FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Royal Family - have they had their day?
Royal Family - have they had their day?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Was watching a programme, Prince Harry and Meghan were catching a particular train and the operators were tracking its whole journey. Were besides themselves it was late, but moved other trains aside to get them to their destination quickly.
If only we all got that level of service on the railways !
I actually like Harry out of all of them, but they seem to be from a bygone age.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Absolutely love the royals, they are moving towards being a bit more modern over the years. I think it’s lovely to have them and makes me proud when they have a big celebration and can’t wait for the royal wedding. Plus also they don’t cost that much per person over a life time. I’m happy to pay the little we do for how much tourism etc they bring in.
Mrs x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
Personally I think they serve a purpose as figureheads and nothing more - things like Royal Weddings etc are of no interest to me and will go out of my way to avoid them when they happen.
Yes they add a layer of tradition and ceremony and no doubt provide interest from business and tourism alike and generate an interest in the country but that's all they are for me really. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
they pull in a lot of revenue from tourism etc but I do agree that some of them are a waste of time and space...
Historically its brilliant that we have all that traceable history going back centuries...
I would much rather have a queen than a president |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *tonMessCouple
over a year ago
Slough Windsor ish |
I agrree with Geeky. The amount of business they bring far outways their 'cost'.
I think our royal family are great. The Queen is bloody awesome for her age, still working and still very much up to date with current affairs.
I dont think any other country has such a figurehead? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I wasn't a great fan of the Monarchy and was quite the republican .
The two young princes have changed my point of view.
William lived on Anglesey as part of his job as a search and rescue pilot . People I know who luve their told me he was quite aproachable ans a decent chap .
Harry is a great bloke and grown into his role well
So yes let's keep them  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
A classic example of how the Royal Family get treatment that could be better used elsewhere was the news footage the other day from outside the hospital where Prince Philip was being treated - numerous policemen were shown standing on guard (in other words doing nothing) outside the hospital (and no doubt there were others inside) at a time when our police force are stretched to the limit and those resources would have been better deployed elsewhere.
Not saying the Royal Family shouldn't be protected but given the security of the hospital was no doubt tight, and they have their own assigned close protection officers (no doubt armed) was there really a need for uniformed officers to stand around outside the hospital? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *tonMessCouple
over a year ago
Slough Windsor ish |
"A classic example of how the Royal Family get treatment that could be better used elsewhere was the news footage the other day from outside the hospital where Prince Philip was being treated - numerous policemen were shown standing on guard (in other words doing nothing) outside the hospital (and no doubt there were others inside) at a time when our police force are stretched to the limit and those resources would have been better deployed elsewhere.
Not saying the Royal Family shouldn't be protected but given the security of the hospital was no doubt tight, and they have their own assigned close protection officers (no doubt armed) was there really a need for uniformed officers to stand around outside the hospital?"
They have uniformed officer assigned to royal protection too... they dont come from that areas buget its separate. When the boys were at Eton they had extra uniformed officers from TVP.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
"A classic example of how the Royal Family get treatment that could be better used elsewhere was the news footage the other day from outside the hospital where Prince Philip was being treated - numerous policemen were shown standing on guard (in other words doing nothing) outside the hospital (and no doubt there were others inside) at a time when our police force are stretched to the limit and those resources would have been better deployed elsewhere.
Not saying the Royal Family shouldn't be protected but given the security of the hospital was no doubt tight, and they have their own assigned close protection officers (no doubt armed) was there really a need for uniformed officers to stand around outside the hospital?
They have uniformed officer assigned to royal protection too... they dont come from that areas buget its separate. When the boys were at Eton they had extra uniformed officers from TVP.
"
Oh I know there are uninformed officers assigned to royal protection - just struck me as overkill and a classic waste of resource to have so many assigned to effectively stand around doing nothing "Just in case" - especially given there would have been a while lot more besides inside the building.
