Am I the only one who wants the royal family abolished? They're good for gossip but an absolutely waste of tax payers money.
I wouldn't even spare the queen. She's seems like a grumpy cow and I have lost all respect for her shielding her precious Andrew
You're not the only one. I find a monarchy has no place in today's world.
Countries without a monarch have basically two heads of state: One who runs the government and the other who's "the face". Eg Germany: the Chancellor (Merkel) is the one with power, the President (Steinmeier) is there to look pretty and host.
Having a republic would be no different to the current monarchy, except the people wouldn't have to fund and bear a family in perpetuity and keep them in the lap of luxury for cutting ribbons.
And when scandals etc hit, then the people are simply not re-elected or booted out of office. No chance doing that with royals.
And please no "tourism" argument, I have yet to meet anyone who's come because of the Windsors. Other republics seem to do just fine on the tourism front. Plus if the Windsors were abolished, the people could open the palaces, which would mean more money.
Other monarchies in Europe are a lot more modern, Britain is the most old-fashioned. Others have a monarch & heir only system, spares are raised to join the workforce, curtseys are also abolished. For both look at eg the Netherlands.
Will's work with the air ambulance was glorified. He wasn't even the pilot, but the co-pilot. No other air ambulance had the same arrangement as his. His had a seat for his RPO, taking a seat away from people who are injured and their company. Will nearly lost his wings, because he flew so little. He never worked holidays like others. He wasn't very much present, either. Colleagues didn't exactly love him, partly because they had to constantly pick up the slack. Then there's the cost of the helicopter, which was a special order just for Will (for co-pilot room and whatnot).
Compared to other heirs, Will's preparation has been rather lacking and his presence even more so.
A good career for him would be more diplomacy. Like other heirs are prepped. He could have an arrangement like with air ambulance, but learn the ropes. Though at his age (and his father's and granny's) to argue that Will & Kate are fine to be stay-at-home parents or parents with a "normal" career to be more at home with kids is ridiculous.
The have more than one nanny. What for? The one nanny is the main nanny, but they also have 1 or 2 part time nannies. Enough staff to never deal with their kids. The Waleses worked a lot more and had only ever one full time nanny. What do the Cambs need so much staff for?
It would kill neither of them to do, say, two days per week of engagements. The other days be home, or have their engagements around noon every day, if they really must be with their kids every day. With the fleet of transport available to them, that is not a stretch to be present throughout the country. Their kids are mostly at school anyway.
Kate let slip years ago that Will wasn't much present during George's first 8 months or so.
Kate was also dreadful at engagements with kids, that changed once she had kids and when they became a bit older, she had it easier then. Not everyone is a kid person, that's fine. But they tried to build a "kids' princess" type of image and it didn't work at all.
Old Liz is just a glorified pen-pushing puppet and the reason why she's hailed as such a great queen are two-fold:
1. The more recent reason is that she's seen as "nice old granny", like her mother. It's just the favoured image.
2. The establishment perpetuates that image, because the establishment is happy with her. To be popular with the establishment as British monarch, you just have to sign anything they give you and nod "ok". That's what her father taught her, which is what he did and that's what she keeps doing.
The monarch has actually a lot more power than is widely known, but Liz never uses it.
Why do Liz and George VI sign anything presented by the government?
Because they learnt from Ed VIII. Ed was forced by the government (establishment) to abolish. Wallis wasn't the reason at all, but that was the front of it. The reason were his Nazi sympathies, which weren't too grave, as a lot of the upper class was with Hitler (it was the threat of Hitler possibly taking over UK with Ed as king that had the establishment sweating). What the establishment was really appalled by was that Ed had ideas. He wanted change. He wanted a better life for the little man. He thought too much and was too eccentric. He was in essence the Diana of his day. He visited workers in slums, which was novel and appalling to establishment and his parents. He saw how they lived and wanted improvements (in terms of living conditions and health care as well as wages). The establishment hated that, the old boys club was seething. His Nazi sympathies were fine, but when plans emerged of Hitler taking over Britain and Ed being king of that coupled with Ed's ideas and ambitions which were "out of touch" in terms of the establishment, that's when they decided he had to go.
Wallis was used to sell the abdication. Ed could've easily married Wallis, they had overwhelming public support and love and the establishment didn't at all care about Wallis.
Though Wallis never wanted to marry Ed, but had no other choice after Ed publicly gave up the throne for her.
Anyway, Ed's having ideas and wanting to change things (and I don't mean the Hitler conquers Britain bit) was the biggest crux of why the establishment forced him out. They were unhappy with him as PoW and when he didn't change his views as king had them planning his exit. There's more to Ed's ideas, but I can't remember all right now, in any way, he'd have made for a modern, great king was ahead of his time, I kid you not.
In any case, that's how George VI and Lizzie learnt not to have any ideas and just go along with the establishment.
That's why Lizzie is hailed in the media as such a great queen, never put a foot wrong, sweet old granny, etc.
There are fascinating documentaries on the subject when you look for documentaries on YouTube (if they're all available there) on the abdication crisis, Ed & Wallis, the queen mum, and how the Windsors do spin (there's a docu series on just that, wildly fascinating, eg that's where I learnt that the Windsors leak themselves to eg The Sun to gauge public mood).
I am all for a republic, but like many of you am fascinated by the Windsors and love the gossip, intrigue and history surrounding them, so have fallen quite down the rabbit hole without any intent over time
the press not reporting on that isn't whitewashing, it's because it's old news and everyone knows about it.
.I've said she just gets on with things, being a mother and doing royal engagements in the job she signed up for. She's as saintly as any other mother doing a job and rearing three kids, as in not saintly at all, just getting on with life.
I have a soft spot for James Middleton too, love all the work he does for animals.
They portray the 'marrying a handsome prince' as the pinnacle of achievement then end at the wedding!
No need to hate on her just because she married a Prince, I’m sick of people assuming just because people are rich they’re lazy/goldigging because if any of you had the chance you’d also be living the high life with maids and nannies. Don’t hate on someone else’s circumstances just because they’re wealthy/royal.