Retaining the Monarchy

Exactly Anniebach- the Queen is value for money at twice the price, which is more than can be said about any politician, of any party!

A politician?

What can you buy for £1.24?

The Queen has 8 grandchildren, only two carry out public duties.

Charles has slimmed down the monarchy, he can’t tell Anne
Edward to retire can he ?

Time to re-read 'The Queen and I' by the wonderful Sue Townsend

I can’t think of the last time I heard about or read of Princess Margaret’s children.
I assume they are just getting on with their lives. They are after all the GC of a Monarch as are the children of Andrew, Edward and Anne.
Except for the direct heir this in my opinion is how it should be.

BradfordLass72
I can think of many' unworthy's' this country gives to while its own go without and the RF is right at the bottom, if appearing at all. on the list.

I feel totally no sympathy for the Royals. They have it too easy.
Whose life was ruined by the royal Protocol?
I fear more for people I know whose lives are ruined by poverty and illness than for those idolised nimcompoops!

I have spelt idolised wrongly but too tired to correct. sorry.

Visitor numbers at Versailles prove you do not need a monarch in residence to bring in tourists......
FFS not going to keep them for showing tourists!

They can choose one permanent residence and perhaps use Buck Palace as just for tourism......save millions.

Having given this some thought recently I think it would be best to retain the figurehead of monarchy but in reduced luxury.
I think the European/ Scandi model is much better.
So the Royals would only be supported for the Monarch, and immediate family everyone else ....get a job.

I don't want another elected President figure. We know how rubbish that goes.
After Queenie we could briefly have Charles, then William then George and after that who knows?
We might not need a figure head at all then.

Take away its monarchy what else would bring in the majority of foreign visitors?Not that they would be invited for afternoon tea with the queen but having witnessed the Household Cavalry in the Mall and the Presenting of the Colours have yet to see any other country better that.

Witzend - No!!!! Annie - well, sort of!!!!

The U.K. has a government too

Careful there GrannyGravy13 or you'll be accused of 'virtue signalling'!
Good on you, I wish I could do the same and would if I had the dosh.

I've never agreed with the monarchy as an institution and this goes right back to my early teenage years.

But I bear the individual royals no ill will at all. They cannot help who they are and what families they were born into any more than I can.

I'd like to bet many of them find the restrictions imposed upon them quite stifling sometimes and royal protocol has ruined many lives, sadly.

I do resent the sort of money, goods and services they can command when so very many people in their realm are in dire need - but what, practically, can they do about it?

The Queen can't sell off her castles and jewellry to give to the poor.

It's my understanding, although I could be wrong, that pretty much everything she has is owned by 'the country' and not by her personally.

I have simply never understood anyone's hero worship of the royal family, nor of celebrities and the seemingly endless need to know everything possible about their lives.

It is literally beyonf my comprehension.

Australia and New Zealand may have HM Queen as Head of State but she takes no part whatsoever in the way these countries are run.
She or her offspring pop in occasionally to make sure we're still here and we bow and scrape until they fly off again.

Then we go back to governing ourselves quite nicely thankyou.

Now and then I used to have the odd republican sentiment, but was firmly cured of that when I thought of e.g. Tony Blair as President, with Cherie as First Lady.

I do think he liked to imagine he was more popular than the Queen (esp., naturally enough, around the time of the death of Diana) and thought he was going to make the monarchy second rate, compared to him.

Out of interest, is there any public figure GNers can think of at the moment, who they'd like to see as President?

Yes a good thing GrannyGravy but I find their hand holding, eye gazing, camera performing draws attention away
from everything else. Sorry but they irritate me.

Anniebach if being on the news highlights the plight of African people, orphans etc and results in donations to these charity's increasing surely that is a good thing?

They will be on the news daily for ten days !

I am going to Africa in November and I shall be taking one suitcase full of clothes, pencils, exercise books etc.

Cannot see anything wrong with the Royals donations personally?

And she is taking Archie's old clothes to give away to the 'poor' and colouring books for the children, from Archie.
Bless.
But to return:
the thought of a republic fills me with dread; President Blair and First Lady Cherie.

Meghan made the excuse for leaving her first engagement after maternity leave that she had to get home it was feeding time.
I wonder if she left in the middle of pal Serena’s last set or this weekend in the middle of a high profile and highly publicised wedding in Rome?
Of course not.

It's a bit boring on the Royals front at the moment as the major players are still hiding on holiday in Balmoral.

Fear not. Harryward the Woke and Me-again are off to Africa tomorrow with baby Archie who we probably won't see as they don't like us.

Never mind. There will be plenty of outfits to bitch about comment on.

It will no doubt be a highly successful trip as Harry loves Africa and apparently wants to live there

Totally against a republic.... keep the monarchy.

Totally against a hereditary monarchy .....bring on a republic .

Ellan Vanin, after I posted my last comment the idea of Tony and Cherie as President and First Lady popped into my head too! I'll take Charles and Camilla followed by William and Kate any day!