To be furious at further royal privileges

The republican argument seems to be the same old, same old......accident of birth.

Could it be that we don't feel we have to justify anything, when?

I'm sure the 1,200 employees in the Royal household not to mention all the businesses who benefit and people employed in spin-off industries like racing, farming, fishing, land management, tourism etc., etc., are all glad of their jobs.

Yes, I'm happy to agree to disagree Ceesnan We all have our own views and beliefs.

A few republic-minded Gransnetters have explained their stance, but no royalty fans have explained why they accept that royals should keep the privileges and assumed entitlements they have acquired over the centuries?

She may indeed be waited on hand and foot, but when you take into consideration the fact that last year she took on approximately 430 engagements, and by doing so gave a heck of a lot of people a little pleasure then surely she is earning it. However, you have your opinion and I have mine, so let's just agree to disagree

I'm saying that a life of entitlement, power, status and position that has occurred purely by accident of birth is not just, and why should this one family continue to take all those privileges that they have not acquired in any way other than being born to it? I'm in favour of a republic, not royalty.

If I had massive wealth I would disperse it, not live a life of being pampered and waited on hand and foot.

Because I'm damn sure that not many would!

Are you saying, when, that if you had been born into a life a wealth and privilige that you would have rejected it?

Now, I'm really excited about the new Royal baby, having had a fondness for William ever since he lost his mum [he's the same age as my son] and I'm looking forward to seeing the new baby [this is not like me at all] but I've got to admit to watching the sort of treatment Kate is getting hospital wise and thinking back to my own daughter's two pregancies/births [the second of which resulted in an inexperienced midwife trying to send her home when she was actually 2cm dilated; she refused to go home even if it meant having to sit in the hospital canteen..baby was born soon after; not in the canteen I hasten to add!].

MERLOT ,

DH claims he's never seen an ironing board. He's obviously not only lost his sight but his memory as well.

She would hve never needed to iron in her whole life . LAL

Lilygran inherited wealth isn't the issue, but inherited position, status, power, assumed entitlement that isn't accorded to any other family in the UK.

Why would the Queen Mother need to know what an ironing board is for?

That report is hard to believe as even though she might never have wandered through the laundry rooms at Glamis Castle/Buck House/Clarence House/Royal Lodge/Castle of Mey et al, we have been told she liked to watch TV where adverts for laundry products abound.

Must have been a very long time ago.

The difference, when is in the quantity, not the principle. If you don't believe in inherited wealth, that's OK. Or inherited anything. Drawing a line at a large inheritance isn't the same. Greatnan, a lot of people didn't use ironing boards until after the war. They used a table with a mat on it. There is always the possibility of a different interpretation.

Of course you don't have to tug your forelock, Greatnan. Deference isn't required. I'm trying to introduce some realism into a discussion about the characters and personalities of a group of people we only know about through the murky filter of the media. And whom we are ready to believe anything about because they are so rich. It's like the ill-informed complaints about people on benefits in reverse. I also think we tried being a republic in the 17th century and found it had all the disadvantages of a monarchy and none of the advantages.

The Queen Mother is reputed to have been visiting an 'ordinary' family home and asked what an ironing board was, as she had never seen one.
The idea that the Queen is in a line of pure descent from whichever former monarch managed to wrest the crown, probably through violence and corruption, is sheer nonsense.
I have noticed that whenever anybody dares to criticise the very rich or powerful we are told we must be jealous and bitter. Presumably we are just supposed to tug our forelocks and adore them from afar, whatever they do?

We're discussing/debating because a thread has been created about the issue, Atqui.

You won't catch me whinging on about the Royals unless someone invites my views. Most of the time, I am disinterested in them.

That is whinging not wringing.

Here here Lilygran.As I said earlier, it's all relative. the homeless person on the street may wonder why some people are able to buy a house because they inherited there parents bungalow. Accidents of birth often bring power as well as wealth through education etc. I M H O if we can't have a truly socialist society we may as well accept our heritage and stop wringing about it.Flack jacket at the ready.

I would have no problem with this family being a tourist attraction. They could earn their money in the same way other heritage attractions and stately homes do. That's what attracts flag-waving people who want to see famous bods who are recognised the world over.

gillybob, How come an awful lot of people at the bottom of this HUGE divide turn out for Royal celebrations, waving their flags, buying their souvenirs and queue for hours to watch the Queen flash by in a car?

Some of the above posts make the UK sound like Marie Antoinette is resident in Buckingham Palace.

I agree about Andrew though.

Here here when. There is no comparison whatsoever between someone inheriting a brooch from their mother or even a share in a small property and the immense wealth and privileged enjoyed by this growing family. What saddens me is the HUGE divide. How can they not see it and feel deeply ashamed?

There's rather a large dfference between being born into 'royalty' and inheriting status, power and wealth, compared with what the average citizen inherits from their parents, Lilygran. Why should accident of birth confer these rights that the royals have? No, not envious, just keen on having less of a social divide, and if Andrew is not a sponger, I'll eat my hat. It's been evidenced time and again that he has received millions in perks and junkets around the world, trading on his royal name. I stand by the bonkers description of Charles' attempts to influence the NHS regarding homeopathy. It is widely reported that the authorities and MPs groan with frustration when his letters hit their desks. Who is he to dictate from the position he is fortunate to be in, to behave in this maner? If he wants to be a politician, or an NHS consultant, he should shift himself and put his feet in one camp or the other.

'That policy will not work because....' Is a political stance. 'Bonkers', 'sponger' aren't. As I said, I respect the views of people who are opposed to privilege and the exercise of power as a result of inherited status or of wealth, inherited or otherwise. That's a reasonable political stance. But a lot of the posts here sound like envy, malice and bitterness. And I hope those who take a firm stand against privilege can demonstrate in their own lives that they have never, ever, taken advantage of any small opportunity to exercise influence themselves. Or to benefit from it. And that they have immediately handed over anything passed on from a deceased relative, however small and valueless, to the nearest charity.

That's not venom, Lilygran. It's a political stance you don't share - that's all