The heir to the UK throne needs a few pounds????

What is the percentage of people in the United Kingdom that actually support the monarchy? I just don’t see why the people of the United Kingdom would support this kind of system? Seems to be unearned, archaic, elitist, without usefulness, as well as expensive. I don’t mean to give offense but I can’t see the logic/basis for this system ....??
 

Last edited:
Lc jones said:
What is the percentage of people in the United Kingdom that actually support the monarchy? I just don’t see why the people of the United Kingdom would support this kind of system? Seems to be unearned, archaic, elitist, without usefulness, as well as expensive. I don’t mean to give offense but I can’t see the logic/basis for this system ....??
Click to expand...
I asked my English friend that, she said they more than earn their pay by attracting tourists to visit England. I also read that the Queen gets a percentage of the GDP, so she gets more when the economy is booming and less during a recession.
 
Catlady said:
I asked my English friend that, she said they more than earn their pay by attracting tourists to visit England. I also read that the Queen gets a percentage of the GDP, so she gets more when the economy is booming and less during a recession.
Click to expand...
Isn’t the queen like the richest woman in the world? Wasn’t she born into the system, what did she earn, just saying?!
 

RadishRose said:
I'll bet the "old lady" has been on more tele-conferences and Facetime meetings than any of us.
Click to expand...

With whom?

For what reason?

I'm not saying she has never made a phone call, but if she wants to to see someone she just lets if be known, she doesn't even have to send for them.

That's why today's meeting is unprecedented, and the public announcement of it is deliberately calculated to indicate her displeasure.
 
Laurie said:
Megan risks losing what little sympathy she has left by refusing the summons to Sandrinham tomorrow and insisting the Queen conducts her afraid by telephone.

The Queen is an old lady and doesn't need this hassle.
Click to expand...

What makes you think she was summoned and refused to go? Not saying you're incorrect, only that US news hasn't mentioned it.
 
It was fa
StarSong said:
What makes you think she was summoned and refused to go? Not saying you're incorrect, only that US news hasn't mentioned it.
Click to expand...

It was fairly widely reported over here that Charles, William, Harry and Megan had been summoned to Sandringham , but Megan would stay in Canada and use the telephone.

One only knows what the press reports, of course, but the briefings seem to be at fairly high level.

The Queen has now said that certain aspects will be worked out with a transient time which the Sussexes will spend in both the UK and Canada.

Feeling has hardened markedly against Megan over the last few days, and she needs to regroup.

Leaving Harry alone over here to be worked on by the whole family is a mistake; she knows how weak he is, that's how she got him.
 
Warrigal said:
I think you are a bit harsh here, Laurie.
You speak as if you know things that you cannot possibly know for certain.
Click to expand...

I did stress that, like everybody else, I only know what the press publish.

I stand by my remark that the briefings seemed to come from High level, but that, like the rest of my remarks, is a personal opinion based on 80nyears of experience of the Royals, the British press, and the relationship between the two.

When I was born the abdication scandal was less than two years old and in my youth was a regular matter of discussion among those who shaped me, who had lived through it.

I know there are more modern views but it is up to others to present those.
 
It now transpires she took no part in the discussions, but whether she declines or was excluded was not made clear..

If the former she was foolish. If the latter her case is strengthened.

The Queen thinks the world of Harry and still thinks of him, as all grandmothers shoud, as a vulnerable little boy.
 
Just curious. What if the UK people want to get rid of the monarchy, what would have to happen? Considering how long it's taking and how complicated is Brexit, I can't imagine what would have to be done and how long it would take to get rid of all those ever multiplying royals.

Right now, only 10 countries have a royal ruler with ''real power''
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/stories/10-countries-where-royalty-still-rules
The other royals have no real political power
http://www.royaltymonarchy.com/sovereigns/0000world.html
 
Royals of the world at Queen Elizabeth' s Diamond Jubilee on 5/18/2012 at Windsor Castle

queen-lunch1--z.jpg
 
Catlady said:
Just curious. What if the UK people want to get rid of the monarchy, what would have to happen? Considering how long it's taking and how complicated is Brexit, I can't imagine what would have to be done and how long it would take to get rid of all those ever multiplying royals.

Right now, only 10 countries have a royal ruler with ''real power''
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/stories/10-countries-where-royalty-still-rules
The other royals have no real political power
http://www.royaltymonarchy.com/sovereigns/0000world.html
Click to expand...

You're right to suggest it would take some time.

Long and complicated negotiations with the Commonwealth would be only one of a series of negotiations.

It wold firstly require a referendum, which itself would require an Act of Parliament, and if a Republic was chosen, that would require another Act of Parliament. Both acts would need to be signed by the Queen, and turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

There would be bitter division throughout the Union, with factions based on race, religion, sex and age.

There would be widespread civil disobedience, and never forget, in the event of such troubles, the Queen is Commander in Chief.

Almost certainly the Union would break up.

Can't see it happening myself. Be interesting to see how it would pan out if Australia went down that road as many of them want to do do.
 
Laurie said:
You're right to suggest it would take some time.

Long and complicated negotiations with the Commonwealth would be only one of a series of negotiations.

It wold firstly require a referendum, which itself would require an Act of Parliament, and if a Republic was chosen, that would require another Act of Parliament. Both acts would need to be signed by the Queen, and turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

There would be bitter division throughout the Union, with factions based on race, religion, sex and age.

There would be widespread civil disobedience, and never forget, in the event of such troubles, the Queen is Commander in Chief.

Almost certainly the Union would break up.

Can't see it happening myself. Be interesting to see how it would pan out if Australia went down that road as many of them want to do do.
Click to expand...
I agree, I doubt it will happen in a long time, if ever. Certainly not in our lifetimes. Thanks for explaining, very interesting.

Here in the US we have Texas wanting for a long time to become independent, and recently also California and Colorado (all I remember), it will be a long struggle to make it happen.
 
There is a huge amount of speculation about the current royal tiff. As with most family snits, no one is free from blame. I do think it's odd that the couple is not willing to be part of the Firm when performing their "duties", but have no problem making a living being the " Royal Sussexes". One thing I've wondered about was those 'royal duties". Yes, at times, the royals do meet world leaders, but if you check out their 'dairies', it's mostly being at the opening of a preschool, or a hospital quilt show-sometimes up to twice a week. Another of my "musings" ( when I can't fall asleep) is that The Queen's longevity poses a problem. For the next half century, the monarchy will be headed by 70-80 year old men. I wonder how that will play out.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
There is a huge amount of speculation about the current royal tiff. As with most family snits, no one is free from blame. I do think it's odd that the couple is not willing to be part of the Firm when performing their "duties", but have no problem making a living being the " Royal Sussexes". One thing I've wondered about was those 'royal duties". Yes, at times, the royals do meet world leaders, but if you check out their 'dairies', it's mostly being at the opening of a preschool, or a hospital quilt show-sometimes up to twice a week. Another of my "musings" ( when I can't fall asleep) is that The Queen's longevity poses a problem. For the next half century, the monarchy will be headed by 70-80 year old men. I wonder how that will play out.
Click to expand...

Since 1707 the British monarchs have been fairly elderly folks. Elizabeth's youthful ascension to the throne was the exception rather than the rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchs
 

Back
Top