The Royal Family Discussion Thread

[ANGELFIRE1]

It's simply not possible to equate what happened 370 years ago to the situation now. We have moved a long way since then and it is difficult to see the relevance in the twenty first century.

 

 

Having done more than two minutes searching on Google it seems to me that actually nobody can give any definitive answer regarding how much wealth the royal family bring to the UK. It depends on who is doing the research, their bias and what data they include. For every positive there is a negative. As for other people who are wealthy, that is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

 

I don't know what the Queen does all day but the mere fact that she is 92 and still doing her job would seem to indicate that it can't be that arduous. How many people do you know who are still able to work at that age? Very few people in the north live to anywhere near the age of the Queen and her husband. No prizes for guessing why that is. Having had a lifetime of working in a stressful occupation I cannot and will not believe that the Queen 'works hard'. Go into any NHS hospital, especially A&E and then see if you agree that the Queen works hard. She actually doesn't have to lift a finger, not even to wash her own mug! She doesn't have to care for her ailing husband. There are carers all over the UK who are under tremendous pressure, 24/7. It is insulting our intelligence to say that the Queen 'works hard' in comparison to the ordinary person who does not have her privileges.

 

Many people do not want the UK to be without a monarch but they do object to the sheer size and burden of the royal family en masse. It needs slimming down drastically to a manageable level. They are simply overstaffed and in the corporate world overstaffing leads to redundancies. The taxpayer should only be expected to fund the monarch and no more than the first five in line of succession.

 

 

 

You will be getting action taken against you if you keep on posting common sense like the above.

 

 

Angel1.

[Top Cats Hat]

I just don't see them as ruthless

 

I don't think Lady Di and Dodi al-Fayed would agree with you!

[glennpickard]

From the French Accident report I saw, they were victims of a drunk driver, the chauffeur,and had nothing to do with the Queen and the conspiracy reports that were subsequently concocted

[Top Cats Hat]

From the French Accident report I saw, they were victims of a drunk driver, the chauffeur,and had nothing to do with the Queen and the conspiracy reports that were subsequently concocted

 

I wasn't referring to the accident, I was referring to the cold, callous response of the family to their deaths.

[Jomie]

Don’t know what Australians make of this, but their taxpayers are stumping up over one million dollars for the current royal tour: link, link. New Zealand taxpayers also - link. Hopefully they are getting value for money! On top of this is the cost to the British taxpayers.

 

Meanwhile, ordinary folk can be suitably impressed by Ms Markle in her jewellery and attire - Meghan Markle wore almost £2,000 of her favourite luxury jewellery brand yesterday. Meghan Markle stuns in nearly $A30,000 worth of designer outfits in four days on royal tour of Australia.

 

Aside from the games, for which Harry could have funded his own travel etc, perhaps we could be forgiven for wondering what it’s all about and if it is really necessary

[blackydog]

I would quite willing to pay 70p a year.

 

I would be willing to pay quite a bit more to get rid of them all.

 

---------- Post added 22-10-2018 at 13:35 ----------

 

Prince Charles is trying to slim it down to just that: Himself and Harry's immediate family. Which is why he's at daggers drawn with Prince Andrew, who sees himself as every bit as important as Harry, and his daughters, the only two 'blood' Princesses, as integral to the Royal family firm.

 

Prince Charles does not agree.

 

Andrew is as important as Charles. They are both equally unimportant. As are all of them.

[pintor]

Heard on the radio, Harry is taking a rest as he has been busy handing out medals!, LOL!

[woodview]

A meritocracy definition says people advance on only ability, not social position or money.

Its somewhat utopian, but good luck in finding what what you're looking for. One thing I would point out concerning ability in leaders in the UK's democracy.

The Queen has in my opinion, an extraordinary ability to deal with situations and people from all walks of life, and does it so well. That's why I consider her to be a very significant asset to the UK and the Commonwealth, and part of the glue that holds the program together for us all.

By definition, the Queen isn't there through merit. She is there through inheritance, and you happen to think she is good at what she does.

There would be thousands of other people equally or better able if promoted to that same position through merit.

Unfortunately we don't live in a meritocracy. Having a queen 'responsible' for the things she is, is as equally silly as allowing a goverment minister with no experience of management of anything, or the subject, head a governemnt department responsible for that thing.

[truman]

By definition, the Queen isn't there through merit. She is there through inheritance, and you happen to think she is good at what she does.

There would be thousands of other people equally or better able if promoted to that same position through merit.

Unfortunately we don't live in a meritocracy. Having a queen 'responsible' for the things she is, is as equally silly as allowing a goverment minister with no experience of management of anything, or the subject, head a governemnt department responsible for that thing.

 

What do you imagine the Queen to be responsible for?

[Anna B]

What do you imagine the Queen to be responsible for?

 

Keeping the crown on her head and in the family. That's it.

 

Please note they (and the men in grey suits) are prepared to go to any lengths to achieve just that. ...Did somebody mention the word 'ruthless'....