Agreed it's an individual case and those officers may or may not have been from the Royal protection team and therefore not that easily reassigned - but when the police are as stretched as they are perhaps a review of the level of policing assigned to such things is needed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I agrree with Geeky. The amount of business they bring far outways their 'cost'.
I think our royal family are great. The Queen is bloody awesome for her age, still working and still very much up to date with current affairs.
I dont think any other country has such a figurehead?"
Without doubt the Queen is a exceptional person with her birthday comeing up this month too, bowes lyon her mother and king george V1 were the ones who gave her her strong gene pool, The windsors and longest ever serveing monarch on the throne all in all she will be well remembered in the history books along with all thee other monarchs of the realm. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A classic example of how the Royal Family get treatment that could be better used elsewhere was the news footage the other day from outside the hospital where Prince Philip was being treated - numerous policemen were shown standing on guard (in other words doing nothing) outside the hospital (and no doubt there were others inside) at a time when our police force are stretched to the limit and those resources would have been better deployed elsewhere.
Not saying the Royal Family shouldn't be protected but given the security of the hospital was no doubt tight, and they have their own assigned close protection officers (no doubt armed) was there really a need for uniformed officers to stand around outside the hospital?
They have uniformed officer assigned to royal protection too... they dont come from that areas buget its separate. When the boys were at Eton they had extra uniformed officers from TVP.
Oh I know there are uninformed officers assigned to royal protection - just struck me as overkill and a classic waste of resource to have so many assigned to effectively stand around doing nothing "Just in case" - especially given there would have been a while lot more besides inside the building.
Agreed it's an individual case and those officers may or may not have been from the Royal protection team and therefore not that easily reassigned - but when the police are as stretched as they are perhaps a review of the level of policing assigned to such things is needed."
.
Not many forces operate dedicated uniformed royalty protection teams, and they are paid for by the Home Office, not the local policing budget. Still taxpayer's money of course but when they are not covering royal duties they are available to that force for regular response, so they are actually extra. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The reason they have all the uniformed officers outside,is for crowd control.
Unfortunately in this day and age, some fool would be trying to take a picture of the royal baby, walk out in front of a car or fall off a kerb and try and blame someone else and loads of snowflakes would be shouting "why weren't the police there to protect us?" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think the level of privilege they enjoy and deference they're given is wrong. I know QE 2 has been a stalwart and Harry and Wills are great ambassadors but the time has come to scale them down a bit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don’t agree that someone aged 96 after ‘a months pain’ gets private treatment and an operation when less fortunate people can wait months or years. If everyone, including rich people, had to use the NHS, then maybe it would be better for everyone.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think the level of privilege they enjoy and deference they're given is wrong. I know QE 2 has been a stalwart and Harry and Wills are great ambassadors but the time has come to scale them down a bit."
couldn't agree more
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don’t agree that someone aged 96 after ‘a months pain’ gets private treatment and an operation when less fortunate people can wait months or years. If everyone, including rich people, had to use the NHS, then maybe it would be better for everyone.
"
Hear hear.
We often say that mps should be obliged to use the NHS and state education system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
"The reason they have all the uniformed officers outside,is for crowd control.
Unfortunately in this day and age, some fool would be trying to take a picture of the royal baby, walk out in front of a car or fall off a kerb and try and blame someone else and loads of snowflakes would be shouting "why weren't the police there to protect us?""
IF there had been crowds of people stood outside the hospital on this occasion then I might be inclined to agree with you - but there wasn't was just a normal London street scene with most people probably not even knowing he was in there |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A classic example of how the Royal Family get treatment that could be better used elsewhere was the news footage the other day from outside the hospital where Prince Philip was being treated - numerous policemen were shown standing on guard (in other words doing nothing) outside the hospital (and no doubt there were others inside) at a time when our police force are stretched to the limit and those resources would have been better deployed elsewhere.
