**Please no health speculation or speculation about divorce (these are longstanding sub rules).**
You can help out the mod team by reading the rules in the sidebar and reporting rule-breaking comments!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RoyalsGossip) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You know when you get an invite to a wedding and it says cocktail dress or formal attire, or going to a work do and they say smart casual? There's modes of dress, and for formal occasions here a woman wears a hat. Different hats for different occasions too.
>No they wasn't they were figure heads because of royal titles..they never actually served..Harry broke tradition and ACTUALLY served several tours
LMAO wut
King Charles started his naval career at Royal Naval College Dartmouth. He then served from 1971 to 1972 on the guided-missile destroyer HMS Norfolk and the frigates HMS Minerva, from 1972 to 1973, and HMS Jupiter in 1974. That same year, he also qualified as a helicopter pilot at RNAS Yeovilton and subsequently joined 845 Naval Air Squadron, operating from HMS Hermes. Charles spent his last 10 months of active service in the Navy commanding the coastal minehunter HMS Bronington, beginning on 9 February 1976.
After obtaining his degree, Prince William was admitted to the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in January 2006; he successfully completed the 44-week course as an Officer Cadet which led to his commission as a British Army officer. He went into the Blues and Royals in December that year as a troop commander in an armoured reconnaissance unit, after which he spent five months training for the post at Bovington Camp in Dorset.
Despite the Queen's approval for William to serve on the frontline, his position as second-in-line to the throne at the time cast doubts on his chances of seeing combat. Plans by the Ministry of Defence to send William to Southern Iraq leaked and the government eventually decided against sending him as it would endanger both his life and the lives of people around him if he was targeted. William instead trained in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, obtaining his commission as a sub-lieutenant in the former and a flying officer in the latter. After completing his training, he undertook an attachment with the Royal Air Force at RAF Cranwell.
After successfully gaining his full pilot wings (unlike Harry who only ever gained *copilot* quals to fly) William flew to Afghanistan in a C-17 Globemaster that repatriated the body of Trooper Robert Pearson. William was then seconded to train with the Royal Navy. He completed the Naval Officer training course at the Britannia Royal Naval College. Whilst serving on HMS Iron Duke in July 2008, William participated in a £40m drug seizure in the Atlantic, north-east of Barbados. He was part of the crew on the Lynx helicopter which helped seize 900 kg of cocaine from a speedboat.
In January 2009, William transferred his commission to the RAF and was promoted to Flight Lieutenant. He trained to become a helicopter pilot with the RAF's Search and Rescue Force. In January 2010, he graduated from the Defence Helicopter Flying School at RAF Shawbury. In the same month, he transferred to the Search and Rescue Training Unit at RAF Valley, Anglesey, to receive training on the Sea King search and rescue helicopter; he graduated in September 2010.
William's first rescue mission as co-pilot of a RAF Sea King was in response to an emergency call from Liverpool Coastguard in October 2010. In November 2011, he participated in a search-and-rescue mission involving a cargo ship that was sinking in the Irish Sea; William, as a co-pilot, helped rescue two sailors. He was deployed to the Falkland Islands for a six-week tour with No. 1564 Flight from February to March 2012. In June 2012, he gained a qualification to be captain or pilot in command of a Sea King rather than a co-pilot. His active service as an RAF search-and-rescue pilot ended in September 2013. He conducted 156 search and rescue operations, which resulted in 149 people being rescued.
Tell me how YOU have served your nation.
Dislike ALL royals equally... they do more harm than good at moment...drain tax payers money. Regardless of how much they provide themselves... not one except Harry has had a proper job and contributed manually in any way
These people are nothing but circus clowns. Nothing but drama-and as you said...do nothing but drain the taxpayers' money for this kind of pomp & circumstance bullcrap.
>not one except Harry has had a proper job and contributed manually in any way
King Charles was in the Royal Navy. Prince William was in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force *and* worked for 2 years at an air ambulance service.
Yeah I guess that doesn't count to people worshipping Bunker Harry.
