Nothing whatsoever to do with Cyprus...

[Firefly]

Hudswell

Yes I agree about the wearing of uniforms, the Royals all wear them, but please explain when Charles was 'in harms way', as you put it.

Thanks

Jackie

[Firefly]

In no way would I belittle any service personnel, two close members of my family are serving with the Armed Forces right now. One has been in 'Operational Theatre' several times, the other, not yet.

I don't imagine that Charles would ever be placed in an area of any personal danger, so as I see it, he was never 'in harms way'. I don't think that this thread was concerning any military service that the Royals had carried out, rather whether or not Charles should be our next Monarch, but I might be wrong.

[WHL]

In 2006, The Prince was promoted to Admiral in the Royal Navy, General in the Army and Air Chief Marshal in the Royal Air Force. The Prince of Wales holds honorary rank and appointments in many branches and regiments of the Armed Services.
as for putting himself in harms way, God help him if the weight of all those medals ever fall on his toes

The good news is this medieval charade will all die a death,,,, not if but when.

[Rita Sherry]

Dominic

There is no precedent for a "Monarch" retiring and neither can we cherry pick who should succeed to the throne. The only way out is abdication and that is a horror word to the present incumbent, Her Majesty the Queen, for well known reasons and one she would never ever contemplate. Hudswell has detailed how the succession works so I will not go into constitutional matters here but I will say there will be no referendum on this issue thank goodness.

Turning to the debate, if one can call it that, regarding Prince Charles. Does his total uselessness as described both here and apparently in a book written by an investigative journalist (Tom Bower) include anything other than what we have already read elsewhere. For instance is there any mention of the Prince's Trust assisting some 870,000 disadvantaged young people since 1976 in the book or the 170 million pounds he raised last year for charity and the 600 engagements he undertook, Unlikely because there is no sensation in such facts as opposed to fiction like the "loo seat story" which has been round forever it seems. The reality is it is all a joke following his sister Princess Anne's joke birthday present to him of a loo seat some years ago.

As to his fitness to succeed where is the evidence? People have raised the issue of the late Princess Dianna but sorry that I am regarding her tragic death it has to be said she was not Mother Theresa and had a dark side which was not very attractive.

I do wonder how many of the contributors to this topic have actually met HM Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles or any other member of the Royal family. The Queen is Head of State and deserves, in my opinion, respect for the contribution she and her family have made to the public duties they undertake. When one Tony Blair became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I was horrified but I did respect the position he held and those labour colleagues who had also occupied the position before him.

Jimgward

You have referred to the Civil List but, as I am sure, you know, this was repealed on 1st April 2012 and replaced with the Sovereign Grant. I am sure you yourself are aware, as opposed to those who clearly are not, that the original Civil List came about when the sovereign gave over the Crown Estate property assets to the Treasury in exchange for a fixed income. In the year 2011/12 the annual profit was 240.2 million pounds of which the Queen received 7.9 million, for expenses of the Royal family. Contrary to popular belief under that list only the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen mother ever received direct funding from the Civil List - the Duke of Edinburgh now gets an annual annuity of 359,000 pounds (less than some footballers get per week )

There are no other recipients of annuities within the family - The Queen meets the expenses personally of those members of the family who carry out duties on her behalf out of her Duchy of Lancaster income with the exception of Prince William and his wife Kate, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Harry all of whose expenses are met by their father Prince Charles from his income from the Duchy of Cornwall.

Since the introduction of the Sovereign Grant the Queen now receives 15% of the profits (to be increased next year to 25% for, I believe a 10 year period, towards the repair work on Buckingham Palace) from Crown Estate revenue two years in arrears and Prince Charles is responsible for those members of his family as above. For what it is worth The Queen has not made the Sunday Times list of the top 300 wealthiest Britons for the past two years plus between them they carry out over 3000 public engagements per year. All of this information is published annually by the Keeper of the Privy Purse.

For the record I am a Royalist and always have been and shudder at the thought of having to live under the auspices of some of the heads of Republican States. Be careful what you wish for. Long Live the Queen.

Rita

[WHL]

Talking about people who,had ''a dark side which was not very attractive''. reminds me of the Queen Mum and the princess's giving Nazi salutes,watched on by their adoring Nazi Uncle... dosnt come more unattractive then that?

[WHL]

The young girls probably didnt know, what they were doing, but their mum and Nazi uncle certainly did...their uncle even commented after the war that Hitler was a decent chap, this from a man who was meant to be King.... No problem with people wanting to be ruled by Royals, but let us not hear, just the sugar coated view of them?
https://youtu.be/bNovMA7p_A8

[WHL]

Old news WHL very old news....I also hear Henry VIII had some of his wives beheaded...the Sun probably has an article about that somewhere as well.

Hitler and the Nazis are also old news, maybe you want that erased from the History books too.

[WHL]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4 ... n203ok.jpg
Must run in the family.... either that or they have the iq of an ant.

[WHL]

Far too much time.....

