I so don't care…

Totally agree with you Absent and Anniebach (with the teensy exception of feeling sorry for her during the Diana years as I think Diana was only picked to produce the heir and the spare) .

I can't be bothered with very much at the moment though, so don't mind me.

Wow.......strong opinions. One positive to our Sovereign and family is the revenue it all brings to our country.

Am a republican myself, but we can all turn off the tv/ radio etc.A lot of people in this country do like royalty and all the trappings, so they will enjoy watching and hearing about it.We are all different, and why be sneery about it?

I don't believe they do benefit the "country" Worthingpatchworkers I think they benefit London and are about as far removed from us Northerners as the Man in the Moon.

Well Anniebach, I am sure Canada have thousands and thousands of visitors each year wanting to go and see where their president lives and works.

Photos of their president's family are always on the front of magazines worldwide attending or opening some event or other, tempting people over there when they should be coming here to spend their holiday money. In fact it is rather annoying, when we have our own Royal family to read about.

I am between republican and royalist, the thought of yet another election every five years? No thanks , plus only the very wealthy could stand for the presidency. But the windsors and what they cost us makes me angry. How can a caring monarch and her extended family live in such luxury whilst so many sleep on the streets?

And now we have four generations of windsors to keep

i'm sorry but I don't like this thread.

the monarchy has been part of our country for many centuries and I, for one, hope that it continues for many more.

the queen has been a fantastic ambassador for our country and a good many of the royal family are hard working and do amazing work for the good of us all.

yes, i'm a royalist - always have been and always will be.

Lupatria, what amazing work do they do?

I agree the heredity principle can't be defended rationally. The queen's done an ok job and she has stayed alive. Whether all the flag wavers will feel the same about King Charles 3rd remains to be seen.

I respect your opinion, Absent. It is your choice to feel how you do.
But I completely disagree with you. The Queen has led a life of duty and dedication with rarely a foot wrong. She is a marvellous head of our country and the Commonwealth. No President could ever replace our system of monarchy with it's history and continuity. This country would be the poorer without it.
You are not forced to watch or take part in anything you find nauseating.

Trudeau surely went into politics because of his father. Hereditary and all that. How about Mugabe for a President,or Putin ?

Glad to see you back on line Gillybob . Hope you're remembering to put your own oxygen mask on first.

Thank you Stansgran I only wish I could think of something positive and nice to say. Miserable cow that I am.

Unfortunately my seat didn't come with an oxygen mask, a floatation device or an ejector either.

Good post Anniebach. I didn't feel sorry for her re Diana though, the Royal family needed some good looking blood stock but they didn't figure on a less than obedient woman. They got what they wanted - and so did Charles.

Lupatria, well said. I am all for tradition and Royalty.

Palace of Versailles has more tourists visit than Buck house or Windsor

The most popular tourist attraction in this country is Tower of London and Stonehenge. If the windsors benefit London then London should pay for them

I was thinking along those lines too Anniebach. I am sick of being told how the whole country benefits from the royals (it was the same with the Olympics) in order to justify the exorbitant cost, when really only a very small area.

If you really "don't care" why bother commenting. I don't care about arts and crafts or TV so I don't comment. I accept there are those on here who like these things and I respect their opinion but as I don't share it I don't join in.

"I so don't care" - I suspect this thread will run and run, so it's seems one must care to state that they don't care. As someone else pointed out there are umpteen threads on GN that many of us don't give a monkey's about and like me, I'm sure most of us just ignore.

I was firmly in the republican camp for years, I was imbued with that point of view by my father who in spite of not wanting a monarchy when he was alive, read every thing he could about past kings and queens in the context of history. One of my bookshelves is literally groaning under the weight of some of his books about our royal family pre 1066 through to Victoria. In fact I know he would have been thrilled by the discovery of Richard III's bones. My mother on the other hand, during the course of conversations about the war years, made me aware of what a galvanizing presence George V1 and the Queen Mother were during the Blitz and the fact that they didn't run for the hills, had an uplifting effect for many who were living in London at that time, Possibly that passed my father by because he was stuck out in Libya with little news from home.

I continued for many years to take very little notice of the royal family, they were simply there as a backdrop to my life. It's only of late that I have come to appreciate several factors. It doesn't matter what sort of society people live under, whether it be communist or absolute dictator, there will always be a hierarchy and at the top of those have often been some of the most unpleasant and wicked people the world has ever known. The countries in Western Europe, aside from ourselves, The Netherlands, Scandinavia who have benign, figurehead monarchies appear to have societies that most would aspire to. Whilst I know there have been controversies surrounding the Spanish royal family, I think they would be preferable to Franco. I do think that the monarchy needs to be slimmed down just to include the nuclear family and not "the spares" who have proved to be a waste of public money. Nevertheless, the Queen and in particular William and Kate when they did their recent India trip are great ambassadors for our country and on conversations I have had with people in Canada, America, Argentina and Australia I don't think it can be underestimated what a draw they are for some tourists who love the pomp and pageantry. The immense revenue generated by all of that I am sure covers their cost and some. I think Diana did much to imbue her children with a social conscience and whilst I am not his greatest fan, I do think the Prince of Wales has tried to improve lives with his Princes Trust.

The Queen didn't ask to be born royal, but I think she has proved herself in so many ways and I think many of us would prefer her to say the avaricious, sinister and extremely unscrupulous Blairs or anyone else across the political spectrum who would seek to inflict a dynasty on us.

