Royalty and the media

Hattie64 You don't know that Charles is jealous. It's only what the Guardian say and they are notorious for stirring up trouble. Everyone who met Charles say what a lovely man he is. He does a lot of good work (Prince's Trust, the environment). I do agree that Andrew seems to jet around the work, but Edward seems to keep a low profile.

numberplease I agree with you about Camilla. What's past is past and everyone should move on. The two princes certainly have and if they have accepted Camilla then what's it got to do with us.

I think it's wonderful to see these two young people who are so in love and not afraid to show it! I think the way they touch each other and respond to each other is just so normal! Maybe other Royals will realise they don't need to be grand and that what appeals to us is that they are "real" people. They are great ambassadors and have done Britain proud in Canada on a trip which could have been problematic in some areas.

The notion of Prince of Wales was originated ,back in history,to insult Welsh people. The last true Welsh royalty was Llewelyn ap Gruffydd in 1258. Owain Glyn Dŵr claimed the to be the last leader of Wales (circa 1349-1416), as his father had been prince of Powys. So the current royal family have no real right to the title
"----of Wales". The other thing which really annoys me is the fact that Prince William has given himself the surname "Wales" :what's that about?! In his favour,William works and lives in Wales.

I heard Charles and Diana referred to as The Waleses many years ago.

You probably did. But their surname is not Wales. The family changed their name to Mountbatten -Windsor at one point in an attempt to hide their German routes. And Prince Phillip is Greek. So there is no Welsh connection. Granted the Henrys (VI VII VIII) had some Welsh connection, but their surname was Tudor.
The whole thing is preposterous!!!

Preposterous, certainly!

Philip is a Greek Prince, but ethnically he is of Schleswig-Holstein

Well, y'know, I was taken for a Norwegian when I lived in Norway (probably do have some Norse blood if you go back far enough). What the heck? Who cares where the royals come from? Is what we're really talking about, and what's important, the issue of whether there should be a monarchy at all in the twenty-first century? I have mixed views. On the one hand, I'm anti monarchy on democratic grounds. On the other hand, do we want a president? The hoo-ha seems to be the same whichever you have. At least you can 'elect out' a president.

What do other people think?

I too have mixed feelings regarding the royal family. The problem with ours is that there are too many of them, so many people to bow and scrape to. I give Ann her due, she didnt want her children to have any titles bestowed on them. (I notice that her daughter Zara? is advertising lawn mowers). If we maintain the monarchy all we need is a King and Queen and thats all. Far more approachable, and the rest of them should be working so we don't have to pay for them.

I agree with Elegran,Baggy And Hattie64!

I don't think we do pay for as many of them as is generally assumed.

There are changes afoot, but the money the Queen receives from the Civil List is in exchange for the income from the Crown Estates, which was surrendered to the state by George III in 1760. Before that the Sovereign was personally responsible for the costs of civil government.

"Only The Queen officially receives direct funding from the Civil List. The Queen's consort (Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh) receives £359,000 per year. The Queen, as Head of State, receives £7,900,000 from the Civil List to defray some of the official expenditure of the Monarchy.

The state duties and staff of other members of the Royal Family (but not The Prince of Wales, The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke of Cambridge or Prince Harry) are funded from a Parliamentary Annuity, the amount of which is fully refunded by The Queen to the Treasury. The Queen is permitted to claim this amount as a deduction against her gross income from personal investments and other sources - the net amount, after deductions, is subject to normal income tax." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_list

The income of the Prince of Wales comes from the Duchy of Cornwall, which has been the property of the monarch's eldest son since 1337.

"since 1993, the Prince of Wales has voluntarily paid income tax. The prince paid a voluntary contribution to the treasury of 50% of his duchy income from the time he became eligible for its full income at the age of 21 in 1969, and he has paid 25% since his 1981 marriage" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall

The thought of a president is abhorrent to me. And as for saving us money, I think it would end up costing us more! The rest of the world envy our Royal Family yet people talking about getting rid of them. Great Britain would be a worse place without them.

It must cost as much to do all the ceremonials, state visits etc for a president as it does for a monarch, and the president's first lady always wants to "put her stamp on the White House" and redecorate. Buck House has not been redecorated for yonks.

It takes deep pockets to campaign for the presidency too - or wealthy friends/business associates who will want a return on their outlay. There is much talk about anyone being able to rise to the top in a democracy, but it takes more than just innate ability. Would Barack Obama be there if he had been a shoeshine boy?

Forgot to add to my previous post that the 2010 net income surplus (profit) from the Crown Estates was £210.7 million www.thecrownestate.co.uk/newscontent/92-2010-annual-results.htm
and
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8624244/The-Crown-Estate-good-news-for-the-Queen.html

Well said, Elegran People don't realise how much a presidency could cost. And people go into politics for a variety of reasons, not all good ones. With a monarchy, the Royal Family have no choice - they are King or Queen! And they have been brought up to respect duty and help with good causes.

Goodness – isn't it fabulous where threads meander off to? Elegran The Greek royal family (which no longer exists as the country is a republic) is Danish. Prince Philip is of the house of Schleswig Holstein Sonderberg Glucksburg (spelling here may be a bit wobbly). British royal family became Windsor – much against the wishes of George V – during World War I and the Battenburgs (not the cake) became Mountbatten at the same time. The present queen added Mountbatten to Windsor to honour her husband.

I reckon the royal family is an anachronism we could do well without. Once HM the Q pops her regal clogs, that should be it. Lots of countries have presidents without their costing vast sums of money – Ireland, for example. They do the head of state bit without wielding power, rather like the monarchy but without all the trappings and hangers-on. It's awfully easy to think in terms of the US presidency which is extravagance and power personified.

Holland did the change over quite well, royalty on bicycles, that sort of thing.

I am quite happy with a monarchy without power. If they have enough gravitas combined with common sense and don't take themselves too seriously they can be a force for good, above party politics and bitchyness.

Monarchy without pomp and circumstance does lose something in pageantry though. That is one of the things this country does well. I enjoyed watching right through the whole of the Trooping of the Colour for the first time. A banana republic could not have got the same mix of spectacle and sentiment.

I agree that William and Kate seem like a lovely young couple, I'm not really a royalist, though even I enjoyed the Royal Wedding.

But once their royal duties are over can we please back off and leave them alone to enjoy their privacy?

Realistically they are never going to lead a 'normal life', but if we all keep encouraging the media by devouring every little bit of trivial and invasive info about them its going to spiral out of control, and we all know where that could lead ........

I agree with everything you've said, Liz08. Enough's enough!

Absolutely, nuff said.

We are going on week's holiday to Anglesey soon. We have been there before and love it, especially up the top on the coast. But, if I did happen to bump into Kate, or even (sigh) gorgeous young William (dirty old bint that I am), I will be really really excited!!!

That's not to say my daughter and I will be exploring out of the way, romantic locations looking for any really posh looking "cottage". Of course not. As if.

I'm definitely going to shop in Waitrose there. Every day.

Incorrigible is your middle name, jangly.

Baggy

We are going to the Sandringham flower show next week. I'm sure we will be pleased if we spy any of the Royals. As I don't watch TV news much, I don't see much of the Royals on TV (rely on the Internet for news.)

Camilla being given the title of Princess of Wales ...... NEVER, she doesn't deserve it.