Reply to: The separate thread about how awful Queen Elizabeth was and the Royal Family is

[malvolio]

Clearly you don't know any republicans. They aren't all poor.

Not about wealth or lack of it, more about why should someone else have more privileges than me. And yes, I know a lot of republicans.

They aren't senior working Royals.

No, they aren't "working". Quite the opoosite. They still hang on to their "Senior Royal" titles and privileges though.

Also Charles' spare has done him a favour.

By doubling the workload of his brother? Yep, that helps...

Who did the right thing by f***ing off even though it upset certain parts of the British media. At least if we hear of him copying his eldest paternal uncle by mingling with the Fake Sheikh and other more unsavoury characters we will know they can't meet the King and UK ministers.

Andrew is a buffoon, and always has been. The epitome of unwarranted privilege. Harry's mistake was not impressing on Megan the difference between "Royal" and "Celeb", but prior to that he did do a lot of good things without much reward.

The Prince Royal, Earl and Countess of Wessex are still senior working Royals.

I assume you mean the Princess Royal, who does more than anyone. Edward and Sophie are also busy, in their own way. Andrew is out of the loop now, but was doing far more harm than good when he was "working" as the UK's trade envoy (aka flying at our expense to assorted international golf venues).

[SueEllen]

IDI as well. Such people aren't actually anti-Monarchist, on the whole, more "Why them and not me"...

Clearly you don't know any republicans. They aren't all poor.

As for leaving the system, most of the younger royals never joined and get on with their own lives already; the only real exceptions are Andrew's ninnies, who cling to their titles but contribute nothing obvious.

They aren't senior working Royals.

Also Charles' spare has done him a favour.

Who did the right thing by f***ing off even though it upset certain parts of the British media. At least if we hear of him copying his eldest paternal uncle by mingling with the Fake Sheikh and other more unsavoury characters we will know they can't meet the King and UK ministers.

The working Royals are already quite a limited bunch, basically Charles, Camilla and William's family.

The Prince Royal, Earl and Countess of Wessex are still senior working Royals.

[malvolio]

Yeah. It's not a job, it's a life and I think in this day and age of choice and options Harry won't be the last to leave the system. I reckon it's going to be harder and harder to find someone that will live the life from cradle to grave and put the nation first(ish). Decisions over where they live, who the marry yadda yadda are going slip so it's all going to look very different in a generation or two.

There is already news about slimming the coronation down and much more reform coming I reckon so hopefully a cheaper, slimmed down, more transparent system will emerge that might even start appealing to the anti establishment lot, BIDI.

IDI as well. Such people aren't actually anti-Monarchist, on the whole, more "Why them and not me"...

As for leaving the system, most of the younger royals never joined and get on with their own lives already; the only real exceptions are Andrew's ninnies, who cling to their titles but contribute nothing obvious. The working Royals are already quite a limited bunch, basically Charles, Camilla and William's family.

[northernladuk]

Whorty's last paragraph means I don't grudge them at all :-)

Yeah. It's not a job, it's a life and I think in this day and age of choice and options Harry won't be the last to leave the system. I reckon it's going to be harder and harder to find someone that will live the life from cradle to grave and put the nation first(ish). Decisions over where they live, who the marry yadda yadda are going slip so it's all going to look very different in a generation or two.

There is already news about slimming the coronation down and much more reform coming I reckon so hopefully a cheaper, slimmed down, more transparent system will emerge that might even start appealing to the anti establishment lot, BIDI.

[SueEllen]

Oh, now this is inneresting...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62982315

2 days after being at a funeral with 2,000 guests, at least one of them has tested positive.

No need to panic

She is female, so while old shouldn't die.

[gables]

I'm another of those 'meh' when it comes to the actual royals in the royal family. Didn't watch any of the last week's who-har (watching a funeral when Rachel's is still so raw was not high on my list of activities).

On balance I prefer that we have a monachy than not because of the income it brings in. They are net positive.

But I also think they are no more than slaves ... well paid, well treated I grant you .... but slaves none-the-less. The top royals have very little freedom to do what they like unless like Harry they quit being a royal. Personally, even with all that perceived wealth, I'd never want to be a top royal. I like to do able to go to Asda in my onesie and slippers, and drink cider on the park bench, without fear that someone is going to pap me.

I'm in this camp although we did watch the funeral and I do like a military procession. For me the net positive for the nation works (but the staunchly anti-monarchs won;t care about the loss of trade\income\jobs a lot of ordinary people will experience) and Whorty's last paragraph means I don't grudge them at all :-)

[WTFH]

Oh, now this is inneresting...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62982315

2 days after being at a funeral with 2,000 guests, at least one of them has tested positive.

[vetran]

There is the tangible and intangible though. I've seen some figures somewhere around direct income from visiting attractions and the like but they didn't take in to account the income to other businesses and then there is the intangibles around reputation and other spends by visitors coming to London in general.

So as a direct business then I can see the number might not add up but overall net gain to the UK still far exceeds the cost.

We have just had almost every world leader at the funeral and we will have similar at the coronation. The deals that were done over her Majesties' silverware are difficult to quantify.

[northernladuk]

This has been debunked so many times. Versailles gets more visitors than the royal attractions in the UK.

There is the tangible and intangible though. I've seen some figures somewhere around direct income from visiting attractions and the like but they didn't take in to account the income to other businesses and then there is the intangibles around reputation and other spends by visitors coming to London in general.

So as a direct business then I can see the number might not add up but overall net gain to the UK still far exceeds the cost.

[Paddy]

Nonsense. Ever heard of invisible earnings? The Monarchy generate around £1.9bn a year, one way or another.

Or are you yet another who can't distinguish between the institution and its members?

Source?

[malvolio]

This has been debunked so many times. Versailles gets more visitors than the royal attractions in the UK.

Nonsense. Ever heard of invisible earnings? The Monarchy generate around £1.9bn a year, one way or another.

Or are you yet another who can't distinguish between the institution and its members?

[Paddy]

On balance I prefer that we have a monachy than not because of the income it brings in. They are net positive.

This has been debunked so many times. Versailles gets more visitors than the royal attractions in the UK.

[Whorty]

I'm another of those 'meh' when it comes to the actual royals in the royal family. Didn't watch any of the last week's who-har (watching a funeral when Rachel's is still so raw was not high on my list of activities).

On balance I prefer that we have a monachy than not because of the income it brings in. They are net positive.

But I also think they are no more than slaves ... well paid, well treated I grant you .... but slaves none-the-less. The top royals have very little freedom to do what they like unless like Harry they quit being a royal. Personally, even with all that perceived wealth, I'd never want to be a top royal. I like to do able to go to Asda in my onesie and slippers, and drink cider on the park bench, without fear that someone is going to pap me.

[DealorNoDeal]

I imagine there is a huge middle ground between staunchly pro and staunchly anti, with a lot of people pretty indifferent/ambivalent/apathetic.

I'm not a fan of the monarchy, and I don't like the royal family much, but I ain't that fussed about getting rid of them. And I know there is little public support for this anyway.

[hairymouse]

Indeed. It was watched by 4 billion people around the world. Any argument that the Monarchy isn't needed or wanted kinda goes out the window on that point alone. Surely anyone who is anti monarchy has must be wondering if they are actually wrong at this point wouldn't they?

I neither want nor need the monarchy but I still rode my bike to see the funeral procession since it was going close to my house. It was a nice ride and I wanted to see the hubub. I never wondered at any point if I was wrong about the monarchy.

What I was wrong about was the idea that the British know how to queue. I've never seen so many people trying to jump in front of you or jump out into the road to block everyone else's view.