Our Queen

Whatever you think of Tony Blair, he did actually work for several years in high political office, so presumably security is part of the package ( as PM he didn't get paid that much, less than Prince Andrew I would guess). I don't think Prince A's daughters come into the same category.

Indeed it does Elegran

I think differently from you suzied that tourists do actually visit London because of the royals, both past and present. I regularly take foreign guests round London and the list is always the same - Buckingham Palace, Westminster Abbey, The Tower of London, Changing of the Guard etc. None of these places would exist without the royals. Even the London bus tour guides spend most of their time talking about the royals and their lives, it's what the tourists want.

I do, however, agree with you about Tony Blair who worked his way up into office and who actually served his country (maybe even badly), whereas Prince Andrew's daughters do nothing but go on holiday and wear even more atrocious clothes than the little royals. [laugh]

John Major also has protection paid by the country, as did Thatcher, retired PM's do.

So we should pay for protection for queenies four children, and eight grandchildren?

I guess it's all back to the old argument - do you deserve protection for services rendered (ie hard work), or do you just get it automatically handed to you for sitting on your bottom (Eugenie, Beatrice)?

Back to OP, I did smile when the palace tried to reassure the public yesterday saying The Queen has had no investigations or tests! Surely she has had a blood test or even an x ray to rule out a few things? And I bet doctors are taking her temperature and BP every hour. No tests? I think they're saying what they want to say.

it would be a much better world if ALL older people were treated like Lizzie,Its the shame of this country how they treat senior citizens ,many who have worked since they were 14 and paid tax all their lives ...still ....have to worry about heating their homes or being able to afford good food.The hospitals and nursing homes wouldn't be bulging at the seams if people were all treated equal to the queen

Lillie Westminster Abbey, The Tower and all those historic buildings would still exist without our current royal family, they don't own them and they don't pay for their upkeep do they? so they'd still be there to visit, same as Notre Dame, Versailles etc in France, The Hermitage etc in Russia etc. Yes, foreign visitors want to see the buildings , but they also come to London to see the museums, Big Ben, go shopping, the theatre etc. Hardly any of them see HM.or any royals.

We were visiting our son in Ohio last summer. A car stopped in a car park and asked if we knew where a certain supermarket was (we did!). The woman remarked on our accents and said thank you, then as they drove off she shouted back at us 'Hey, we love your Queen, too!'.

We're always amazed at how often Americans like to talk about the Royal family when we're over in the States, it's quite astonishing.

suzied I was careful to say that tourists don't come to "see" the royals as Henry 8th and William the Conquerer are long dead!

Open many a magazine in France (Psris Match) and Das Bild in Germany and there will often be pictures of our current royals.

I've met quite a few Japanese people (overseas) as DD works with them - they ask about our Queen too and seem to think that we must have met her because we live in the same country!

Just because one may be termed 'a Monarchist' does not mean I would not agree with some of what bluebelle says f77ms

The Queen will be fine but if she has the same virus that is going round that many of us have had she will take time to recover.
She will not abdicate but will pass on a lot of her responsibilities to Charles
Charles will be a good Head of State if he outlives his mother, that is.
The Royal children can wear what they jolly well like as can my DGC, why is that my business?
I don't care where William and Kate spend Christmas
I think they should be pared down but are probably better value for money than a president.
It is our business because we have to pay out for a Head of State of one kind or another.

I think I am a pragmatic Monarchist.

Lillie so we don't need a current Royal family according to this argument. If we didn't have a monarchy any longer we'd still have the historic buildings for people to see. I've no particular problem with the current monarch, but as an institution I think it's run its course.

i think other nationalities see the royal family as a kind of strange novelty, they like to look and stare from a distance, rather like a bizarre circus act, but they're thankful they don't have to have them for themselves. They're a relic from the past, we should have moved on, no place for them in a modern, supposedly equal society. Time they went.

All the people from overseas that I know, love the monarchy. Yes they love the history, but also like it because they like the continuity [more than 1000 years],the pagentry, the spectacle etc.

I don't think so, I think many of them would love to have HM as their Head of State, as epitomised by the number of members of the Commonwealth, some of them new entrants.

I think HM is Head of State of around 145 million people, not just the UK.

The only country that has recently opted to leave the Commonwealth altogether is Gambia and the temptation here is to say good riddance. Its leader President Yahya Jammeh once executed all prisoners on Death Row on a whim and told the UN that homosexuals were a threat to human existence.

Meanwhile, a number of countries that have never been British colonies have joined or are considering joining. Mozambique and Rwanda have signed up and South Sudan is applying.

I'm not sure if HM would welcome the likes of Rwanda in the club? What's in it for them? Or us? The commonwealth is a bit of a hangover from Empire, not sure if it should be expanded.

I agree but they wouldn't like it for themselves. It's a spectacle, like a real life fairy tale, but that's not a good enough reason for keeping them. People from overseas also flock to France, to the Palace of Versailles, they got rid of theirs years ago. Tourists would still come to the Uk, Buckingham palace isn't the number 1 tourist spot anyway, not even close.

suzied please keep up
The Commonwealth has admitted Rwanda as its 54th member. The African country was admitted at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Trinidad and Tobago, a statement from the group said. A Rwandan minister said the move showed his country's "tremendous progress" over the last 15 years.29 Nov 2009

I think the EU could take a leaf or two out of the Commonwealth's book on how to run an association of disparate countries.

Well just shows how high on the list of important political issues the commonwealth is. Not sure it's a model organisation admitting countries with a very dodgy democratic record.

But - if it shows them a democratic way forward and is there to support and help, giving them something to aim for, that must be a good thing.