To be furious at further royal privileges

No Lilygran It is that I am not in favour of inherited privilege. If someone works hard and builds up a business through honest fair graft all well and good and I respect that. It is not about someone being better off than me!

The monarchy may bring in some tourists but we can still attract tourists without a reigning monarch. Very few tourists will see a member of the royals! When I went to Germany/France I could still look at the royal palaces and learn about the history, admire the beautiful gardens etc. without there being a titular head of state in place.

The country could choose the style of Presidency to be the 'face of GB' . We could go for the local mayor approach and allow the MPs to choose the figure head from long serving and respected MPs or have a democratically elected President that we vote for but could agree that they are not party political..a bit like the speaker of the house. Huge range of models..we could even have a referendum on the cost of the presidency..the good thing about a new situation is you can make it to suit!!

No Lilygran It is that I am not in favour of inherited privilege. If someone works hard and builds up a business through honest fair graft all well and good and I respect that. It is not about someone being better off than me!

The monarchy may bring in some tourists but we can still attract tourists without a reigning monarch. Very few tourists will see a member of the royals! When I went to Germany/France I could still look at the royal palaces and learn about the history, admire the beautiful gardens etc. without there being a titular head of state in place.

The country could choose the style of Presidency to be the 'face of GB' . We could go for the local mayor approach and allow the MPs to choose the figure head from long serving and respected MPs or have a democratically elected President that we vote for but could agree that they are not party political..a bit like the speaker of the house. Huge range of models..we could even have a referendum on the cost of the presidency..the good thing about a new situation is you can make it to suit!!

Someone like John Bercow and Sally? I rest my case!

ABSENT, Thank you- I must have skipped a page.

Well nanaej there's not often I can say someone has taken the words right out of my mouth but ........ Here goes "you have taken the words right out of my mouth" .

Yes, Republicanism for me, too. Tourists can gawp at the royals if they want, but I don't see why people born into privilege should be given status and extreme wealth they haven't earned. Buck House could become a museum with hotel and conference facilities, spongers like Andrew could get themselves proper jobs, Liz could retire and her eldest son can go and peddle his bonkers ideas about homeopathy elsewhere.

The UK is good at putting on a show for foreign dignitaries and tourists, but many of the world leaders who come here aren't royalty. They manage without and so can we.

Such venom!

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

'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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

That is whinging not wringing.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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

MERLOT ,

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!].