What is the Monarchy For?

Beatrice and Eugenie both have jobs, wealthy husbands and homes of their own so why do they need grace and favour properties in London when they are not even working Royals? 🤔

Latest figures I can find is the Royals cost U.K. tax payers approximately £1.29 per person per year.

Less than the price of a cup of tea, a loaf of bread (proper bread not the cheap supermarket brands), most chocolate bars etc.

I do not begrudge them my contribution.

merlotgran

Beatrice and Eugenie both have jobs, wealthy husbands and homes of their own so why do they need grace and favour properties in London when they are not even working Royals? 🤔

Do they have grace and favour homes?

I know Eugenie moved into Frogmore when H&M went to USA, but is she still there?

And where is Bea?

Whilst the monarchy takes in £millions from charging the likes of state schools, NHS hospitals and government departments feudal rent on properties in the Duchy estates, as well as raking in £millions from offshore wind farms (no doubt coming from our utility payments), I cannot see how they can justify taking even more money from tax payers.

Are they still charging the NHS £11million to store NHS ambulances?

It was reported that Harry and Megan gave Frog more to Eugenie.
Richard Key reported Charles stepped in re Eugenie having paid security when travelling the world in her gap year.

It seems the late Queen granted much to the York family

Do they have grace and favour homes?

When in the UK, Eugenie lives at Ivy Cottage in the grounds of Kensington Palace.

Beatrice has an apartment in St. James’ Palace.

Neither are working Royals and both have homes of their own with their husbands.

Saying they have no political clout ignores the "soft power" that David Dimbleby talked about in the documentary. One example was Charles expressing his displeasure to the Saudi royal family in relation to proposed flats being built on land owned by Saudi royalty. His will prevailed. There are, no doubt, many other examples of this underhand method of influence that we will never know about.

I believe there is also some concern that as the Crown owns vast amount of freehold land which is used by various individuals, companies and charities, there will be pressure brought to bear on scrapping or watering down the proposed changes to leasehold. I think I read that we are the only nation that has a leasehold system - which amounts to a guarantee for wealthy families (the royal family amongst them) of a permanent stream of income, requiring no effort whatsoever on their part.

How many members of the royal family and names please

Allira

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.

Why not you, seeing as you've offered the services to others. As for me no thanks. Once bitten twice shy.

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!,

Republican has a nasty connotation in this country, remember the troubles.
Monarchy brings stability, think of Starmer with ultimate power, it would be worse than we are now.
Only left wing socialists want a Republic, envy and all that.
"The term "Republican" in the UK typically refers to people who want to replace the monarch with an elected head of state, rather than a specific political party with that name.
Recent polls indicate that approximately 25% to 38% of the UK population support having an elected head of state, with support for the monarchy generally higher overall. "
Just see all those shots of people supporting the King at his coronation, et cetera.

Obscenely rich people should not be monarchs.

There is always an elite ruling class, and one of the ethics of the elite ruling class should be that that the top man or woman is not among the richest people in the world.

The leisure pursuits of the Windsors include hunting with horses and dogs, shooting game birds for fun, and owning jewels ,works of art, and racehorses. Conspicuous consumption is natural-----however we don't have to tolerate it now that it is dysfunctional .
I'd support a royal family who lived modestly and frugally.

I can't be bothered to listen to the King this Christmas; what can he possibly say to me that is of interest, especially in the light of his disreputable and disgraced sibling. I am tired of the whole family and have no regard for any of them whatsoever.

Caleo

Obscenely rich people should not be monarchs.

There is always an elite ruling class, and one of the ethics of the elite ruling class should be that that the top man or woman is not among the richest people in the world.

Interesting Caleo…the old saying ‘There is always a Tsar in Russia’ rings true!

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.

Under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, “home and support” means providing a safe, suitable place to live for at least 6 months (a private bedroom with access to bathroom, kitchen, heating, hot water and electricity). No rent can be charged, though reasonable bill contributions may be agreed. Support is limited to basic settling-in help (e.g. local area, GP, NI number, schools if relevant) and cooperation with council checks — not financial support, employment, or long-term care. Guests can work, claim benefits, and move on if they find other accommodation. Hosts receive a government thank-you payment of £350 per month per household, rising to £500 per month after 12 months; this is a gesture of thanks, not rent or income.
To offer a home to a Ukrainain inludes more than the average OAP could deal with even if she had a spare room. Moreover there is no similar scheme to help Palestinians.

I truly cannot imagine why very rich people such as the King does not give some of his vast properties and wealth to housing and maintaining refugees. He seems a nice bloke, and I imagine he has a kind heart. He is a bit silly about conspicuous consumption however that is because he has not been educated as a lefty sociologist.

Caleo

Obscenely rich people should not be monarchs.

There is always an elite ruling class, and one of the ethics of the elite ruling class should be that that the top man or woman is not among the richest people in the world.

I don't think obscenely rich would apply to the UK Monarchy.
Perhaps very wealthy but, compared to some obscenely rich people, not that well-off.

Now - having someone independently wealthy as Head of State in a Constitutional Monarchy, not an Absolute Monarch, seems to me to be a better Putin than having a president who has too much influence and is intent on making themselves obscenely wealthy while they are in power.

Putin

😲 bl**dy autocorrect!
If only we had an Edith button.
😁 edit button

option

Allira

Caleo

Obscenely rich people should not be monarchs.

There is always an elite ruling class, and one of the ethics of the elite ruling class should be that that the top man or woman is not among the richest people in the world.

I don't think obscenely rich would apply to the UK Monarchy.
Perhaps very wealthy but, compared to some obscenely rich people, not that well-off.

Now - having someone independently wealthy as Head of State in a Constitutional Monarchy, not an Absolute Monarch, seems to me to be a better Putin than having a president who has too much influence and is intent on making themselves obscenely wealthy while they are in power.

Whatever, Allira. The Windsor camel would not go through the eye of the needle.
“Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

“The French got it right”

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

You mean like Fillon, Sarkozy, Le Pen all indicted for misuse of public funds in recent years.

Others going back further in History.

Or maybe the century of blood shed and starvation (Les Miserables anyone) that followed the first revolution as Fance waged war on the rest of Europe.

Vive La Republique anyone?

Also in Matthew

Matt. 7. [1] Judge not, that ye be not judged. [2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Anniebach

Also in Matthew

Matt. 7. [1] Judge not, that ye be not judged. [2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

So what, Annie? Jesus was not referring to folk who are not even aware of injustice in society., but who slavishly admire the conquerors. Jesus knew very well that Palestine under Roman occupation was an unequal society.

Slavish admiration for the monarchy is not a help to anybody.

Slavery has been abolish, contempt is a help ? your choice

Slavish admiration for the monarchy is not a help to anybody.

😂😂😂

Just because some people have studied history, looked at more modern world events with a critical eye and have come to the conclusion that a benevolent Constitutional Monarchy is a good alternative to some of the regimes, some of the elected Heads of State around the world does not mean they have a slavish admiration for them.

Very funny, though, I needed cheering up!

A don't see the UK monarchy as benevolent, although extremely wealthy it takes money from even the poorest of UK citizens and has very unfair tax advantages.

Slavish devotion to the ideology of a Republic isn’t a help either.

I don’t think any Republicans on this thread have actually come up with any facts about the cost or ways to prevent the abuse of public funds as in France or the abuse of whole sections of the people that has happened in African countries like South Africa and the extreme difficulty of deposing an elected tyrant
- see USA.

All under the aegis of an elected President.

All I’ve seen on here is the kind of emotional slavish rhetoric that is no different to extreme Royalists.

🤔