I'm not a "Royalist"......

I'm not a royalist full stop, but I'll give Harry credit. He is more human than the rest and appears more connected to real life.
 
I am deffo a royalist, the alternative fills me with dread. The possibility of president Corbyn. I would emigrate to Scotland.
 
Both him and William are nice guys and just like all the rest have done a lot of good work , lucky enough to have met Harry and very much a well grounded man
 
I think Harry and William have done a lot to make the monarchy more connected to the public again. I think both seem very rounded and genuinely caring adults and a proud testament to the work their mother did in raising them as normal as possible given their surroundings and they have definitely taken on her humility and work ethic especially with things like the Invictus games
 
IMO our royal family is unfit for purpose. They are way too far up their own back sides and there are also too many of them. Most of the other European Royal families appear to have a far more moderate position in society and are far closer to the people. I do agree that Harry is one of the better ones though.
 
SocketRocket said:
IMO our royal family is unfit for purpose. They are way too far up their own back sides and there are also too many of them. Most of the other European Royal families appear to have a far more moderate position in society and are far closer to the people. I do agree that Harry is one of the better ones though.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you think their “purpose” is ?

Their purpose is - to be the head of the commonwealth, raise millions upon millions for charities , hosting foreign diplomats and heads of states , being the face of our country on visits , just showing general goodwill to all. They are also one of the biggest tourist attractions in the world.

The queen herself last year attend 330 engagements I believe , patron of over 600 charities , - the rest of the Royal Family support her in that role , 3/4000 charities have the royals as patrons , a good of them work , William for example is an air ambulance pilot , a number of them have served in the Military

The list of what they do is long and endless

So if they aren’t “fit” for that purpose who is ?

Shall our wonderful politicians do it ? Maybe the lords ?
 
Liverpoolphil said:
What exactly do you think their “purpose” is ?

Their purpose is - to be the head of the commonwealth, raise millions upon millions for charities , hosting foreign diplomats and heads of states , being the face of our country on visits , just showing general goodwill to all. They are also one of the biggest tourist attractions in the world.

The queen herself last year attend 330 engagements I believe , patron of over 600 charities , - the rest of the Royal Family support her in that role , 3/4000 charities have the royals as patrons , a good of them work , William for example is an air ambulance pilot , a number of them have served in the Military

The list of what they do is long and endless

So if they aren’t “fit” for that purpose who is ?

Shall our wonderful politicians do it ? Maybe the lords ?
Click to expand...
Did you read all of my post? I suggested there should be less of them and they should live a less exulted lifestyle. I assure you all the tourists don't come here only to see the Queen parading in her golden coach, they don't see her or the rest of the family, you probably get more visitors to Disney World.

William has been an Air Ambulance Pilot which can be commended, although lots of people have been Air Ambulance Pilots without the level of recognition he receives. Being the Patron of 600 charities is not exactly a slog down the mill for 12 hours is it, She doesn't actually raise funds for them other than her name being on the paperwork, the Queen has also carried out a good number of civic ceremonies in her life but please don't tell me its backbreaking work.

Regarding who is fit for purpose: As I suggested, I feel there is a place for a smaller Royal Family who should be in less lofty ivory towers and at a lower cost to the Public. The Queen/King could still reside in their Palace but should be retired at normal pension age, the others should be cut off after around the fifth in line. That's the Royal Family I would prefer but if you like it the way it is then I am not going to lose sleep over it.
 
SocketRocket said:
Did you read all of my post? I suggested there should be less of them and they should live a less exulted lifestyle. I assure you all the tourists don't come here only to see the Queen parading in her golden coach, they don't see her or the rest of the family, you probably get more visitors to Disney World.
Click to expand...

Shoud they be asked to stop having kids then ? Should they be restricted in that way to ensure there arent too many Royal Kids ?

And i can assure you millions do come to the country just for a chance to see a Royal - anytime the Queen goes out the streets are lined ten rows back , look at the people that were there just for the Wedding of one of her nieces. The reaction around the world when one of her grankids is pregnant of gives birth - hundreds of thousands flock to the capital just for a chance to see the Royal baby with thousands flying across the globe to see them

William has been an Air Ambulance Pilot which can be commended, although lots of people have been Air Ambulance Pilots without the level of recognition he receives. Being the Patron of 600 charities is not exactly a slog down the mill for 12 hours is it, She doesn't actually raise funds for them other than he name being on the paperwork, the Queen has also carried out a good number of civic ceremonies in her life but please don't tell me its backbreaking work.
Click to expand...

Then William cant win - he does a job a very commendable one , dont think he gets any further recognition than anyone else. The Queen is 92 yet every day she is doing something and being out in the public eye , even if its just attending fund raising events raises the profile through the roof

Regarding who is fit for purpose: As I suggested, I feel there is a place for a smaller Royal Family who should be in less lofty ivory towers and at a lower cost to the Public. The Queen/King could still reside in their Palace but should be retired at normal pension age, the others should be cut of after around the fifth in line. That's the Royal Family I would prefer but if you like it the way it is then I am not going to lose sleep over it.
Click to expand...

Why should their birth right be taken away ? The cost to the "public" is dwarved by the level of funds they bring into the country by tourism.
 
My Dad used to organise the royal flights. His view was that if Princess Anne stopped working, he could have bailed at 10 every day. She kept him in business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Crazyface
Mobile Phones HELP !!!!!!!
Replies
14
Views
835
Robster59
Robster59
bobmac
It pays to question
Replies
12
Views
630
PhilTheFragger
PhilTheFragger
Slab
Online Shopping
2 3
Replies
56
Views
2K
irip
I
Bunkermagnet
Social media/smartphone bans for under 16’s
2
Replies
27
Views
969
sunshine
S
R
Any sole traders...
Replies
8
Views
983
Bunkermagnet
Bunkermagnet
Top