The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #661  
Old 02-08-2020, 09:46 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
When you look at the outcry over the taxpayer money spent on Frogmore Cottage, for example, which was for a supposedly popular royal couple can you imagine the reaction if B and E were put on the public payroll?
there is always grumbling about things like that. Will and Kate got the same over their apartment.. but if B and E do start to take on some work, I think it would be on a limited basis, with just a small number of engagements, and expenses for them.. they would not be full time royals...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #662  
Old 02-08-2020, 09:51 AM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
When you look at the outcry over the taxpayer money spent on Frogmore Cottage, for example, which was for a supposedly popular royal couple can you imagine the reaction if B and E were put on the public payroll?
The "public" can be a decidedly fickle group. I can remember when the majority of Brits felt that Prince Charles should never be allowed to marry Camilla Parker Bowles unless he was willing to forfeit his place in Succession. That seems like a lifetime ago now

The hue and cry over renovations to Frogmore did not make a dent in the sizes of the crowds who came out to cheer on the Harry and Meghan Show. And besides there is a great difference in millions in public funds spent on home renovations-which were frankly needed anyway-to a stipend being paid to Royals who are working hard on behalf of Queen and Commonwealth.

It's like another poster stated very well...if you want a monarchy there are going to be costs involved. And if you want a democratic republic there are going to be even MORE costs involved, along with no end of self interested, incompetent public "servants" to vote in or out every few years. Rinse and repeat.

Be careful what you wish for, anti- monarchists.
__________________

__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
Reply With Quote
  #663  
Old 02-08-2020, 09:53 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,769
Why people assuming Beatrice and Eugenie even want this? They have their own lives and have been living it for many years now. They weren't good enough to be full time until two others leave? I would pass on that principle alone. Anyways I don't even think it is true they will be asked to "step up" anyways. Charles, Camilla, William and Kate will just be seen out more and more. Next week's joint engagement is a statement one.
Reply With Quote
  #664  
Old 02-08-2020, 09:54 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
The "public" can be a decidedly fickle group. I can remember when the majority of Brits felt that Prince Charles should never be allowed to marry Camilla Parker Bowles unless he was willing to forfeit his place in Succession. That seems like a lifetime ago now

The hue and cry over renovations to Frogmore did not make a dent in the sizes of the crowds who came out to cheer them. And besides there is a great difference in millions in public funds spent on home renovations-which were frankly needed anyway-to a stipend being paid to Royals who are working hard on behalf of Queen and Commonwealth.

It's like another poster stated very well...if you want a monarchy there are going to be costs involved. And if you want a democratic republic there are going to be even MORE costs involved, along with no end of self interested, incompetent public "servants" to vote in or out.

Be careful what you wish for, anti- monarchists.
If people want an end to a monarchy they have a prefect right to have that viewpoint and to get rid of a monarchy. the behaviour of many royals in the UK has not been exemplary of late and its not good.
Charles hasn't forfeited his Place in the succession but he has never really regained his former popularity and now H and Meg's walk out wil probably mean that they are not likely to be welcomed back.
Reply With Quote
  #665  
Old 02-08-2020, 10:04 AM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,784
The British people do indeed have a right to be rid of the monarchy and to choose their own form of Government. The point is that they have not, despite recent discontent over the behavior of a few member of the ruling House, been ill advised enough to throw out the baby with the bathwater by abolishing the monarchy.

Charles was never particularly popular beginning with the deterioration of his first marriage.

A Republic is NOT more cost effective and you will not necessarily get more exemplary representation from one.

On that, i can assure you.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
Reply With Quote
  #666  
Old 02-08-2020, 10:13 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
That may be the case but If that is so, then I think that the RF are moving towards slimming down and only concentrating on the essentials. If you feel that what they do is just to "justify their existence", then there's no real justifacaiton for a monarchy at all. But I don't think ti would look good to drop all the charities at once...
Well isn't that the argument if their existence? This idea that people are seen better than others and people have to fund them solely on the chance of birth?

There are many pros and cons to this institution. I don't see it ending anytime soon but as with life it will evolve. It already is.
Reply With Quote
  #667  
Old 02-08-2020, 10:14 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
The British people do indeed have a right to be rid of the monarchy and to choose their own form of Government. The point is that they have not, despite recent discontent over the behavior of a few member of the ruling House, been ill advised enough to throw out the baby with the bathwater by abolishing the monarchy.

Charles was never particularly popular beginning with the deterioration of his first marriage.

A democracy is NOT more cost effective and you will not necessarily get more exemplary representation from one.