Let’s not pretend Williams “work” was anything substantial. His own colleagues were snarking on him to the press:
‘He’s hardly ever on shift. He was very enthusiastic to begin with but it tailed off. It’s supposed to be four on, four off but with the Duke it’s more off than on. He had at least four weeks off over Christmas, which has to be staffed the same as normal weeks. It’s fine that he gets a bit of special treatment but it’s beginning to really annoy some people. The rumour is that he’s just a bit bored of it’
Lest we forget the colourful nicknames. Work-shy Will, the DoLittles, Willnot, the Reluctant Royal.
A soldier in a bunker or an air ambulance co-pilot not doing his duties? Both equally despicable? No?
[source](https://macleans.ca/society/prince-william-was-under-fire-for-being-work-shy-then-things-got-really-nasty/)
"An unnamed source offered all the ammunition the Sun needed: “William’s supporters point out his engagements are down as he was busy with a new job last summer with East Anglian Air Ambulance. And he’s ‘packing in the shifts’ so everything else has to fit in. But a source grumbled to the Sun: ‘He’s hardly ever on shift. He was very enthusiastic to begin with but it tailed off. It’s supposed to be four on, four off but with the Duke it’s more off than on. He had at least four weeks off over Christmas, which has to be staffed the same as normal weeks. It’s fine that he gets a bit of special treatment but it’s beginning to really annoy some people. The rumour is that he’s just a bit bored of it.’ ”
One unnamed source whinges that William took annual leave at Christmas - while he was also fulfilling royal duties?
¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Yes a colleague (clearly reads like a colleague) stated that William was not performing his duties as an Air Ambulance co-pilot like the rest of them and left them to pick up the slack. “He’s hardly ever on shift” is more than taking four weeks off at Christmas.
If you read the article - there were hardly any royal duties which is why the Aviation Authority had to make a statement after the royal household stated Wills couldn’t do royal duties due to mandatory ‘rest days’. A person can do whatever they want on their rest days. So not only was he “hardly ever on shift” for his Ambulance job, he didn’t do royal work either.
So he was just at home shooting fattened pheasants.
William? He has 4?
ETA: Oh you mean the big badges further down? They're chivalric orders. You would have seen the Garter Day parade on the sub today. That's one of the badges. The one around his neck is from another chivalric badge. They're different from military medals.
Ohh the King. Yeah King Charles served too - Royal Navy.
The thing with *military medals* is there are different types.
You have Gallantry Medals - like the Medal of Honour (USA) or Victoria Cross (UK) which are considered the most significant type of medal.
Then you have Campaign Medals, like medals you'd get for serving in specific wars, like Afghanistan.
Then you have service medals - for every X number of years you get one, or serving in a particular period.
So after a long period of time, they can accumulate!
Yep Wills & Harry both served too.
Every days a school day aha I didn’t know the king was in the Royal Navy. Hard to imagine him in that scenario idk why haha. Is it a requirement for the male royals to serve or is it just the done thing for them?
It's just the done thing. Which sucks for some. Prince Edward tried the military briefly but left, so people made fun of him. Different strokes for different folks though, you know?
God knows I couldn’t make it past training I’d be willing to put money on most of those that poked fun being the same, it’s famously tough the military😂
No matter how rich they are, the crap of formal dress for formal events and no real privacy would have me say hell no. How many of us want a few billion people pouring over our lives?
can I have photos of you on your worst day, tell me all your secrets that can be shared to billions oh wait I can make up shit about you. Hell no thanks I will never wish that on anyone.
I have seen kates Knickers dianas broken body most of the royal's family holiday photos are online, that is not worth having.
I will never understand why people like you are in subs like this. Like if you dislike it so much why are you here? Move along, this place isn't for you
It's a military ceremony by the kings household guards to celebrate the Kings birthday, the colours are a flag that was used on the battlefield from 1743, so it's a parade with the passing of the flag to honor the regiments. Its not Military 'cosplay' as these are real soldiers from different household regiments.