Not saying the Royal Family shouldn't be protected but given the security of the hospital was no doubt tight, and they have their own assigned close protection officers (no doubt armed) was there really a need for uniformed officers to stand around outside the hospital?"
They are not getting treated any differently to another prominent member of state from another country or indeed a criminal where a threat to life exists. They will get the same protection or God forbid they get murdered and the police get hammered from all angles for failure in their duty to protect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Seriously think they should fund their own security and weddings/events etc ... quite like the queen and the younger generation but I have zero time or respect for Charles ... if the monarchy is to gain popularity and survive I think Charles should step aside when Elizabeth either passes or steps down, to get some young blood like William and Kate on the thrones would breath new life into a stale and dated royal family. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A classic example of how the Royal Family get treatment that could be better used elsewhere was the news footage the other day from outside the hospital where Prince Philip was being treated - numerous policemen were shown standing on guard (in other words doing nothing) outside the hospital (and no doubt there were others inside) at a time when our police force are stretched to the limit and those resources would have been better deployed elsewhere.
Not saying the Royal Family shouldn't be protected but given the security of the hospital was no doubt tight, and they have their own assigned close protection officers (no doubt armed) was there really a need for uniformed officers to stand around outside the hospital?
They are not getting treated any differently to another prominent member of state from another country or indeed a criminal where a threat to life exists. They will get the same protection or God forbid they get murdered and the police get hammered from all angles for failure in their duty to protect. "
maybe so but most countries only afford protection to the head of state,with the royals there is a whole extended family too. High time they was scaled down,the money could be better spent |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
"A classic example of how the Royal Family get treatment that could be better used elsewhere was the news footage the other day from outside the hospital where Prince Philip was being treated - numerous policemen were shown standing on guard (in other words doing nothing) outside the hospital (and no doubt there were others inside) at a time when our police force are stretched to the limit and those resources would have been better deployed elsewhere.
Not saying the Royal Family shouldn't be protected but given the security of the hospital was no doubt tight, and they have their own assigned close protection officers (no doubt armed) was there really a need for uniformed officers to stand around outside the hospital?
They are not getting treated any differently to another prominent member of state from another country or indeed a criminal where a threat to life exists. They will get the same protection or God forbid they get murdered and the police get hammered from all angles for failure in their duty to protect. "
As I clearly said I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be protected at all - just think the scale of protection they get is by far greater than the risk posed and could be better deployed elsewhere.
Accept that's a tricky thing to get right but where resources are already stretched to breaking point then something has to give, and for my money I'd rather have additional resource deployed looking after everyone, than over the top protection for a privileged few. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The two princes popped into a pub in Cowes a couple of years back, not a gastropub, but one that could be described as a spit and sawdust type establishment and mingled with locals happily chatting to them and spending about half an hour there. This wasn't a planned visit, they just fancied a pint and did what most of do in that situation.
They have been the saving of the Royal family, after Diana's death the long-established royals would have imploded if they maintained their disposition and mannerisms that saw them at their lowest ebb.
Would love to see the/a Royal Yacht back in the fold too, it was a fantastic tool that help the country gain trade deals, something that post-Brexit we will need. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don’t agree that someone aged 96 after ‘a months pain’ gets private treatment and an operation when less fortunate people can wait months or years. If everyone, including rich people, had to use the NHS, then maybe it would be better for everyone.
"
If someone pays for their own treatment, surely it frees up a bed and the finances of the NHS to treat someone that can't afford private treatments...
Let's face it, if anyone here could/can afford to get private treatment to end pain and discomfort they would use it rather than wait months or be told that you are too old for treatment... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don’t agree that someone aged 96 after ‘a months pain’ gets private treatment and an operation when less fortunate people can wait months or years. If everyone, including rich people, had to use the NHS, then maybe it would be better for everyone.
If someone pays for their own treatment, surely it frees up a bed and the finances of the NHS to treat someone that can't afford private treatments...
