General Chat

I'm no fan of the royals in general, there are too many of them living off the state.

But I have to admit The Prince's Trust is an amazing organisation. I know many young people who have been helped by it and others who raise money.

I quite like Camilla, I admire her work for the alzheimer's charity.

I am also fond of Will and Harry, I must admit, they seem lovely young men who do their bit for various charities.

I'm happy to support the monarch and the direct heirs but see no reason why Andrew and his daughters should get public money.

Charles and Diana should never have got married, totally unsuited to each other. The Queen mother organised that. Silly woman.

Diana was no innocent herself and had many affairs in her search for love. She had a majorly screwed up childhood and suffered from an eating disorder. I think if Charles had realised the extent of her problems he'd have run a mile. But if they hadn't married we wouldn't have Will and Harry who are a credit to both their parents.

The lesser Royals are not supported by the public purse anymore and haven't been for ages.. The only time they are is when they're on public duty. The only people supported in this way is HM and Prince Phillip. Prince Charles and his family are supported by the Dutchy of Cornwall

My understanding is that they still have police protection - which we pay for.

Charles Prince of Wales was an officer in the RN

and he has a uniform for every occasion.

Having been involved with the Princes Trust through my work during the 90s I can say that he has certainly done something. OK He had the money to do it but, like the Duke of Edinburgh did with the awards, he actually encouraged the children through the leaders and did get personally involved with them. Princes Trust does a lot more than people who don't come into contact with it, realise.

I am not over keen on him but I really don't think we should be going on about his adultery now, allow him to have his second chance. And she is not as bad as painted either, I think she has some good qualities.

Mountbatten had the Queen mother's ear and the Queens.
He also took on the roll of father to Charles, in my opinion
Mountbatten was a great manipulator.

Camilla was and is the love of his life.
His sons are happy for them both so that's what matters.

She certainly has as last night's programme confirmed! A lot of things they do and support goes unnoticed and they tend to be judged unfairly. I think you'll find the lesser Royals pay for their own police protection unless they're on public duty. Charles fairly recently had a run in with brother Andrew about he cost of this protection and was told quite firmly that he and his daughters were to be responsible for this in a private capacity. Perhaps the Queen helps out, who knows, but we don't pay, not any more!!
You're right annieg, going on about adultery is just ridiculous all these years later, particularly in this day and age! It doesn't make you a bad person and to suggest it does is just silly.
The first marriage was a disaster which was pretty obvious from day 1. It wasn't just the late Queen Mother who engineered it, Diana's grandmother, a great chum of the Q.M, was also complicit in this unfortunate arrangement, between them they caused two people enormous unhappiness.

While I like and admire most of the Royal family I do believe that in the third millenia it is time for the UK to have an elected head of state and Upper House. Our "mother of democracies" needs something more than do gooding from the Windsors to stay on the road.

Just possibly George and his siblings won't fancy the job anyway. A gilded cage is a minority taste.

The only gripe I have is that Camilla does not seem to have the stamina necessary for the consort of a king.

As well as reading several comments about her laziness it appears that she did not last the pace in the Australian tour and I think it's about time she took on a few more duties to help ease the Queen's lot. Perhaps she's saving her energy and self for when she simply can't dodge duties when OH is king?

Catherine, on the other hand, seems to be much more of a stalwart.

Ah, well, time will tell ..... even though I may not be here to see how events turn.

Sometimes, we all feel lazy & most of us do it brilliantly.

She is over 70 for pity's sake!! I expect like most of us OAP's she feels a bit puffed out now and again! The D of C is some thirty five years younger! so I daresay she does have more energy! It would be odd if she hadn't!!!

She's 70. An age when most people expect to be slowing down and taking things easy. I don't think she's lazy just tired. I know I can't cope in the heat any more and I'm younger than she is.

She was't born into it like Liz, who is amazing.

I think Camilla did over 200 duties last year and
she does say she can't tolerate the heat.

I think Camilla overall is probably a nice person, seems to work hard. Charles should have married her first but didn't. Having the affair wasn't right and didn't help the whole Diana situation, no one won out of that at all.

That's all happened and can't be changed, but they do seem to be changing in their future outlooks, look at Harry upcoming wedding.

As for an elected head of state......seriously....Royalty are in many ways just figureheads...to elect a President type figure will spell doom.

She's certainly not lazy!! As has been said HM was born to it and has extremely strong constitution. Camilla may well have health issues, B.P, arthritis, who knows. The joys of old age!!

Good grief, talk about cat among the pigeons!

After the washing, ironing, cleaning and shopping she has to do surely she can smile and shake a few more hands. After all nobody expects her to do it every working day

Why would an elected head of state mean doom? Even the USA is doing OK with the most reviled Portus in my lifetime. As it is rule is to pass to a pair of cranky and self absorbed geriatrics. Unless somebody eases William into the job it us unlikely there will be a throne to inherit. Like his predecessor Charles believes in divine rights.

The House of Lords would not exist as a surreal outgrowth from Gormenghast without its roots deep into the throne.

Okay so this elected person would just be basically a figurehead then would they or would they have power over Parliament?

If it's only going to be elected head of state then stick with the PM.

That said I'm not a big fan of Charles but I do think he will step up to the plate and take over no problem. Lets be honest it won't be for long then it's William.

One of the unique features of the UK constitution is that there is no separation of powers as are considered a foundation of democracy going back to Jefferson. With the UK the executive sit in the House ( mainly the Commons) and as a result most of the time the Commons is a rubber stamp. The Upper House is a shambles. The one body which has taken up the cudgel of rule of law and liberty is the Supreme Court. It is no surprise then that the Tories plan to suppress the Human Rights Act and replace it with an emasculated version under control of the executive. Corbyn's bunch are silent letting May do the dirty work which his socialist state would require.

The whole unwritten constitution is an utter mess. The current imbroglios of Windrush, Grenfell, brexit and criminal money laundering by criminal gangs in West London are a few of many signs of a failing state.

The job of the UK sovereign is to inform, warn and advise. It is also (Magna Carta) to protect ordinary citizens against an over mighty executive. This just has not happened since 1952.

The UK needs a proper democracy not a fake.

Well I think the Queen has done a grand job .... no one will fully fill her shoes...Charles will be okay for the short time he'll be there and as I said William will be cracking too. :-)