What is the Monarchy For?

Anniebach

I had Duke of Kent in my thoughts. 81 ? best I shut up, I am 83 , Maw;

The Duke of Kent is 90 now.

I had Duke of Kent in my thoughts. 81 ? best I shut up, I am 83 , Maw;

Anniebach

merlot yes a large number of extended family for years, now those who were working royals with the late queen, Kent, Gloucester still attempt some public works but they are very old, turf them out ? I think Andrew’s daughters may ,if so they should pay, all living there during the long reign of the late queen

Gloucester is 81 and looking very spry. Do you think he’s too old Anniebach ?

merlot yes a large number of extended family for years, now those who were working royals with the late queen, Kent, Gloucester still attempt some public works but they are very old, turf them out ? I think Andrew’s daughters may ,if so they should pay, all living there during the long reign of the late queen

Yes Annie but any of them really if the cap fits in regard to vacated properties.

Merlotgran you are speaking of The king and his two sons as ‘the royal family’, yes ?

mumstheword86 I totally agree with you and it really annoys me the amount of people that criticise them and are downright venomous about them.

My error re Glamis sorry

I don’t mind how many homes they individually own so long as they are regularly used. It’s the ones left empty that get my goat.
Frogmore Cottage doesn’t appear to have anyone living in it and is anyone lined up for Adelaide Cottage?
What’s happening with the vast Appartment 1a in Kensington Palace. Do William and Kate still use it as a London base and what about the one next door which was renovated at huge cost for Harry and Meghan who then turned it down?
Add in Nottingham Cottage and various apartments in St James Palace….Surely they cant all be accommodating staff and offices?

I thought the Bowes Lyon family owned Glamis Castle?

So much of the royal family, are cousins, nieces and nephews of the king included?
Anne and Edward have one house each, Andrew is moving to a private estate owned by his brother.
William has 2 ,one in Windsor and one in Sandringham given to him by his grandmother.
The king has Balmoral, Sandringham and Glamis castle the family home of his grandmother the late Queen mother, and highgrove, if he was to abdicate he would have no Windsor, no Buckingham palace,

yes we need the monarcy who wants it to be like elected USA Trump Putin etc Please,,,, they bring us tourists and money that people come to UK to see from across the world
Please keep the monarcy Slimmed down version is happening each year They do great charity work remember !!!

sodapop

Archewell and H &M are not royal now are they?

They are when it suits. (No pun intended).

TerriBull

Osborne House, IOW, no longer belongs to the Royal Family, it's either NT or English Heritage.

Osborne House was gifted to nation in 1902, is managed by English Heritage and open to the public.
Glamis Castle has always belonged to the Strathmore family and is also open to the public.

Are there UK figures regarding numbers civilian wise who support the Royal family?

Are they philanthropist like other old money folk (who don’t get our hard earned cash for FA) off with my head

Allira

Grammaretto

I wonder why no Royal palace was offered to Ukrainian refugees or other homeless people

Surely they could spare just one of their many homes.
What about Osbourne on the Isle of Wight? I don't hear that being talked about much or Glamis Castle .

I think as a gesture it would have made a big difference to the credibility of the RF.

They do not own most of what you call their homes, as these belong to the Crown Estate. They do have their own private homes which they purchased with their own money so you might as well ask why anyone who has spare bedrooms does not put up refugees and homeless people.

Here you are, if you're thinking of offering:

Homes for Ukraine Scheme: This government initiative pairs Ukrainians with UK sponsors (hosts) who offer their homes for at least six months, providing a safe haven.

Grammaretto

I wonder why no Royal palace was offered to Ukrainian refugees or other homeless people

Surely they could spare just one of their many homes.
What about Osbourne on the Isle of Wight? I don't hear that being talked about much or Glamis Castle .

I think as a gesture it would have made a big difference to the credibility of the RF.

They do not own most of what you call their homes, as these belong to the Crown Estate. They do have their own private homes which they purchased with their own money so you might as well ask why anyone who has spare bedrooms does not put up refugees and homeless people.

But nobody has actually come back with any figures to show that an elected presidency would cost less than an ongoing monarchy.

In fact, if you take into account the cost of frequent elections it looks like it would cost more.

Unless we combine Head of State with the political office. That would reduce some running costs but then it would be purely political, like the USA and their election costs are billions!

There may be good reasons for not having monarchy as Head of State but cost isn’t one of them.

paddyann54

This is just more propogandait reinforces the view of mainly English people that monarchy is essential which clearly it’s not.
I have always been a republican and I,m sick of not being able to pickup a magazine or turn on my TV without some nonsense about Harry and his (apparently) domineering ,lying wife? Or the vile Andrew and the fact that his MOTHER paid millions to prevent him facing justice in the US,
Let’s not forget whether or not Megan is a liar is not proven the rest of the RF are collectively money grabbing ,attention seeking …note Charlie and his late wife wrote tell all books.
Parasites each and every one ….and NO it wouldn’t cost more for an elected head of state and the tourists would still come without them.
The PR is relentless and there’s no such thing as bad publicity so I guess the sheeple will still believe it’s a god given right that they should be there My opinion? The French got it right!,

I 100% agree with everything you have said. We don't need them, a decent amount of the population either don't care or don't want them. Get rid and save the money. If Charles and company had been taxed properly I may not resent them as much but as they haven't, I do resent them. They have interfered too much in politics in order to save themselves £. For those of you who disagree how can you justify Charles not paying a bean in inheritance tax when he inherited all that wealth from his mother whilst the rest of us are taxed to the hilt? Parasites....

You're right TerriBull

Grammaretto

Wikipedia has just answered my question. Indeed Ukrainians were housed at Dumfries House and RF have given aid to various charities, discreetly. Perhaps they should advertise it more.

I don't think Ukrainian refugees were ever housed in Dumfries House, or the holiday accomodation there. It was considered at the time but didn't come to fruition.

Osborne House, IOW, no longer belongs to the Royal Family, it's either NT or English Heritage.

Wikipedia has just answered my question. Indeed Ukrainians were housed at Dumfries House and RF have given aid to various charities, discreetly. Perhaps they should advertise it more.

I wonder why no Royal palace was offered to Ukrainian refugees or other homeless people

Surely they could spare just one of their many homes.
What about Osbourne on the Isle of Wight? I don't hear that being talked about much or Glamis Castle .

I think as a gesture it would have made a big difference to the credibility of the RF.

In answer to, What Are The Royals For?

Somebody has to attend the Royal Variety Performance!