What is the Monarchy For?

merlotgran

^Charles and Camilla showed this by their treatment of Princess Diana. Charles also showed a complete lack of compassion in his dealings with Wendy Berry^

Who on earth is Wendy Berry?

She wrote "The Housekeeper's Diary" (which was published in the USA) about her time as housekeeper at Highgrove when Charles and Diana were first married until their separation.

She had to emigrate to the USA after it was published and Charles did everything he could to prevent her visiting her family in the UK even when one of her sons had leukaemia.
More details are available online.

Maremia

Wendy Berry was a housekeeper for Charles and Diane. She wrote a tell all book, which Charles had banned.

Oh, so no relation to Mary then.

Wendy Berry was a housekeeper for Charles and Diane. She wrote a tell all book, which Charles had banned.

Should start with ...I think

think the head of state should be changed every 3 years. The person should be selected by lottery. Everyone who is on the electoral register is automatically in the draw.

I'm sure if Frank and Ada from my street won they'd do a wonderful job of cutting ribbons, waving at strangers and visiting people in hospital. All the diplomatic/political stuff could be done by specialists/politicians/diplomats. Frank and Ada are a lovely couple and would make anyone who stays with them welcome....well maybe not the Trumps but then who would make them welcome.

During their term as head of state they could get some new clothes, live at Buckingham Palace and receive a £200K per year in wages. At the end of their term they would receive £2million as a golden goodbye.

We could then keep the money from the royal estates, sell/rent the properties or open them to the public, sell of the crown jewels, share out the works of art with galleries across the country so the public can see them....I'm sure you get the drift.

Of course we might not always get people like Frank and Ada but that's how it goes. Choosing our head of state by an accident of birth is no guarantee that they'll be any good and at least a lottery would mean we wouldn't have to keep a load of parasitical hangers on. Only Frank and Ada would be paid. Not their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, grandchildren, cousins or any other family members.

I cught bits of it. I can take or leave them. There was nothing new being said in the programme but it helped Dimblebys retirement fund.
We need better, BBC!

There in no point in monarchy. Sure, the outfits of the women keeps magazines in print and the behaviour of the whole family keeps the tabloids going. The programme showed them as they appear behind the Daily Mail headlines, self indulgent, self publicising, controlling and ruthless. They are a pointless and expensive indulgence our 21 century cannot keep supporting. How it is justifiable that our taxes are forced to support independently wealthy billionaires while public services are cut back? How can these people be allowed to pay peppercorn rents for mansions? How can it be justifiable that they have so many houses to swap amongst themselves while many of the taxpaying public struggle to house themselves in one home? Why do they think we have anything to learn from them who despite their best efforts to say they are 'just like us' are anything but. Having family members and friends struggle to get help for their cancers while fighting to get back to work to support themselves, I find it nauseating to listen endlessly to Kate and Charles trying to get us to identify with their 'struggle'. For sure, having no rush to get back to work for an essential income, endless access to the best health care, endless support at home, in the garden and with childcare does not mean they can assume to be 'just like us' - it's patronising to suggest it is.
We really do not need to keep supporting this feudal nonsense where a royal family can expect the public to support them and their relatives while they award themselves titles and patronages. Meanwhile we are not to be allowed to know what their wealth is, even after death! None of us are allowed this privilege - why are they?

There would be nothing to stop William or Charles from standing for election if they really wanted to be head of state, and good luck to them if elected, but they would at least be answerable to the people.

Charles and Camilla showed this by their treatment of Princess Diana. Charles also showed a complete lack of compassion in his dealings with Wendy Berry

Who on earth is Wendy Berry?

Well said!

I am amazed at the hypocrisy that exists from Charles towards his brother. Charles was having an affair with a married woman throughout his marriage to Diana before they were divorced
Later he married Camilla (when Diana died in an accident (?).)

His uncle (Edward viii) had to abdicate (before his coronation) because he wanted to marry a divorced woman.
(-he was effectively banished from the U.K-)

I do believe having a royal family is good for the country. However, where I take umbrage is where vast amounts of money is paid for the upkeep of the vast family hangers on. When we finally get a modern streamlined monarchy, which I trust William will eventually create. We should be able to save money as a country. There are far too many of them who appear arrogant and entitled, so far detached from what is happening to their “ so called subjects”.
Yes they should pay inheritance tax just like the rest of us, and on their savings. Do they pay tax when over the threshold on their pensions? Do they worry about paying utility costs? Can they keep warm during the winter? Do they worry about loosing their homes when interest rates climb. Have any of them had to worry about affording a roof over their heads.
Similar to politicians they appear oblivious to the real worries that people have but are still happy to take from the purse. Let’s not forget the “waste of space” never mind spare H &M, grumbling about security, does he not realise that ordinary people worry about their safety too. He can’t expect his cake and eat it. He sold his family down the river, US is welcome to keep them as far as I’m concerned. Families all have dramas, but they don’t air their version of dirty linen worldwide.
So I hope that William can and will relate to all of us, listen to the people’s concerns and eventually rule with common sense, integrity and a strong moral compass.

Didn't see the TV program.
But have always thought that the concept of Monarchy and Royalty was akin to a mental illness.

No matter what people say in this country . The Monarchy racket still has millions of followers who love them.
I think it is because deep down they think they should be the King or Queen.

Very infantile and. child like in
psychoanalytic terms.

