Charles has started slimming down the numbers who have royal duties but it must be difficult for the
Queen to dismiss Edward and Sophie.

No president of any country does the tours of the commonwealth , and the commonwealth is important.

Anniebach, maddyone I agre ??

I agree maddy. The cry seems ‘poverty for all’

Wealth is a reoccurring theme on many GN threads, it seems to be a certifiable crime to admit to being "wealthy".

Keep the Royal Family but trim it down probably to 3rd or 4th in line to the throne.

The thought of living in a republic with an elected President fills me with dread.......have you noticed the current "crop" of MPs, inhabitants of the House of Lords? no thank you!!!

Jealousy is exactly what it is. Jealousy of the wealth, the houses, the servants, the position. However, a president would have exactly the same privileges, including police protection for life, just as ex Prime Ministers do. There can be no other motive other than jealousy. We already have a democratic system (not going into the Brexit business on this thread) and therefore the queen is a figurehead. A president would be too, and would cost as much, and have as many privileges. Then there’d be the cost of maintaining them for life, whilst continuing to support the new president. Unless of course, we had just had one president till he/she died. Not much difference really. Jealousy is the motive for criticism.

If not about money why does their wealth keep being referred to?

Not about money and not envy either Some people are just so blind

Not necessarily political Annie but certainly answerable. The two are not necessarily connected. Think about the election of Police Commissioners.

trisher so a President would be involved in politics and this
is what you want ? No thanks . The thought of the leaders of our political parties as president?

So much envy . The PM of this country has three or more properties to live in.

I couldn’t care less that the queen owns two properties

FFS No one is "jealous". Do you imagine it was jealousy that drove the chartists at Peterloo? or any of theother activists who have worked, demonstated and petitioned for equality. We believe that a monarchy is the last vestige of a hierachy that placed some people above others simply by virtue of their birth and true democracy would get rid of them. Arguably the fact that the Queen automatically prorogued Parliament when asked indicates how unrepresented we are. An elected leader of state would need to be more circumspect because they would be answerable for their actions.

Anniebach if you don't like the message you should contact the sender ( www.royal.uk/royal-residences-buckingham-palace) not blame the messenger.

Gilly, she doesn’t own Buckingham Palace, it belongs to the state.

What is the matter with so many people? So much resentment! My mother always said jealousy hurts the the jealous person more than it hurts the object of the jealousy. It appears to be true.

trisher Charles was born 71 years ago . And how often does the queen pop around to the royal mews to saddle up a horse ?

Announcement of births and deaths at Buck house is a tradition, there for the public to read , doesn’t cost anything.

Of course Buckingham palace is a home.

One of the many enjoyed by her maj and co. Okay so she may not live there full time, but nor would anyone who had second, third, fourth or even fifth homes.

Thank you for that information trisher, in that case Buckingham Palace is a home.

However it belongs to the state, so I assume that if the monarchy was to be abolished, that Buckingham Palace would become the official residence of the president, whoever that might be.

maddyone the official royal UK site disagrees with you.
Whilst Buckingham Palace is seen as the administrative hub of the Monarchy, it is also very much a family home, in addition to holding The Queen's Gallery and the Royal Mews. The Queen gave birth to Prince Charles and Prince Andrew at the Palace, and to this day notice of royal births and deaths are still attached to the front railings for members of the public to read.

The argument that the monarchy brings in tourists is rubbish hardly any tourists will see the royals. Plenty of places with dead monarchs get more tourists. People love a bit of history - that’s why they go to the Tower of London, Stratford on Avon, not cos they think Henry 8th or Will Shakespeare will actually be there.

I believe the word privileged is relative - the royals (and most other people in this country) have more money than me but I have more money than millions that I saw in India. Silly word to use really....

It’s not about which is better it’s just saying you don’t have to have a current monarchy to attract visitors.

Not my definition annepl