Let's face it, if anyone here could/can afford to get private treatment to end pain and discomfort they would use it rather than wait months or be told that you are too old for treatment..."
You’re missing the point. The point I was making was that if everyone HAD to use the NHS, then there would be no months long waiting lists because the rich folk/MPs/decisions makers etc would improve it. They don’t want to wait months. Nor do they. QED. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don’t agree that someone aged 96 after ‘a months pain’ gets private treatment and an operation when less fortunate people can wait months or years. If everyone, including rich people, had to use the NHS, then maybe it would be better for everyone.
If someone pays for their own treatment, surely it frees up a bed and the finances of the NHS to treat someone that can't afford private treatments...
Let's face it, if anyone here could/can afford to get private treatment to end pain and discomfort they would use it rather than wait months or be told that you are too old for treatment..."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They have benefits but I think it's an inappropriate system for a society to have."
This must surely be one of the shortest posts you've ever made Sophie, would you care to expand on that sentiment? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I like the Royal Family as a concept, cant say I actually like all of the members individually, there are a few space wasters among them.
"
There always have been throughout the history of them, but let's face it, there are not that many of them now and they are brought up to be ambassadors for our country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
They should be allowed to quit if they want to. Celebrities have kids that are born into wealth and privilege but they can have 'normal' jobs if they want to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Don't particularly "like" the royals, but I would sooner have them than the alternative  "
Definitely prefer that the head of state is the queen, representing the country, rather than a political party.
President May or president Corbyn? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Don't quite get the tourism thing, especially as the uk is about seventh in the list of most visited countries, Spain is number three and the only country ahead of the uk with a royal family.
That said, they're harmless and can be trotted out for decoration but I don't want to hear their opinions on anything because their hypocrisy is annoying. Charles with his environmental issues whilst leaving his own hefty carbon footprint, the young princes on their conservation work whilst taking a breather from hunting etc.
There is something rather anachronistic about the queen I like. William playing a stormtrooper in Star Wars seems "common" to me...trying to embrace two conflicting world's doesn't quite work and seems patronising.
I'm indifferent to the royal family, but all things considered they love the country, the same can't be said of our elected representatives.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Some people thought that they'd had their day back in 1649, when King Charles I head decided to depart company from his shoulders "
And look what happened after...
The public wanted the Royal family back after suffering at the hands of Corbyn, I mean Cromwell...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They should be allowed to quit if they want to. Celebrities have kids that are born into wealth and privilege but they can have 'normal' jobs if they want to."
They can quite, Princess Anne's children did... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They should be privatised and self funding. If they can't manage that then should go out to tender. "
They pay more in taxes than they receive from the country.
They also pay over a % of their income which they wouldn't have to do, so the government would be worse off if they eere self funding... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Some people thought that they'd had their day back in 1649, when King Charles I head decided to depart company from his shoulders
And look what happened after...
The public wanted the Royal family back after suffering at the hands of Corbyn, I mean Cromwell... "
Here here , God save the Queen |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Countries need to keep there heritage and culture in my eyes. I'm certainly not fan of the past British royals or government! But you can only judge who are before us now. history and culture are what makes the English people English etc etc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Countries need to keep there heritage and culture in my eyes. I'm certainly not fan of the past British royals or government! But you can only judge who are before us now. history and culture are what makes the English people English etc etc "
History is the worst part though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"History is the worst part though"
Yes but that's got very little to do with who are in front of the British nation now. I agree the history had a very sick vulturish past but history is exactly that.. history! I'm no historian but as I said people nowadays are to quick to denounce what or who they are because it's not politically correct. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seriously think they should fund their own security and weddings/events etc ... quite like the queen and the younger generation but I have zero time or respect for Charles ... if the monarchy is to gain popularity and survive I think Charles should step aside when Elizabeth either passes or steps down, to get some young blood like William and Kate on the thrones would breath new life into a stale and dated royal family."