On that, i can assure you.
Charles was very popular as a young man and he became very unpopular with te braek up of his marriage. My point is that while he's still accepted by the public he is not that popular and its possible that If he were King, another scandal might see the end of the house of Windsor. I am pretty fed up with many of them and think it mgitht be for the best, though I like Charles.
And Britain IS a democracy. It is a constitutional monarchy with the Royals being accepted in their position, because the people are wiling to accept them. If that changes they are out.
Reply With Quote
  #668  
Old 02-08-2020, 10:17 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Well isn't that the argument if their existence? This idea that people are seen better than others and people have to fund them solely on the chance of birth?

There are many pros and cons to this institution. I don't see it ending anytime soon but as with life it will evolve. It already is.
No they are not seen as better than others. They have a privileged positon which they have inherited and they receive funding to do the job of head of state.. They are expected to make an effort to promote charities in order to give back to the community and to behave reasonably respectably. If they don't make that effort, if they lose the confidence of the people they may well be out.
Reply With Quote
  #669  
Old 02-08-2020, 12:03 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,471
There are a lot of rumours about Beatrice and Eugenie stepping up - should they want to, which they may well not, at this stage in their lives - but nothing's actually been said. I think it's just that the Royal Family is now very short of working members and there isn't really anyone else. The Kents and Gloucesters still do a fair bit, but you would think that they'll be retiring before too long.
Reply With Quote
  #670  
Old 02-08-2020, 12:37 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
When you look at the outcry over the taxpayer money spent on Frogmore Cottage, for example, which was for a supposedly popular royal couple can you imagine the reaction if B and E were put on the public payroll?
What public payroll? All working expenses for the "Firm" are paid for by the Queen through the Sovereign Grant. The Queen receives 25% of the profits earned by the Crown Estates to do just this. She will receive the same amount of money yearly whether she has 50 people working for the "Firm" or 5. The funding for Frogmore Cottage also came from the Sovereign Grant and I understand it is also being reimbursed for the renovations.

The only thing the public will pay for directly is for Beatrice and Eugenie's security when they are working for the "Firm".

I just don't see it happening. These two women have established themselves in careers with one married and one about to be married and both may wish to start families. Its not about if they're popular or any other reasons than they perhaps may choose not to be a full time working royal for the "Firm". I seriously doubt the Queen would force this on them.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #671  
Old 02-08-2020, 01:15 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 12,996
Let's not make this another thread about Harry and Meghan.

I've deleted 33 off topic posts that basically have been posted (and discussed in GREAT detail) in at least THREE other threads about Harry and Meghan leaving the firm, trading off their titles, etc.)

It's time to move on.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #672  
Old 02-08-2020, 01:52 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,784
The BRF image has taken a big hit for one; it is believed in quarters that the Windsors did little to nothing to protecting Meghan from racist and xenophobic attacks on her and some believe specific royals aided and abetted the press with the viciousness. Harry and Meghan are not allowed to use HRH and Andrew can when he is in worse circumstances has rubbed people the wrong way. Two - Andrew. He still has the Epstein stench on him to the point that local governments do not want to fly the flag on his birthday and and bells at WA ringing are a no go. Right or wrong Beatrice and Eugenie are getting the run off of bad will because of their dad's issues. I think it may be part of the decision for Bea to have her wedding at the chapel at St James Palace. Who wants protesters outside the church chanting "Lock Him Up" or worse to the father of the bride as he escorts his daughter inside the church?

The negative perceptions are not going to go away soon no matter what streamlining is done. The PR arm of the Firm needs to read the room better and fix things for all parties involved for better perceptions of the Windsors as a whole. But this will take time.
Reply With Quote
  #673  
Old 02-08-2020, 01:55 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,471
I know that opinion polls don't necessarily mean anything, but one out today shows that 43% of people think that the Queen is the best person to represent the UK, and 25% think that Prince William is ... compared to only 9% who say the Prime Minister. (Prince Charles did not rank so high, but I think that's the lack of glamour factor.) That's not a dig at Boris personally: I'm sure that the figure would be far less than 9% if certain other people were Prime Minister, and not that much higher even for more popular PMs in the past. But it does show that people place a lot of value on having a head of state who is above the divisiveness of politics.