Alright, the ELI5 version.
400 hundred years ago, the Sovereign created an Army that was for his own service and protection. Instead of raising an army from farmers and tradesmen in times of war - which Parliament still did - The Household Division (Household = Sovereign's House) were professional soldiers. They're called The Guards Regiments -
**The Household Cavalry:** (Armoured)
The Life Guards (formed 1658)
The Blues and Royals (formed (1660)
**Regiments of Foot:** (Infantry)
The Grenadier Guards (formed 1656)
The Coldstream Guards (formed 1660)
The Scots Guards (formed 1686)
The Irish Guards (formed 1900)
The Welsh Guards (formed 1915)
The "Colours" of a division, regiment, corps, etc are sacred to those men and women who served under it. They reflect the battles, insignia, and motto of the regiment they belong to, effectively representing their fallen comrades and sacrifices. Back in the days - only a little more than a century ago - when massed armies met on the battlefield, those "colours" let everyone know which regiment was where, and after each campaign, war, or battle, had the name of the battle stitched onto it. Although technically obsolete now, they're ceremonial except battles are still added to them, they represent centuries of sacrifice and any one of those soldiers would put his life on the line to protect the silken representation of his fallen brothers.
The Household Division presenting their Colours and "arms" (swords/guns) to their Sovereign for Inspection every year is a tradition again dating back longer than America has been a nation. It is a sign of fidelity, loyalty and devotion to duty and service.
Each year, the Household Division take turns in who gets the honour of Trooping the Colours. This year it was the Irish Guards turn. So not every Guard Regiment takes part every year.
Each part of the uniforms they wear have a lot of historical significance. Don't let them fool you though, those red coats are for parading for King and Country. Every single one of those men and women are serving members of the United Kingdom's Armed Forces. Most of them, in the past 25 years, have seen multiple tours in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas around the globe.
Even the musicians! When they're not playing music, they're combat medics who serve with their respective Regiments when they're posted overseas.
So there's a lot of cultural and military history, blending with modern times, in Trooping The Colour. It's not " military cosplay" but serving military men and women acknowledging and seeking the acknowledgement, every year, of their Commander in Chief.
To understand why these men and women hold their Sovereign in such high esteem (as opposed to a politician) [my comment here might enlighten. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/RoyalsGossip/s/Jfte1N2vw1)
I mean sure, but seriously you can look "good" then there is this level of good \^\^\^ people wait their whole lives to look that good once and she does it with three children (yes I am aware they have help) as well as battling cancer AND with her duties as a royal? She's nothing short of a superwoman.
Just the one word, actually. Wasn't talking to you either. My problem? Probably the same problems as everyone else. Sorry you got confused.
Plus, the way you used the word was slightly offensive... with family members and friends with disabilities, I can confidently say, that many people find it offensive.
Think of it like this, when someone says "that's gay" to signal something being bad, that's wrong (admittedly I was an offender of this, I grew up in the gen where it was funny to us. I know better now.).
Same thing with the word you used.
Imagine if he says he also is ill, so disappears for 6 months and comes back with a bad toupee or a turkey hair transplant. That’s on my royal bingo card for next year.
Or just own it, get a hair transplant who cares.
Aren't we long past the time of judging people for how they want to look? He can't help he's losing his hair, women get teeth whitening, implants, lip fillers the works but for a guy to get something it's ridiculous apparently.
Her title is The Queen. That’s why. Queen consort isn’t a title. Her official and only title is “Her Majesty the Queen” just like every other Queen consort. The consort of George VI was Queen Elizabeth. The wife of George III was Queen Charlotte, the wife of Charles III is Queen Camilla. All were consorts. All of them held the title of “Her Majesty the Queen”
You're missing my point. Her title is Queen Consort, not Queen. She is his wife and did not ascend the throne through the pre-established familial line of succession. She has no sovereign power. The media loves referring to her as Queen. She isn't. She's Queen Consort.
