Are the Royal Family losing their touch?

The one area where I differ from Grany is in the cost. If something is worthwhile and valuable, it's worth spending money on.

But the Monarchy is an outdated concept that should have no place in the constitution of a modern country. Even if it cost us not one penny, we should still replace it. They can keep their houses and castles and estates, that's not the point.

The point is we have a society that thinks giving someone a position of power and influence in this country because of who their dad was, is the way to do things. We justify it by saying how fabulous all the parades are, and isn't the Queen a lovely person. Frankly, its ridiculous in this day and age.

Thank you Grany for your post above. Very interesting information.

The opinion part is whether you think money spent on the Royal family is a waste or not Grany. You do, others don’t.

Casdon

Grany

We would have democracy a Republic. We can chose who we elect, the Windsors they have a job for life. But the main thing is we won't be throwing several millions at this at this one very rich family, so more money for people that actually need it nurses ect public services. You chose to be royalist, if you want I'm glad I'm not. You can't make an argument for them because everything you say don't stack up to facts.

The truth is that what you believe isn’t facts either Grany- it’s your opinion, based on information you have sifted through to support your opinion. What you call a waste, somebody else considers money well spent. Other people are as glad to be royalists as you are to be a republican. Neither is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, they are just different opinions.

All based on fact Casdon not opinion.

It was found that queen and Charles can vet legislation on various things and thoses that affect their private interests. Called queen's Consent. Charles lobbies ministers and Gaurdian won the case after several years to allow his letters become public.
An independent report by Giving Evidence found that charities don't benefit from royal patronage and shouldn't bother seeking it. RF don't turn up to over 70% of visits to charities.

The Sovereign Grant stands at £85 million and can only go up not down a golden racket clause put in by George Osbourne. Plus Queen and Charles get personally £22 million each from two duchies. That's a lot of money.

In their annual financial statement the security cost is left out. Queen and family and extended family have palaces castle grand home that number at least twenty. These all have around the clock security. And cost very little to them or are heavily subsidised by tax payer even though those living in these homes have two three or four other houses.

Travel expenses under £15,000 are not counted and RF use transport a lot, as they have a lot of free time count the engagements, helicopters being the favourite though very much more polluting to the environment.

It goes on

The queen has nothing to do with our constitution so can't hold government to account so her role is pointless.

It's Mother's Day here- maybe it's getting to me, or could be the champs itself....

Volver- this is possible an absolute first for me- I agree with you!

The bottom line is, there can be no justification in the 21st century , for people to be elevated to an important constitutional role merely on the basis of their parentage. What other job would this be acceptable?

Grany

We would have democracy a Republic. We can chose who we elect, the Windsors they have a job for life. But the main thing is we won't be throwing several millions at this at this one very rich family, so more money for people that actually need it nurses ect public services. You chose to be royalist, if you want I'm glad I'm not. You can't make an argument for them because everything you say don't stack up to facts.

The truth is that what you believe isn’t facts either Grany- it’s your opinion, based on information you have sifted through to support your opinion. What you call a waste, somebody else considers money well spent. Other people are as glad to be royalists as you are to be a republican. Neither is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, they are just different opinions.

Well said volver.

In fact I am not a Royalist. I do not align myself to either.
I do however have an interest in history, sad to say never ever will there be equality, we only have to look at what is happening in Ukraine , and the starving families around the world ,50 / 60 years on ….. and here we are pontificating on our gadgets..

We would have democracy a Republic. We can chose who we elect, the Windsors they have a job for life. But the main thing is we won't be throwing several millions at this at this one very rich family, so more money for people that actually need it nurses ect public services. You chose to be royalist, if you want I'm glad I'm not. You can't make an argument for them because everything you say don't stack up to facts.

I go back to what about the employment etc.
Maybe the time will come when we become a Republic, but I think we would be deluding ourselves to believe that our lives would somehow be so much better.

Yes monarchy works as a pernicious myth in British life because it is inherently immoral and unjustifiable and yet deludes most people into accepting a society which does not serve their best interests

Can a myth be pernicious?

The monarchy is a pernicious myth

It most certainly would, across many counties & industries.

It is irrelevant, but a fact that they are the RF .an industry for want of a better word.

But I don't think we should have them and not having them wouldn't mean lots of job losses. I don't know how else to explain ir. I'm done.

The point is that we do have them & this does provide an entire industry of various jobs etc

I am trying to make the point that the RF does not supply the mass employment that you insist it does, and that if we didn't have the RF we could still have the employment. If Charles wasn't Prince Charles, but simply Charles Windsor Esq., well-off country gent, his farms and estates would still exist. He would still be providing the employment. He doesn't need to be a royal to employ people. Obviously the same would apply to Anne, Edward, all of them.

I do not reply in any other way than my way. I accept that you are unable understand my comments.

Umm they are the RF, that’s what we are discussing & the fact that this provides employment across the country , especially in some rural areas where employment can be limited .

I'm refuting the fact that the RF are responsible for the employment of thousands of people purely by dint of being the RF.

I'm refuting the idea that replacing the RF with a republic would result in mass redundancies.

I'm willing to see the evidence that says it would, but you're not providing any.

Where is your ‘ refuting evidence’ do you know what you are refuting?

Actually it is the worst you can do. Sad really .