Charles has had his coronation oath changed recently to include everyone from different backgrounds, religions and cultures. He’s the one that has been the driving force alongside the queen to modernise the monarchy. I truly believe they represent our best interests past, present and future. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" If only the British had the foresight (& balls) of the French & de-leeched centuries ago, - tourism would be on the up now.
"
Again if you look at history, it was the peasants that suffered the most under the hands of the revolutionaries.
It was the same in Russia... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seriously think they should fund their own security and weddings/events etc ... quite like the queen and the younger generation but I have zero time or respect for Charles ... if the monarchy is to gain popularity and survive I think Charles should step aside when Elizabeth either passes or steps down, to get some young blood like William and Kate on the thrones would breath new life into a stale and dated royal family.
Charles has had his coronation oath changed recently to include everyone from different backgrounds, religions and cultures. He’s the one that has been the driving force alongside the queen to modernise the monarchy. I truly believe they represent our best interests past, present and future. "
From the reading I've done around monarchy past and present royalty's only interest is in continuing and protecting the monarchy. If the best way to do that is to modernise and appear to be representing us then that is what they will do.
If the general public expressed a preference for an old fashioned, distant monarch they would change in a heart beat.
They don't call themselves "The Firm" for nothing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seriously think they should fund their own security and weddings/events etc ... quite like the queen and the younger generation but I have zero time or respect for Charles ... if the monarchy is to gain popularity and survive I think Charles should step aside when Elizabeth either passes or steps down, to get some young blood like William and Kate on the thrones would breath new life into a stale and dated royal family.
Charles has had his coronation oath changed recently to include everyone from different backgrounds, religions and cultures. He’s the one that has been the driving force alongside the queen to modernise the monarchy. I truly believe they represent our best interests past, present and future.
From the reading I've done around monarchy past and present royalty's only interest is in continuing and protecting the monarchy. If the best way to do that is to modernise and appear to be representing us then that is what they will do.
If the general public expressed a preference for an old fashioned, distant monarch they would change in a heart beat.
They don't call themselves "The Firm" for nothing."
Most people and organisations adapt to the current climate.
So why would they be any different? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seriously think they should fund their own security and weddings/events etc ... quite like the queen and the younger generation but I have zero time or respect for Charles ... if the monarchy is to gain popularity and survive I think Charles should step aside when Elizabeth either passes or steps down, to get some young blood like William and Kate on the thrones would breath new life into a stale and dated royal family.
Charles has had his coronation oath changed recently to include everyone from different backgrounds, religions and cultures. He’s the one that has been the driving force alongside the queen to modernise the monarchy. I truly believe they represent our best interests past, present and future.
From the reading I've done around monarchy past and present royalty's only interest is in continuing and protecting the monarchy. If the best way to do that is to modernise and appear to be representing us then that is what they will do.
If the general public expressed a preference for an old fashioned, distant monarch they would change in a heart beat.
They don't call themselves "The Firm" for nothing.
Most people and organisations adapt to the current climate.
So why would they be any different?"
I'm not suggesting they should, I'm suggesting that they don't represent our best interests, rather their own |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seriously think they should fund their own security and weddings/events etc ... quite like the queen and the younger generation but I have zero time or respect for Charles ... if the monarchy is to gain popularity and survive I think Charles should step aside when Elizabeth either passes or steps down, to get some young blood like William and Kate on the thrones would breath new life into a stale and dated royal family.
Charles has had his coronation oath changed recently to include everyone from different backgrounds, religions and cultures. He’s the one that has been the driving force alongside the queen to modernise the monarchy. I truly believe they represent our best interests past, present and future.
From the reading I've done around monarchy past and present royalty's only interest is in continuing and protecting the monarchy. If the best way to do that is to modernise and appear to be representing us then that is what they will do.
If the general public expressed a preference for an old fashioned, distant monarch they would change in a heart beat.
They don't call themselves "The Firm" for nothing.
