£102.4 million

Oh good, I’m a citizen. When did it change? We used to be subjects. Anyone know that?

Glorianny

I bet I know what the RF think we all are!!!!

Plebs

Oh, I'm definitely not a pleb ?

Well I try my best Callistemon but………

Casdon

I don’t usually join in royal threads but I’ve got my grumpy head on this morning. It’s a drop in the ocean. Manchester City signed one player, Jack Grealish for £100m last year, which puts it into context.

£4billion was wasted on unused PPE. That’s hardly been discussed on Gransnet, whereas the Royal Family is never without at least three interminable threads. They are worth £102.4 million just for the apparent joy people on here get from picking over the bones constantly.

Exactly, Casdon!

But that doesnt make sense. In that case we cant complain about PPE because of footballers or the RF. Its quite possible to talk about money in a range of circumstances. One doesn't negate the other.

Galaxy

But that doesnt make sense. In that case we cant complain about PPE because of footballers or the RF. Its quite possible to talk about money in a range of circumstances. One doesn't negate the other.

It does make sense Galaxy, the point I was making is that it’s Groundhog Day on Royalty threads. There are many, many ways in which money can be ‘wasted’ in the eyes of a proportion of the population, and that proportion varies according to what the subject is. However there is no topic on Gransnet where the same arguments are reiterated agin, and again, and again as about the Royal Family.

Hear, hear!

Its groundhog day on numerous subjects, most internet sites wouldnt exist if originality was demanded on each subject.

I don't feel that strongly about the £102 million but the comparison with Manchester City doesn't work. Manchester Cityb are not asking the rest of us to pay for their new player.

Cost of tickets ,? but obviously personal choice

It's less than £1.50 a head. If it wasn't the royal family we'd be paying more, probably, for a president or some other sort of figurehead.

After many years of wanting to see reform everywhere I've come to the unexpected conclusion that actually, archaic as this country sometimes seems, we've actually got a better system going than most. I've come to appreciate how important a second house (House of Lords) is: I've come to see how a monarchy can be a point of stability and something to hold onto when everything else is being disrupted.

If we have an elected president we could end up with, say, Nigel Farage or William Rees-Mogg or an actor from EastEnders representing us: if we have appointed presidents we could end up with a political figurehead who could do terrible harm. And all of them would require round-the-clock surveillance for the rest of their lives. If we have a new one every five years, the bill would very quickly surpass the cost of maintaining the RF.

Good post, thank you

Ilovecheese

I don't feel that strongly about the £102 million but the comparison with Manchester City doesn't work. Manchester Cityb are not asking the rest of us to pay for their new player.

That wasn’t the point I was making, it was that people place value on different things, but £102.4m is small beer in the scheme of things.

Sorry, Casdon!I misunderstood your point.

I'm sure the RF generates far more in revenue through tourism etc, as well as raising the profiles, and therefore incomes, of the many charities they support.

I imagine things will change and evolve into a different animal completely when Charles, and eventually William, become King, and already they are more casual and more visible and approachable than previous generations, especially the Cambridges and the Wessexes, who seem very relatable and down to earth.

And compared to the money wasted by this Govt, £104m seems extremely good value!

DoNotDisturb

I'm sure the RF generates far more in revenue through tourism etc, as well as raising the profiles, and therefore incomes, of the many charities they support.

I imagine things will change and evolve into a different animal completely when Charles, and eventually William, become King, and already they are more casual and more visible and approachable than previous generations, especially the Cambridges and the Wessexes, who seem very relatable and down to earth.

And compared to the money wasted by this Govt, £104m seems extremely good value!

More tourists go to Chester zoo RF don't influence tourism

And the palace of Versailles has heaps more visitors they don't have a monarchy.

As for helping charities no they don't.

Giving Evidence today publishes research about Royal patronages of charities: what are they, who gets them, and do they help? This fits within our work of providing robust evidence so that charities and donors can be as effective as possible.

In short, we found that charities should not seek or retain Royal patronages expecting that they will help much.

giving-evidence.com/2020/07/16/royal-findings/

People seem to like the queen not so much Charles and the rest. So when she's gone people won't be that bothered.

Yes, I think there is likely to be a change of attitude when Charles becomes king.

Class system gone mad!’ John McEnroe blasted Royal Family’s role at Wimbledon

In his book, ‘But, Seriously’, Mr McEnroe detailed his frustration at the Wimbledon protocol of bowing and curtsying to the Royal Box, which hosts the most exclusive guests.

He argued that, as the players are the ones providing the entertainment, they are the ones who should be receiving the respect and appreciation.

He wrote: “As for all the bowing and curtsying ‒ and we’re not just talking about the Queen here, we’re talking about some pretty minor royals ‒what was all that about?

“This was the class system gone mad, the opposite of a meritocracy, where hard work is rewarded and people are respected because they’ve actually done something, not because they’ve been born on the right side of the tracks.

But he’s not a UK citizen Grany, his view is irrelevant. Would you listen to Donald Trump’s view about your organisation and take it seriously?

Because he’s not British he can clearly see the flaws in the situation that many British people cannot see because they’ve been indoctrinated since birth that the royals are superior to the ordinary people and they deserve this unearned respect.

Who cares what John McEnroe thinks about the Royal Family? He is a tennis pundit.

Grany Perhaps you (or he) didn't realise that the revolutionary war ended in 18783 with the Treaty of Paris? America is a democratic republic/constitutional republic.

Perhaps he thinks we should be bowing and curtseying to him? ???

I think it’s interesting that John McEnroe can see the inherent problem with having a family that are supposedly superior to the rest of us. I can clearly see why Americans and other nationalities don’t want to bow to royals they’ve probably never heard of. It might be different if the Queen turned up at Wimbledon because everyone has heard of her. But they get the Duke of wherever who they’ve never heard of, and only if they’re lucky they might get The Duchess if Cambridge who they have heard of. I can quite see why some may feel somewhat offended if they’re told they must bow to these people.

I think the US entertains a degree of nepotism too.