Queen of the world

If they weren't the RF that would save on security. Having the RF is in a word wrong.

Had to laugh at Caitlin Moran today. Some ‘royal’ or other who is 50th in line has got engaged. She was speechless, and suggested the RF limit their succession to the first 10 in line and if they all died off then they were obviously too unlucky to rule so the next head of state should be elected by phone vote!

No, annep, she probably hasn't given one of her properties to the homeless, and why should she? But, as I said previously, she could well be helping in other ways, just not publicising the fact, (and you can bet your bottom dollar that she would be criticised by some if she did publicise).

Queenie owns two properties both willed to her.

You don't really need me to answer your question Mapleleaf.

I thought the programme was interesting. I think the immediate Royals are doing their best in roles which are so scrutinised that it must be suffocating at times. Yes, Megan played with her hair and uttered “amazing” a little too often but they were signs of nerves rather than anything else. I for one welcome the continued continuity that the Royals bring to an ever too fast changing world. They contribute to our prestige, support business, charities and tourist revenue. Beneath all the pomp there are normal human beings playing roles which I don’t think many of us would enjoy so much as you think.

I agree with Lovetopaint037.

Change is a good thing surelyLovetopaint the world cant and shouldn't be stagnant.Moving away from this over privileged,over entitled, ever growing brood of benefits claimants would only be good for us.Let someone who has WORKED their way up the ladder have the top job,if they dont do it to our satisfaction we vote them out and someone else in.Fairer all round and much much less expensive .I dont understand people who think a hereditary right to rule is the way forward in the 21st century ,its a medieval concept welll past its selll by date .

oh dear we could end up with a UK version of Trump.

Thing is, paddyann , they don't actually rule. They are figureheads with no influence on government policies, and their allotted task is to charm the representatives of other countries and to have the experiences of many years of meetings with previous Prime Ministers behind them to relate to current PMs and possibly impart some general (and non-party) advice. HM has met, worked with and formed personal impressions of PMs from Winston Churchill to Theresa May, and she reads up on the contents of her red boxes. She has more experience of the ins and outs of goernment than any sitting MP.

Presidents in the US mould do expect to influence the government of the day. They are strongly mono-party, becaus they owe their position to being voted in on a party ticket, and some are hell-bent on destroying the achievements of their predecessor.

Rubbish to claim queenie rules, she does not.

Well put Elegran ???

Those who rage that being ruled by a hereditary head of state is anachronistic usually have an anachronistic image of what a modern constitutional monarch actually does, coloured by some of the distinctly powerhungry rulers we have had in the past.