I'm not hearing anyone in the UK criticise the Royal Family over Harry and Meghan. There's been some criticism of the press, but not of the other royals. Who exactly is supposed to have "aided the press with their viciousness"? The only people whose image has been damaged are Harry and Meghan themselves, and, as they are no longer working royals, that is not relevant.
Reply With Quote
  #674  
Old 02-08-2020, 01:58 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
I know that opinion polls don't necessarily mean anything, but one out today....
Which opinion poll is that?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #675  
Old 02-08-2020, 02:01 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,471
It's in the Express. It may be in other papers too - it's a general poll about various subjects (including some really stupid ones like which celebs people would like to spend Valentine's Day with!) but that was one of the questions. A lot of people - not just in the UK, but in other countries too - are fed up with politicians and how unpleasant everything's got. I'm not sure that many people have got the stomach for the idea of a politician replacing the Queen as head of state.
Reply With Quote
  #676  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:41 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
There are a lot of rumours about Beatrice and Eugenie stepping up - should they want to, which they may well not, at this stage in their lives - but nothing's actually been said. I think it's just that the Royal Family is now very short of working members and there isn't really anyone else. The Kents and Gloucesters still do a fair bit, but you would think that they'll be retiring before too long.
Why would the Gloucesters be retiring? They are the same age basically as Charles and Camilla - being only 4 and 2 years older than Charles. Richard may be the Queen's first cousin but he is more of Charles' generation than she is. In fact he and his older brother, William, were very much like older brothers to Charles and he adored them, particularly William - after whom he named his own elder son.

The Duke of Kent has even said he won't retire while the Queen lives as he feels he has to keep working as long as she does - simply because he is nearly 10 years her junior. Health may see him, and his sister, retire but nothing else.

Currently the BRF are three working members less than they had this time last year and only two fewer than they had two years ago, when Meghan joined them.

One factor that I do think should be considered in this discussion is Beatrice's job, which is in New York City. Is she going to continue working in NYC while her husband works in London or is she going to work in some other way. Maybe her marriage is a time for her to take up some of the engagements that the three departing working members would have done in the UK while she tries to make her job and marriage work in some way.
Reply With Quote
  #677  
Old 02-12-2020, 06:37 AM
kbk kbk is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
In fact he and his older brother, William, were very much like older brothers to Charles and he adored them, particularly William - after whom he named his own elder son.
Offtopic. What are the grounds for you saying that they were so close to Charles? Do you have any source confirming that he named his elder son after William? I know the Gloucesters were spending family time with George V and his family and then Elizabeth II and her family but were the boys in those days really close to each other?
Reply With Quote
  #678  
Old 02-12-2020, 11:28 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
If people want an end to a monarchy they have a prefect right to have that viewpoint and to get rid of a monarchy. the behaviour of many royals in the UK has not been exemplary of late and its not good.
Charles hasn't forfeited his Place in the succession but he has never really regained his former popularity and now H and Meg's walk out wil probably mean that they are not likely to be welcomed back.
My perception of the British people is that they tend to be conservative and less inclined to radical change than perhaps people in other European countries. I don’t see them ditching the monarchy in the next 50 years or so at least unless there is some major event that causes unprecedented social and political upheaval , or if there is a clearly better alternative ( which doesn’t exist now). I don’t think fluctuations in the popularity of individual RF members make that much of a difference. Besides, the Queen remains very popular herself , and I think William and Kate will be a popular royal couple too.
Reply With Quote
  #679  
Old 02-13-2020, 02:58 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Missouri, United States
Posts: 995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
My perception of the British people is that they tend to be conservative and less inclined to radical change than perhaps people in other European countries. I don’t see them ditching the monarchy in the next 50 years or so at least unless there is some major event that causes unprecedented social and political upheaval , or if there is a clearly better alternative ( which doesn’t exist now). I don’t think fluctuations in the popularity of individual RF members make that much of a difference. Besides, the Queen remains very popular herself , and I think William and Kate will be a popular royal couple too.
Agreed. I realize that we're potentially looking at 25-30 years before we see the Cambridges on the throne but, in reality, they have the potential even then to be very, very popular during their reign. Not that I in any way wish for anything awful for Charles but honestly, it would probably do the RF a lot of good in the long run if the Cambridges took over sooner rather than later.
Reply With Quote
  #680  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:44 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,471
I think Charles and Camilla are gaining in popularity. Camilla's charity work is admired, and Charles did an excellent job at the Holocaust Memorial Day event. But, unless you're people like Sean Connery and Joan Collins who still look amazing as they head towards 90, it's very hard for an older couple to outshine a much younger, more attractive and glamorous couple ... and Charles was never particularly cool even in his younger days. The Cambridges can still do a lot of good once they're the Waleses, though, with Charles and Camilla as the elder statespeople.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla parker bowles, camilla parker-bowles, camilla's family


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1678 08-15-2021 08:22 AM
The Future of the Danish Monarchy Empress Royal House of Denmark 797 05-31-2021 02:27 PM
Future of the Belgian monarchy Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 122 09-27-2020 08:03 AM
Future of the Dutch Monarchy Marengo Dutch Royals 42 09-25-2020 03:53 AM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia names plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:22 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×