Not a great lover of the French but they had the right idea in getting rid of their royals

Vivre La Angleterre

dalrymple23

Despite the negative comments above, one of the points is that they make ME very happy and I am proud to live in a monarchy and I do not begrudge them a penny. And what, exactly, is wrong with inherited wealth? I bet a huge number of Gnetters have benefited from the odd bob or two bequeathed by their parents or other relatives.

There is a world difference between inheriting "a bob or two" and inheriting enormous wealth, property and status. All without having to pay any inheritance tax.

As one of three, I inherited a modest amount and we had to pay inheritance tax. I did not inherit any titles or jobs for life.

I have no respect for Charles or Andrew as I think they both lack basic morality. Charles and Camilla showed this by their treatment of Princess Diana. Charles also showed a complete lack of compassion in his dealings with Wendy Berry.

Andrew, of course, is far worse. I believe Jeffrey Epstein described him as being the only person he met who was more perverted than he, JE, was. If it were not for his royal connections Andrew would have been in court by now.

However, I would not like to see the monarchy abolished if only to stop some awful president/dictator like Trump coming to power. I think a slimmed down and modernised monarchy that didn't dress up in silly uniforms, demand fleets of servants and huge parades of military personnel and horses would be the way forward.

I am rather hoping that William, who seems very likeable, will bring about some necessary changes when his time comes. Though I probably won't still be around to see it.

Chocolatelovinggran

Indeed, Grammaretto: the Norwegian monarchy is much loved, but is very low key compared to ours.

The alternative is known as Democracy. Put simply if you don't like what and how they do it you can get rid of them. Not a basic right that we have now....

Cannot think of anyone I would trust with my vote to be President of England or the U.K. Our current government is a waste of space and over time many of our politicians have cheated the system in one way or another (e.g. duck houses come to mind!). The Royals today do not rule as they did in years gone by, and are a tourist attraction bringing money into the Country - who is there that could do that as a President?

So we never had to have Blair, Johnson, Truss, Starmer, Forage, etc, etc, etc as head of state.
We are very good at tearing things down, cheered on by mob voices howling for change, breaking up good alliances without understanding the consequences and being left vulnerable as a consequence.
Reduce it, streamline certainly, definitely. But abolition is a step into the unknown. Be careful what you wish for!
Be sure that the castles and houses and art and treasures would not end up doing the ordinary people any good but would soon be heading towards the greedy pockets of the already rich enough.

An over privileged group of people who are very far removed from the rest of the population. They are a drain on the country's resources and are kowtowed to by many. How many homes each do they have, how much property and land do they own and yet there are so many without even a roof over their heads?
I do not wish any of them harm but hearing talk of their health issues is nauseating when you consider they have the very best specialists in the world to give them immediate care whilst thousands of others can't even get a GP appt to take the first step into any treatment they may require and then they just get put on a waiting list and have to hope for the best.
I don't begrudge them their wealth but I think they should take a backseat and enjoy it quietly. I don't want to hear what they have to say, know what they wear or have any info about them.

Diana had no trouble being a mistress to several men, naive girl living in a flat in London with James Gilbey , Squidgy tape fame visiting her there , whose older sister dated Charles , Diana’s father worked for the late Queen her maternal grandmother lady in waiting to Queen mother, no one knew ? many went to Camilla’s first wedding

I have no idea what they are for, but I like having a monarchy. As far as I’m concerned they are good theatre and entertainment, a much better soap opera than Eastenders or Coronation. Street. They are nowhere near the richest people in the country, and because most of their money is inherited they don’t have to make money by dubious means, as many of the seriously rich do.

The institution itself is a useless, silly thing and it’s silly to look up to these people. I also think the most daft argument in the world is “what’s the alternative, Trump?” As if the only alternative to the ridiculously outdated institution is a spray-tanned white supremacist. There are zero rational arguments for grown people in 2025 to be bowing to so-called “betters”. It’s all just nonsense relics of the classist, damaging, past society we used to be. We don’t need a monarchy to remember the past. That’s what museums and history books are for.

I had a lot of respect for Elizabeth II who trained as a mechanic in the War to help the war effort. The monarchy died after she passed.
I'm now a republican and have no respect or time for 2 adulterers who used a young naive 19 Yr old girl as a breeding machine. And they are deeply religious infact Charlie is head of the church of England. Nothing but immoral parasites all of them, and a huge drain on our country's finances

The question to ask about our monarchy which is the apolitical lynchpin at the top of our unwritten constitution is who or what would we have instead? I would not want an elected president every few years. And who would I want to elect? Can't think of anyone. The royal family give us stability at the top. They live well but within very limited boundaries. They live in an institution yet are subject to constant media attention. Not something I would want.

Despite the negative comments above, one of the points is that they make ME very happy and I am proud to live in a monarchy and I do not begrudge them a penny. And what, exactly, is wrong with inherited wealth? I bet a huge number of Gnetters have benefited from the odd bob or two bequeathed by their parents or other relatives.

i am a royalist through and through and can't imagine what it would be like to not have a royal family.
who would be head of state if the royal family were abolished - nobody springs to mind and certainly not any prime minister.
the royal family (apart from certain members such as harry and andrew) do a great deal to keep britain in peoples' minds - to my mind they do a brilliant job.
we need the royal family as we've needed them for many hundreds of years.

Paddyann54

Andrew was never charged with any illegal wrongdoing and never will be. He's a pompous silly unlikeable man but having sex with a 17-year old in London isn't a crime here.

The photograph doesn't show her being afraid or traumatised - and in fact it was taken with her camera and at her request as she said that her 'Mom would be so thrilled to see her with a real English Prince'. All her words from her book that was published after her tragic death.
.