The family firm.

Gilly, she doesn’t own Buckingham Palace, it belongs to the state.

What is the matter with so many people? So much resentment! My mother always said jealousy hurts the the jealous person more than it hurts the object of the jealousy. It appears to be true.

Anniebach if you don't like the message you should contact the sender ( www.royal.uk/royal-residences-buckingham-palace) not blame the messenger.

FFS No one is "jealous". Do you imagine it was jealousy that drove the chartists at Peterloo? or any of theother activists who have worked, demonstated and petitioned for equality. We believe that a monarchy is the last vestige of a hierachy that placed some people above others simply by virtue of their birth and true democracy would get rid of them. Arguably the fact that the Queen automatically prorogued Parliament when asked indicates how unrepresented we are. An elected leader of state would need to be more circumspect because they would be answerable for their actions.

So much envy . The PM of this country has three or more properties to live in.

I couldn’t care less that the queen owns two properties

trisher so a President would be involved in politics and this
is what you want ? No thanks . The thought of the leaders of our political parties as president?

Not necessarily political Annie but certainly answerable. The two are not necessarily connected. Think about the election of Police Commissioners.

Not about money and not envy either Some people are just so blind

If not about money why does their wealth keep being referred to?

Jealousy is exactly what it is. Jealousy of the wealth, the houses, the servants, the position. However, a president would have exactly the same privileges, including police protection for life, just as ex Prime Ministers do. There can be no other motive other than jealousy. We already have a democratic system (not going into the Brexit business on this thread) and therefore the queen is a figurehead. A president would be too, and would cost as much, and have as many privileges. Then there’d be the cost of maintaining them for life, whilst continuing to support the new president. Unless of course, we had just had one president till he/she died. Not much difference really. Jealousy is the motive for criticism.

Wealth is a reoccurring theme on many GN threads, it seems to be a certifiable crime to admit to being "wealthy".

Keep the Royal Family but trim it down probably to 3rd or 4th in line to the throne.

The thought of living in a republic with an elected President fills me with dread.......have you noticed the current "crop" of MPs, inhabitants of the House of Lords? no thank you!!!

I agree maddy. The cry seems ‘poverty for all’

Anniebach, maddyone I agre ??

GrannyGravy Charles has started slimming down the numbers who have royal duties but it must be difficult for the
Queen to dismiss Edward and Sophie.

No president of any country does the tours of the commonwealth , and the commonwealth is important.

I have no objection to people making money, no objection to them handing some of it down to their children. What I object to is a figurehead who is not only regarded as special but whose spouse, children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and others benefit from their specialness. I also don't see why my elected representative should have to swear allegiance to a monarch. I would much rather they swore allegiance to the country and its people. Perhaps if they did so they would then show more compassion and care for those people. I also still contend that an elected representative would not have been quite so ready to prorogue Parliament without consulting other elected MPs or the Speaker.
It really is pathetic that the monarchists on here can only see jealousy as a motive for opposing monarchy. It shows a distinct lack of understanding of what constitutes real democracy.

trisher "It shows a distinct lack of understanding of what constitutes real democracy "

No it actually means some posters have a different opinion to you, that's all!!!

No one is jealous of her Maj’s lavish lifestyle and that of her numerous family members even though we ultimately pay for it. But no one can defend the hereditary principle in this day and age. In the past they were believed to be some kind of deity. Seems some people still believe that.

trisher her great grandchildren benefit? How ?

They live with parents, so do all children except the children abandoned. They attend private schools as do many children , is this your problem with the little ones ?

Annie, you’ve brought us back to the beginning, the first day at school for one little four year old girl. I was a teacher, I taught Reception classes (among other year groups) and I taught in a variety of schools. I cared about all the children I taught. Some of the schools I taught in catered for middle class families, others I taught in catered for some very deprived children. In all the schools the majority of the parents cared about their children, just as Charlotte’s parents care about her. As a teacher, you care about the child in front of you, regardless of their background (assuming no abuse etc) and you do your best for them all. This is how this whole discussion started, a little girl’s first day at school.

GG13 they are quite entitled to their opinion what they are not entitled to do is to attribute my opposition to a monarchy to 'jealousy'. If they fail to recognise the very real argument against a monarchy I can only assume a lack of knowledge.

maddyone agreed.

As far as I am concerned if you want to bring the argument back to the child starting school that's fine. I too have taught many different types of children and many ages. I actually had reception for a bit. My GCs are now in a primary school. I have yet to see a reception teacher have the time to greet each child with an individual handshake (curtsey or not). With 30 odd children it would take over half an hour to cover the whole class. But actually I don't see why either William or Kate or their children should be afforded any special treatment. Let them live in a big house if they wish, let them send their children to private school if they want to. But why should we pay for their protection and afford them any sort of obeisance simply because of who his Granny is?

Why do we have extra security at concerts, in public places, why do we have security bollards across major bridges in London, why do we have armed police in shopping malls?

Because there are evil sick ideologists who believe if they kill others they will be rewarded in the after life, because we have people on drugs who go out and kill, because we have criminals who think kidnapping someone of wealth is a route to easy money.

That is why they need protection and for the small amount per head of population it costs I cannot see what the prop is.

If that is to be considered an argument GG13 then the obvious candidates for real protection, because their lives are more at risk are black inner city male teenagers. As they don't have the resources to fund their own protection that would seem a better use of public money and the rich can fund their own protection.

It doesn’t matter whether she owns BP at all Maddyone but the fact remains that it is a home and it’s one of the homes that her Maj has available to her .

trisher, black inner city teenagers carry knives, the higher up in the gang you are the bigger the knives.

It is the "elephant in the room" black on black crime fuelled by gangs and now "County lines" drug culture, something entirely different.