Yes I can understand people getting sick of seeing them but we live in an age now where we are bombarded with images of for example, a ridiculous woman with massive hips and no particular talent, married to some grandiose git who thinks he's Jesus cos he's made a few albums, so yeah on balance I'd rather hear about the royal family who have no such pretensions.

Apologies for being a drone, but at least I'm a safe one

Given the amount of tax paid in London and the south-east compared with the rest of the U.K., some of these comments about the Windsors only being of value to London seem a bit mean-spirited.

I don't stand for the Queen nor would I curtsey if I met her. However for a woman of 90 she has done incredibly well and served her country dutifully and I applaud her for that. As for the cost, well a lot of the posts I thought were mean-minded and mealy mouthed. Probably it balances out to even stevens. Same as accident of birth vs sins of the fathers. A few more minor royals should get the chop from the Civil List.

Why shouldn't she have private medicine and no NHS waiting lists to suffer, it's a democratic country which means we all have choices and anyone can pay for it then so be it and let's do away with culture of envy.

The Firm as they call themselves, did appalling wrong by Princess Diana who was probably both Saint and Sinner, and she did an awful lot of good and worked very hard, so for myself I forgive her her sins if that is how they were perceived. She was an innocent of 19 who was manipulated and used as a brood mare because she was that rare thing - a virgin, and aristocratic. In fact she came from solid generations of pure English aristocracy while the present day Royals are of upstart German origin. I thought she handled the Camilla situation brilliantly and that lady was a cow. Camilla thought Charles was marrying a wimp who could be conditioned, but hey, the mouse roared. She did bring the monarchy into the 20th century and brought her sons up to be the delightful young men they are today. And what young man hasn't had his momments of madness, and the majority are not in the spotlight. And all the time they are limited to what they can do as a career.

As for the criticism of William - why shouldn't he aspire to be a good father. He actually works for a salary albeit partime, but the young family are constantly in the spotlight, two generations of future kings, this must be so stressful. And he does his bit as a Royal. He's not superman. Give him a break, and if he wants to visit Star Wars with Harry then why shouldn't he have some pleasures. Get off his back.

Anyone out there want to take over from them? I thought not. Can't think of anything worse than Charles as King, hope the Queen lasts as long as her mother.

Not mean spirited grumppa, I accept some adore the windsors , I do not. It's the fantasy of the windsors that are so annoying for me .

How brave they were to stay in London in the war, they were at Windsor with aircraft ready to get them out of the country if needed. How is this brave.

The money we spend on protecting their homes , a quick count and there is seventeen , we are not allowed to know the costs .

I cannot understand how a woman who is devout christian can sleep in the luxury of Buck house and Windsor, her grandsons in Kensington palace whilst so many sleep on the streets

Now we have William defending himself after being accused of being work shy claiming he wants to be with his children , surely most fathers do but they have to work to support their children

The queen has never put a foot wrong, hardly surprising , she remains silent .

I just do not see a caring monarchy , well caring about their image but not of the people. They visit town halls and cathedrals, never a food bank

All this - she doesn't personally own treasures, they belong to the country, what about the massive collection of jewels ?

So not mean spirited , just being honest and not wearing rose tinted specs

Not getting into any discussion of the saintly Diana, - there were three in the marriage, that I was the third in other women's marriages doesn't matter

I respect the opinions of those who love and respect our monarch, but I can't help contrasting her with my 91year old mum, who bears the scars of life on her face, lives alone, in constant pain and just about scrapes by with help on her Attendance Alowance. I wonder if the queen has any inkling how many of her "subjects" really live, or if she floats around in a bubble of flowers, red carpets, and sycophantic grovellers. I realise in any society there will always be some at the top of the heap, but doesn't the monarchy help to maintain our outdated class system and sense of entitlement which many enjoy from birth?

AB - I don't think there is any fantasy around the Windsors, we live in the times we do and their foibles have been exposed in great detail. I wonder how any of us would feel living in such a goldfish bowl, one of the great downsides of their life. In a bygone era they could have hidden much of what they got up to not so anymore.

As far as the war years are concerned, Windsor's proximity is close to London, I don't think it would have been feasible for them to stay at Buck House which I imagine would have been a target for bombing raids. I am relating what my mother told me who lived in Bromley and commuted into London to work as a telephonist at one of the main exchanges, she experienced the fear of incendiary bombs being dropped nearby, she conveyed to me quite vividly what it must have been like to know that you, your friends and family could be killed instantly at any time. She also told me that the continued presence of the King and Queen did much for the spirits and morale of Londoners at a very dire time.

How do you know the Queen is not troubled by the disparity between rich and poor.? yes she says very little presumably because she is hamstrung by the fact that she cannot appear to be partisan, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have a social conscience and to do is conjecture. She cannot open up royal palaces to the homeless. Perhaps the Blairs could offer one of theirs up out of their burgeoning portfolio.

I would have thought that William's wish to spend time with a wife and family is a good example in this day and age, when so many previous kings and princes took mistresses and only had a family to continue the succession. I think it's unfair to portray him as some work shy dilettante. The royals in many ways are in a privileged position, so what, so are all the un elected bureaucrats in Brussels who, collectively, large it up on public money far more than our royal family do.