To be furious at further royal privileges

Such venom!

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.

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" .

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

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

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!!

Yes. Well said, Lilygran

Well said, Lilygran.

Practitioners of homeopathy were very quick to silence the truth about its uselessness by threatening law suits. It is a multi-billion pound industry with absolutely no proof that it is anything other than a placebo.

I've said this before and will no doubt say it again......... A sensible discussion about the pros and cons of a monarchy versus a presidential model would be interesting. As it is, many of the anti-royalty posts on Gransnet seem to arise from misinformed resentment about the kind of life the red tops tell us the Royals lead. Are we really suggesting that we should become a republic because the Queen' s rich and we aren't?

Atqui You are reading the wrong article; it's the DM link that bluebell made a few posts ago not the one mentioned in the OP. As far as people's lives being changed by inheritance goes, once again some are more equal than others. There is no inheritance tax on the sovereign's personal fortune - and that exemption also applied to the Queen Mother's estate. Everyone else pays 40% on everything over the threshold which is set at a figure low enough to include almost everyone who owns a house in London and quite a few who own non-luxury flats, but not those who live in palaces.

What nanaej said!

Couldn't find any reference to homeopathy in the Independent article

I am a republican. I do not wish any member of the royal family any harm.

However I think if they are to be GBs equivalent to Micky & Minnie Mouse & Co then they really need to stop having the private ear of the cabinet or having undue influence on government issues & stick to being a tourist attraction. Perhaps we could have a Royal Parade up the Mall each evening between Easter and end of Sept for the tourists. Charles could hold court at Bognor, Brighton and Bath and host historical ad architectural tours of the town. Everyone else in the public sector are on targets to either increase income/production/efficiency or to make cuts. We could make society a little more equal by asking The Firm to increase the income derived from tourism by 10%. If they do not achieve this they would suffer some penalties....like he rest of us!

Sel what are you talking about?

My op was linked to the above point - that the royal family get to hide their spheres of influence and that's not right

Atqui - I posted the link but if you can't be bothered to read it before you respond.......there is no evidence base for homeopathy.
As for your comment about equality... I'm baffled. My point is about inherited positions of privilege - the royal family and aristocracy

I don't know what Charles did to interfere with an NHS website, but if you are referring to his views on Homeopathy as "stupid" ,I think you are being a tad unfair. Many intelligent people practise homeopathy ,including medical doctors, but perhaps it was something else to which you were referring. My comment about equality was not a knee jerk reaction actually. Everything is relative , and many people's lives have been changed by inheritance , which some would see as unfair when they have nothing. But again the thread has deviated from your original point which was about freedom of information I believe.

Crikey are the Royals in charge of rain now? I'll do a bit of sucking up, it'll save me watering tonight

But he packs clout - and why should he? Go on, tell me it was perfectly ok to interfere with the clinical content of an NHS website to better peddle you own non- evidenced based views. I can't believe that any intelligent rational person no matter how royalist they are could think that that was ok. As for all being equal, that's an example if knee jerk non- thought through comments I've complained about on another thread. Since when does being a republican translate into a belief in all being equal. Like Gilly I accept that some people will earn ( and some will get paid but not earn) huge amounts . There's a debate to be had about how much income differences we should tolerate but inherited positions of privilege are frankly antedeluvian and cannot be logically or morally justified. I can't be bothered to discuss the idea of a president - there are many models to go for and the French and American ones are only two examples. Germany and Ireland are interesting models but we're never going to go there so I'd rather discuss how to make sure Charles doesn't abuse his power and peddle his stupid and potentially dangerous ideas on medicine and many other things

Yes it would be dull if we were all equal Atqui I agree, but some people are just more equal than others aren't they? I have no problems with footballers, sportsmen and women, popstars, filmstars earning and spending their vast wealth. What I have a problem with is this family who are rich beyond all stretches of the imagination. They live a privileged lifestyle on the backs of the rest of us who have no choice but to pay our taxes and generally tow the line. Of course the queen is good for her age, who wouldn't be in her shoes with royal doctors at her beck and call, not to mention the best food and warmth known to man.

I don't think Charles makes any secret of his views and I believe he is entitled to express them through private letters, public announcements or interviews. I don't enjoy the endless stories about what the royals wear or do in their leisure time and I think some of Charles's views are zany BUT we have to have a Head of State and I think the sovereign (whoever s/he is) is a more acceptable solution than a President who would probably cost more, have much less charisma and inevitably have real political clout. And I agree, Atqui to the extent that I think being equal doesn't mean all being the same.

I'm sue no one wil agree, or even notice post, but what a dull grey world it would be if we were all equal.

Merlot - the point I was trying to make us that we would get tourists without the royal family and that countries without --hereditary parasites--royal families do very well out of tourism. It's a huge propaganda canard with no evidence base how much the royal family brings in in tourist revenue.
The issue about the press we deserve - the press plays
an important role in setting the agenda ie what we are given to talk about. This agenda is set by their proprietors vested interests which is linked to the wielding of political power and influence. That's why it's fascinating to see the role of social media in subverting some ( obviously not all, as they play the game too) of this influence. Lily - the argument that the royals gave more right to influence policy than rich foreigners is the equivalent of a discussion about the best way to torture someone - it just shouldn't happen. If the royals want to influence policy they should either try and do it openly so we know what they are up to or they should renounce all titles , privileges etc and join a political party/ or pressure group. I'll say again, Charles had no right to try and succeed in influencing the content on NHS Choices about homeopathy and I have nothing but contempt for the officials and ministers who behaved do supinely - what a disgrace !