Most people and organisations adapt to the current climate.
So why would they be any different?
I'm not suggesting they should, I'm suggesting that they don't represent our best interests, rather their own"
To be honest, I think very few and I mean very few people or organisations in the world have our best interests at heart... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I feel sorry for the Windsor’s. They seem to me to be victims of Modern Day Slavery - a family condemned to commit their offspring, generation after generation, to a set of obligations defined and imposed by their masters, the State.
Set them free, elect a President and save money, I say.
What say you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I feel sorry for the Windsor’s. They seem to me to be victims of Modern Day Slavery - a family condemned to commit their offspring, generation after generation, to a set of obligations defined and imposed by their masters, the State.
Set them free, elect a President and save money, I say.
What say you?"
Everyone is entitled to their opinions but being a royalist this end , God save the Queen |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
As a non UK citizen, I suppose my opinion matters little but yes I don't believe you should have any monarchy but liz and CO. aren't all bad, she even apologised for that time ye enslaved us 
But in honesty what are the powers of the monarchy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not at all they are part of what makes this country great.. god save the queen"
That's the thing though, god won't save the queen, she'll die like everyone else then you're stuck with Charlie boy  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not a fan of oligarchies, So no.
I'd like to live in an actual democracy one day.
Feel free to leave any time... "
That's uncalled for....bloke is expressing his opinion like everyone else .... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'll take a king or Queen over a president any day.
Look at the current presidents around the world today, surely that's argument enough not to change any time soon. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'll take a king or Queen over a president any day.
Look at the current presidents around the world today, surely that's argument enough not to change any time soon."
Kings and queens are unelected and we have to pay for the parasites |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
yes tourism would stop overnight if there where no royal family,,not met one person yet that visits this country because of the royals.
they cost a fortune get rid of them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seriously think they should fund their own security and weddings/events etc ... quite like the queen and the younger generation but I have zero time or respect for Charles ... if the monarchy is to gain popularity and survive I think Charles should step aside when Elizabeth either passes or steps down, to get some young blood like William and Kate on the thrones would breath new life into a stale and dated royal family.
Charles has had his coronation oath changed recently to include everyone from different backgrounds, religions and cultures. He’s the one that has been the driving force alongside the queen to modernise the monarchy. I truly believe they represent our best interests past, present and future.
From the reading I've done around monarchy past and present royalty's only interest is in continuing and protecting the monarchy. If the best way to do that is to modernise and appear to be representing us then that is what they will do.
If the general public expressed a preference for an old fashioned, distant monarch they would change in a heart beat.
They don't call themselves "The Firm" for nothing.
Most people and organisations adapt to the current climate.
So why would they be any different?
I'm not suggesting they should, I'm suggesting that they don't represent our best interests, rather their own
To be honest, I think very few and I mean very few people or organisations in the world have our best interests at heart..."
I agree. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not a fan of oligarchies, So no.
I'd like to live in an actual democracy one day.
Feel free to leave any time...
That's uncalled for....bloke is expressing his opinion like everyone else ...."
I did put a smiley face to show I was joking...
However, I think he would find it difficult to find a true democracy.
To all the people that say the Russians/French got it right.
Check your history, the people that suffered the most were the common folk...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To all the people that say the Russians/French got it right.
Check your history, the people that suffered the most were the common folk...
"
Different and more turbulent times. Getting rid of the royals today would have zero effect on the lives of ordinary people.
I would even take Trump over the royals. At least you know he will only be around a max of 8 years and then democracy will swing back to the other side. The royals will be around for ever, sitting on their gilded thrones looking after their own interests and wondering how the hell they got so lucky. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
They had their day about three centuries ago! Thought we were supposed to live a democratic society where every man was born equal?
French and the Russians had the right idea! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's quite clear that a lot of people don't understand how the royal family are financed yet happily make the same comments over and over...
A quick question, just how democratic is Russia under Putin? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