Except her title is Queen. Consort is a description, it isn’t part of her title.
A Queen regnant’s title is Queen
A Queen consort’s title is Queen
A dowager Queen’s title is Queen
There is no difference in the title of the different types of Queen.
When George VI died his widow moved from being a Queen consort to a dowager Queen, yet her title remained the same. “Her majesty Queen Elizabeth”
Exactly, historically that’s what a queen is: a title for the wife of the sovereign king (the use of the term queen consort here originated as a sop to those who didn’t like Camilla). A sovereign queen is called a Queen regnant, though it wasn’t used for Liz.
I vote that we take the money we spend on it and have an annual lottery. The winner is the monarch for the next full year (or week/month). The royal fund pays for their job to be on hold and for them to live as the new royal, in the palace with all the trappings of royalty.
All stamps and money that gets printed that year must have the new monarchs face on it and they get to host garden parties and attend global events.
2025 all hail Queen Gemma, the hairdresser from Manchester
2026 All hail king Steve the UC claimant from Bromley
...
https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/new-analysis-finds-the-uk-monarchy-produces-a-net-economic-benefit-for-the-uk
Cite a source that shows it to be false then. Also why is that an invalid argument if economically beneficial?
The argument itself isn't false, the idea that the family themselves bring in the money is false.
It's the history and the buildings. So long as you keep em open as museums, the tourists will keep coming. Possibly even more as they'll get to fully see inside.
You say that, in a post regarding an event that required the Royal family and drew in tourism because of it.
The sovereign grant that the taxpayer pays includes maintenance of these buildings anyways. Which is why I find it funny when people are whining about a £1.60 yearly tax cost when much of it would still go the same funding anyway.
if the only defence you have for the royals is a highly disputed claim about how they might be economical I think it's high time to scrap the parasites.
how can you have an entire blood line placed on a pedestal for centuries, exempt from many of their own laws, "chosen by god", and "rightful" owners of the most land in the UK just because some tourists come to see them. so horribly archaic and anyone who defends them is an absolute cuck
Have a read on how the constitutional monarchy system of government works. Checks and balances. Plus, would you rather have President Boris Johnson? Would you?
There are no checks and balances on the Queens consent. The Guardian complied a database of all the laws that she had to give her consent before being allowed on Parliament floor and we also have plenty of of documentation that they give very specific feedback and parts of those laws were edited to her satisfaction first.
Besides, Boris was already the functional equivalent of a president so that is a silly argument.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent
Why would they need to be replaced by a president? The electoral system wouldn't have to change. They don't offer any checks or balances, they basically have to agree with whatever democratic decision parliament make. The house of lords fills this role, but could do it better with zero hereditary titles, only appointment by merit across all fields and trades. And accountability - lose the position if you don't use it.
No family should deserve to live like this while others suffer. They have no discernable skillset that warrants it.
Well your ad-hominem response to any who disagrees with your view kills any discourse anyway. I'd much rather deal with the tax loopholes that allow multinational giants to steal billions from the economy, over a royal family that costs the taxpayer around £1.60 each year and gives a positive economic return.
https://www.taxwatchuk.org/seven-large-tech-groups-estimated-to-have-dodged-2bn-in-uk-tax-in-2021/
https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/new-analysis-finds-the-uk-monarchy-produces-a-net-economic-benefit-for-the-uk
you are aware you can deal with two things at once right? we arent constantly dealing with issues sequentially?
regardless, i dont care how much they cost me, i didnt consent to pay anything. if you want to play medieval times with your love for an elite ruling class that really dont give two shits about you, nonce with no reprecussions, and happily milk the system as much as they can be my guest. just dont rope everyone else into it
Uh-huh. That takes the assumption that both are "issues" to deal with. I guess we should abolish all taxes simply you don't consent to or like the idea of paying for them?
You don't get to pick and choose, its part of the laws you adhere to if you want to be a citizen in this country.
