The Royal Family #28

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
Hope96

Hope96

VIP Member
Previous thread: https://tattle.life/threads/the-royal-family-27.33666/

1664187694580.png

Description from The Royal Family Twitter:
"A ledger stone has been installed at the King George VI Memorial Chapel, following the interment of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. The King George VI Memorial Chapel sits within the walls of St George’s Chapel, Windsor."

1664187734011.png

First image shared of King Charles III with the Red Box.
Description from The Royal Family Twitter:
"The Red Box contains papers from government ministers in the UK and the Realms and from representatives from the Commonwealth and beyond."
 
Libbylulu said:
What immediate changes do you think KC should do within the RF?
Click to expand...
I agree with what @LoopyLou47 says, but I want to add that the royal family needs to be slimmed down like KC has hinted at. I'm not sure how it would even work in practice though e.g. removing titles from the offspring of the late Queen's cousins and so on. I think it's stupid the whole idea of being 68th in line to the throne or whatever.
 
House of Tea said:
Will be interesting if he gets off….

https://www.12ft.io/https://www.dai...-Queens-funeral-admits-running-red-light.html

Plus
https://www.12ft.io/https://www.dai...rds-2022-GQ-Men-Year-Awards-charity-work.html
Click to expand...
He should not get off he could have killed someone he can afford to.pay a chauffeur when he organised the coronation. These dreadful people just don't give a damn. If he was a bricklayer he would be punished. Old git!
 
@LoopyLou47, such a good point about the privilege inherent in staying home with your children during their early years. It really is a massive privilege.

The Royal Family #27

The thing with having Nannies is while they’re incredibly lucky to have them, what about if they want to bring their kids up themselves…? If they’re at engagements every single day they can’t. I agree they could do more engagements, and I’m sure that now Louis is in school, and the Queen has...
tattle.life
Just talking to a friend who, when young and totally broke, had four children under six, and worked in her husband's asphalting business, asphalting roads. She'd personally be out there with the tar buckets.
She's 70 now and just catching up on her sleep. Srsly, she's learning how to play -- divorce, new same sex partnership, crafts, tai chi -- which she literally has not had one minute to do since she was 18 years old.
I was thinking about how one could optimally parent four under six -- and I thought, one hour of one on one time with each one every day while the nanny cares for the pack. Plus, cooking lunch together Montessori style. That's a day's work right there. My friend did the best she could and has lost two children, one to drugs, and one to estrangement.
And, of course, Kate sidesteps her obligation to the family asphalting business -- while pretending she isn't by patronizing the study of privilege.
I do think it's fair to raise the future monarchs as normally as possible, in school with other kids, out of the spotlight. And, home schooling is exhausting. Almost every mother in the world wishes she could have the privilege.
Not a Brit, so must inquire -- would it be considered too political for Kate to be the patron of day care, study and lobby for that?
 
Last edited:
under the ivy said:
I agree with what @LoopyLou47 says, but I want to add that the royal family needs to be slimmed down like KC has hinted at. I'm not sure how it would even work in practice though e.g. removing titles from the offspring of the late Queen's cousins and so on. I think it's stupid the whole idea of being 68th in line to the throne or whatever.
Click to expand...

The thing is when the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester die, while the titles will pass down to their heirs they automatically loose their royal Duke status anyway and just go into the pool of ‘ordinary’ nobility with all the other non royal dukedoms and titles … so taking away the HRH from an 80 year old, just for the sake of it seems a bit daft … especially when they are still doing work on behalf of the royal family.
 
LoopyLou47 said:
Open Buck Pal and other palaces all year round, proceeds to go to maintenance, only heirs and children get HRH and work on the public purse, cut sovereign grant.
Click to expand...

Looking at the number of private residences, how they are used, Maintained and staffed might be handy as well. The ‘they're privately owned‘ argument really is getting to the point where it doesn’t cut it. How many “bolt holes” can one person need.
 
under the ivy said:
I agree with what @LoopyLou47 says, but I want to add that the royal family needs to be slimmed down like KC has hinted at. I'm not sure how it would even work in practice though e.g. removing titles from the offspring of the late Queen's cousins and so on. I think it's stupid the whole idea of being 68th in line to the throne or whatever.
Click to expand...
I dont think you would remove titles. Plenty of people have titles including ex nobility of European Republics, like Beas husband, but they don't have roles as Royals. I do think no more nieces and nephews of The Monarch, so Andrews kids and Edwards kids don't have a choice of joining the gravy train. Let the excusing cousins of The Queen die out or retire under the current system.
 
Boring Monday said:
Looking at the number of private residences, how they are used, Maintained and staffed might be handy as well. The ‘they're privately owned‘ argument really is getting to the point where it doesn’t cut it. How many “bolt holes” can one person need.
Click to expand...

Let's look it from another angle: I made money and built a house (in this case it was William the Conqueror), then made more money and built (bought) another house and let's imagine my heirs continue to do that. After sufficient number of years, my heirs would own as much palaces and land as RF. Do you expect my heirs to give a country their profit except for taxable income?

As far as I understand, instead of directly owning all the palaces, your RF made the trust (Crown estate) and all revenue from the Estate goes in your treasury. All antiquities and jewellry is also in trust and RF can't sell them or give them away? From the revenue, about 20% goes back to RF for maintenance of the said palaces and salaries of employees.

What is in private RF hands (Balmoral and few others), maintenance is paid from private income of royals.
 
billybudd said:
And, of course, Kate sidesteps her obligation to the family asphalting business -- while pretending she isn't by patronizing the study of privilege.
I do think it's fair to raise the future monarchs as normally as possible, in school with other kids, out of the spotlight. And, home schooling is exhausting. Almost every mother in the world wishes she could have the privilege.
Not a Brit, so must inquire -- would it be considered too political for Kate to be the patron of day care, study and lobby for that?
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that that is exactly what she has to do, but she can't or doesn't want to. In apparently 10 years of working with early years, she has come up with 5 fairly bland questions in a survey, resurrected the same thing 5 years later as a pie chart and had her picture taken sitting at a desk. This is an area that has been studied and worked on for decades, has had money put in by the way of Surestart centres and early years nursery funding, and taken away again by the government. She could have taken on so many things, for example girls sports, when sports is clearly something she's interested in. She could have done something effective in that instead of horsing around with elite athletes and turning up to Wimbledon and calling it work!
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top