Yet you spend the same amount of time replying... Priceless

[Jimgward]

Rita wrote: In the year 2011/12 the annual profit was 240.2 million pounds of which the Queen received 7.9 million, for expenses of the Royal family. Contrary to popular belief under that list only the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen mother ever received direct funding from the Civil List - the Duke of Edinburgh now gets an annual annuity of 359,000 pounds (less than some footballers get per week

The Queen receives(d) 15% of the Crown Estates profit - £45m she received on a profit of £304m for 2015/16 (she is two years in arrears)

She has just been approved for this to increase to 25% of the profits, which last year were £329 and increasing rapidly due to income from offshore wind farms. She will therefore receive around £80 a year increasing at around 8% per annum.... for the next ten years - to pay for repairs to Buck House.

"The Sovereign Grant is money that comes from the Treasury – taxpayers – and is given to the Queen for her and her family to carry out official duties. At current rates, it would reach £45.6 million in 2017/18, which would be a 57% increase since 2012."

They also receive expenses, such as Charles travel costs of millions per year to hire jets to attend environment conferences. (as an example)

On top of this 'grant' or benefits, she receives all income from investments and estates, such as Balmoral. £16m from the Duchy of Lancaster alone.

In Summary, the Queen and the royals are very well provisioned for and she pays sums to re-imburse the moneys paid to the minor royals. The ones who should earn a living. In addiion, most of them receive accommodation at well below market rates, yet pay no tax on the benefit. In fact, some also receive allowances from the state as well, including not paying Council Tax.

As I stated earlier in the thread, I am happy for the Monarchy to continue, until it proves/disproves it's worth to the nation in whatever era. The thread his about Charles and his relative worth to the nation and whether he should be bypassed. The Royalists support continue of tradition, no matter what. Truly, I don't care as long as we (the taxpayers) don't overfund their indulgences. I appreciate Charles does a lot of good as well, but he lives in the past, believing he should not be privy to any laws and able to change others!

[Firefly]

If Jim's figures are correct, I would suggest that Her Majesty could do with a little less of tax payer's money, that to be diverted to the NHS, which despite M.P.s assuring us that it's not, IS in crisis.

[Kili01]

WHL,
Where does this rather nasty assumption of yours about Prince Edward not working come from? If you are British yourself I feel ashamed that you make so many unpleasant remarks about our Royal Family. I would far rather have our Queen backed up now by some younger members of the family, then a president of the likes of some of the current ones in Other countries. Our Royal Family helps to give our country stability and continuity. Both are very important in the world as it is at present. I agree wholeheartedly with what Hudswell recently wrote. You should be glad that you come from a free country where you are able to criticise anyone and anything that you fancy without getting arrested and locked up!

Dee

[WHL]

WHL,
Where does this rather nasty assumption of yours about Prince Edward not working come from? If you are British yourself I feel ashamed that you make so many unpleasant remarks about our Royal Family. I would far rather have our Queen backed up now by some younger members of the family, then a president of the likes of some of the current ones in Other countries. Our Royal Family helps to give our country stability and continuity. Both are very important in the world as it is at present. I agree wholeheartedly with what Hudswell recently wrote. You should be glad that you come from a free country where you are able to criticise anyone and anything that you fancy without getting arrested and locked up!

Dee

Feel free to be ashamed, to your little hearts content, I’m 100% British, and unlike you curtsying royalists , I’ve got a free mind,,you keep bowing and scrapping to a bunch of inbred benefit scroungers... I will not...cheers

[WHL]

Some people enjoy living their life’s in Servitude to a bunch of inbreds, some people are smarter

[Jimgward]

Being a Republican, does not make you any less capable of service to a country or cause - so that's a stupidly dismissive statement.

I am sure many in the military are republicans and anti-royalists, doesn't affect your cause....

The concept of 'dying for your Queen or King" is frankly absurd and led to millions of deaths unnecessarily in WW1

Fighting for a countries security, freedom is valid - but we should have learnt the lessons of WW1 - where two cousins essentially converted the others lands (simplistic, I know, but not too far from the overall truth)

[WHL]

Being a Republican, does not make you any less capable of service to a country or cause - so that's a stupidly dismissive statement.

I am sure many in the military are republicans and anti-royalists, doesn't affect your cause....

The concept of 'dying for your Queen or King" is frankly absurd and led to millions of deaths unnecessarily in WW1

Fighting for a countries security, freedom is valid - but we should have learnt the lessons of WW1 - where two cousins essentially converted the others lands (simplistic, I know, but not too far from the overall truth)

Very good post.

[Dominic]

Normally I hate it when people get pedantic but shouldn't that be "coveted", not "converted"?

[smudger]

What does it cost to fund the royals for the year - something like 67p per person? Not exactly going to break anybody's back!

[Jimgward]

Normally I hate it when people get pedantic but shouldn't that be "coveted", not "converted"?

Just spotted this. You are correct. I can only blame auto-correct or stupidity!