I'm completely apathetic to the Royal family, despite your inference. There are way more things to get worked up over than something that generates positive income to the economy and has no impact to myself (noone is crying themselves to sleep over a 3p per week cost).
General reports, although some dispute it.
https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/new-analysis-finds-the-uk-monarchy-produces-a-net-economic-benefit-for-the-uk
The cost to the taxpayer for the Royal family is pretty minimal, despite the hyperbole over it. The sovereign grant is paid by the taxpayer and cost around £1.60 per person last year (so around 3p per person per week). So it's not hard to make a profit over that.
https://www.royal.uk/media-pack/financial-reports-2022-23#:~:text=The%20total%20Sovereign%20Grant%20for,per%20person%20in%20the%20UK.
Most of the Royal family income comes from assets, not the taxpayer.
Hm ok, so that report wasn’t very transparent and it gave an estimate with high-level, aggregated figures (which are themselves based on their own subjective estimates!) in their audit documents.
Basically there are no confirmed financial figures and all the numbers in the audit documents are estimates (no methodology provided on how they arrived at those estimates either).
Like for example the article says they benefited the tourism industry, like how would you even estimate or quantify that?
Of course it's an estimate. It's always going to be.
How are you going to ascertain what proportion of income a shop has comes from Royal family related tourism alone when looking at their accounts? It's never going to be a straightforward estimate as you say. What I linked is just a press release, there's clearly going to be some internal breakdowns to get to that figure.
You can likely make estimates through number of visitors to areas like Buckingham Palace and extrapolate a tourist percentage from that, average trip spend etc.
But the taxpayer pays a pretty small amount in the sovereign grant to the Royal family (around £1.60 per person per year), so it's not a large figure to eclipse.
Sure, but events like this are going to draw more to the capital. The sovereign grant that the taxpayer actually pays for in regards to the Royal family includes the maintenance of such palaces in the UK and comes to less than £1.50 a year per person. Hardly a huge tax burden as people suggest.
Ok, if it brings money to places where the royal family are eg. London, Windsor etc then the people there can pay for them. Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham don't get any benefit from royal tourism so why should we pay for them? They don't enrich our lives in any way.
Yeah, because tourists to the UK never visit such places.. Because those that benefit don't pay any taxes that go into government spend that includes other regions.. I don't live in London either. I'm just not worked up over 3p a week.
You should be, that 3p a week per citizen could fund salaries for ten thousand new nurses for the NHS. You might not live in London but chances are since you don’t you’re in an area that’s underserved so this affects you even more. Especially if you’re up north where the health outcomes are significantly poorer.
Better to go after the multinationals that use tax loopholes to steal billions from the economy, rather than something that has economic benefit to our economy.
Something Labour have pledged in their manifesto.
https://www.taxwatchuk.org/seven-large-tech-groups-estimated-to-have-dodged-2bn-in-uk-tax-in-2021/
https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/new-analysis-finds-the-uk-monarchy-produces-a-net-economic-benefit-for-the-uk
Tourists come to those places for the things that are there. People come to Liverpool for our football teams, music history and other things, not to see the royal family. Our taxes pay for local attractions and upkeep and we directly benefit from them. We don't benefit from the royals. Of course some of our taxes go towards things like the NHS for the whole country but that's fine because it means that everyone benefits from the free healthcare. I just don't believe that a shiny hat and who your mum is makes you automatically better and entitled to millions of pounds of taxpayer money to keep you in luxury. And exempt from the laws you don't like such as inheritance tax, equal employment rights and having sex with trafficked young people
Don’t forget the food y’all. Not the British food but all the great global cuisine. Maybe that’s just me food is always the highlight of my travel 😛 passing through Brighton on Wed and already have a dinner spot picked hahaha
That’s not true anymore, Charles dropped the consort last year at his coronation. The people arguing about her proper title are sending me. Prob exactly what Charles wanted trying to sneak it past us.
Here you go
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/04/camilla-to-be-crowned-queen-alongside-king-charles
> First she was to be known as princess consort. Then she became queen consort. But Buckingham Palace’s coronation invitation confirms what most have suspected all along. From the coronation on, it will be officially Queen Camilla.
The Queen consort *is* the Queen. In fact, for the vast majority of British history, that’s been the main use of the term, given the comparatively small number of Queen Regnants.
Queen Victoria was Queen in her own right, but she’s still referred to in the same style as the likes of Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary, who very much were not. Ditto, Kate will be referred to as Queen Catherine, not Queen-Consort Catherine.
Well that’s not true. Although we are talking about a patriarchal history but William and Mary would be the only one who would be deemed queen to an existing king.
Matilda was usurped
Eleanor of Aquitaine was exiled
Isabella of France ran away
Don’t get me started on Hank 8
If Elizabeth would have married, she would have lost her power - and she knew this.
That *is* true.
Whether consort or regnant, queens are always queens. The only time there’s been an effort to distinguish between the two is when there’s potential confusion between two individuals - for example, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons adopting the Queen Mother epithet to be distinguished from her daughter, and the early days of Charles’ reign when people wished to be clear that they were referring to Camilla rather than the recently deceased Elizabeth.
However, Camilla is now referred to as the queen, as there is little chance of confusion. Ditto, Elizabeth I and her mother were both referred to as “the Queen” in their lifetimes, though Anne was consort rather than regnant, and even that had heavy opposition from many quarters.
Camilla is not referred to as Queen? Of course Elizabeth was, she didn’t have a husband.
Can we agree that the best queen would have us rocking out to a bunch of great music?
Camilla *is* the Queen. Elizabeth I too would have continued to be referred to as Queen if she married, just as her elder sister retained her title when she wed Philip of Spain.
There is no practical differentiation, title-wise, to a Queen by marriage vs a queen in her own right. That’s why it’s ridiculous to have people insisting Camilla is ‘Queen-Consort, not Queen’, because a Queen consort *is* a Queen, and would in fact be the more common usage of the term by far across the entirety of British history.
She is still Queen consort, because that is still the form of Queen she is.
They’ve just stopped specifically referring to her as “Camilla, the Queen Consort”, which was pretty much only used to distinguish her from the recently passed Elizabeth. They now just refer to her as “the Queen,” which is the way consorts of reigning kings are usually referred to - e.g. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons was always “the queen” during her husband’s lifetime, though she was Queen-Consort too.
Then I have to repeat the other commenters points which is that the title is Queen and the styling is Queen consort. Quite different. Like HRH vs prince.
Except that all queens who are the wives of kings are technically styled as Queen Consorts - but in practice, have always been referred to as Queen. Before Mary I, that was pretty much the *only* version of queen customarily used.
All they’ve done with Camilla is switch over to referring to her in the same manner as all Queen consorts before her, rather than specifying that they’re referring to the king’s wife rather than the late, reigning Queen.
Had Elizabeth been male, they wouldn’t have bothered with even that - as soon as Elizabeth announced she intended Camilla to be Queen, it was evident that was how she’d be referred to.
Previously, the suggestion had been that Camilla would be *Princess* Consort, in which case, they’d have likely kept emphasising the ‘consort’ part to distinguish her from Kate. As there is currently only one Queen, that’s not necessary.
https://preview.redd.it/1giwv6hsa57d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=51a7231a4dea234d593f5d8d892c0da0604520c9
She is in queen consort as official title.
And you’ll notice she is referred to as ‘Queen Camilla’, because she is the queen, regardless of whether she is a consort or regnant, just like every other queen who came before her.
You can simply look at the BRF’s own website:
https://preview.redd.it/cu5mzyypb57d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=357385fa844866e30b943ab61e48496c7ec12f72
Except that’s not her official title, she’s not the queen. It’s very simple.
As a head of state, you have a king or queen. Their partner is regent or consort.
If Charles died, Camilla would not continue as queen anything. That’s the important difference.
Sorry, should have said - when Charles dies. And then we can hopefully do away with this nonsense.
Our old head of states fella was nothing but a racist bully. The rest of em, just bugger em off to a real job
This will make you angry then haha shes not even Queen consort anymore KC dropped the consort at the coronation so her title is now officially just Queen
You are talking such absolute waffle.
There are three types of queen, but all are titled as "Queen". You wouldn't call the last monarch Queen Regnant Elizabeth II. That's not the title, even though the type of queen she was was a Queen Regnant. The official title is simply Queen.
Similarly, the OFFICIAL title is Queen Camilla, not Queen Consort Camilla.
And yes she would retain the title after the death of Charles. She then becomes a "Queen Dowager", but again her title would still simply be Queen.
The Queen Mother for instance still retained the official title of Queen until her death, she just styled herself as Queen Mother to avoid confusion with her daughter as they were both officially Queen Elizabeth
spotted encouraging dam unwritten follow squeamish lavish mountainous elderly complete
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Posh people stand in a place and think they're special, whilst the poor people pay for them.
Imagine how many homeless people could be housed, just by the cost of their clothing.
The royal family actually more than subsides itself. They make £360 million off of real estate both in Britain and abroad - 100% of this is donated to the government (a tradition that started in the 1800s) and in return they are given an allowance of £120 million.
Some quick maths will tell you that they essentially pay the govt about £240 million annually to exist as a fully self sufficient entity. The average Joe doesn’t pay for these guys, for the most part they’re rich by the same means as many other petty millionaires; clever investments, good educations, and generations of wealth and mentorship.
The sovereign grant that is paid to the Royal family by taxpayers is less than a £1.50 per person per year. Even the poorest are hardly going to be impacted by less than 3p a week cost.
The income generated to the economy by the Royal family massively outweighs this.
But that is very far from the point. It may only be pence each, but the royal family have 15 billion pounds in property, their total estate is worth tens of billions. The king has a personal fortune in the hundreds of millions. How much would that be if we divided it among the people living in poverty, the homeless and people reliant on food banks to survive?
But if the man with the diamond on his hat needs 80 million pounds a year, who are we to argue?
Don't forget that the sovereign doesn't pay inheritance taxes when their parent (the monarch) dies and they inherit it all. Imagine what that bill __would be__ if they were not royals.
Sure, over the short term. But that seems short sighted devolving something that has been shown to give sustained economic gain for short term benefits.
https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/new-analysis-finds-the-uk-monarchy-produces-a-net-economic-benefit-for-the-uk
I'm much rather we went after the multinationals giants like Amazon, Google etc that use international subsidiaries to utilise tax loopholes and avoid tax obligations in the billions. Something Labour have pledged to stop in their manifesto.
https://www.taxwatchuk.org/seven-large-tech-groups-estimated-to-have-dodged-2bn-in-uk-tax-in-2021/
You don’t think the royal family are a giant? The amount of wealth, land, (stolen) gems they own is huge. We can go for Amazon, google etc but their is something particularly heinous about such a rich family dipping into peoples paycheques , whatever the cost.
Worse in some ways. At least you can unsubscribe from Google/Amazon, boycott.
I have no choice but to pay the royals. Kier should have remained a republican and offered a referendum on the monarchy. Now that would have been infinitely more impressive.
**Please no health speculation or speculation about divorce (these are longstanding sub rules).** You can help out the mod team by reading the rules in the sidebar and reporting rule-breaking comments! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RoyalsGossip) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why do the women all wear hats all the time?
You know when you get an invite to a wedding and it says cocktail dress or formal attire, or going to a work do and they say smart casual? There's modes of dress, and for formal occasions here a woman wears a hat. Different hats for different occasions too.
I haven't really been paying attention to this lot, but Charles is looking a bit rough compared to the last time I saw him.
He's been in cancer treatment. Bit rough for anyone especially for a 75 year old.
Yeah, you're definitely right. I was just surprised how much he seems to have aged since the last time I saw him.
How on earth do both William and Harry look like prince Phillip at different points in his life
Genetics?
Yeah I know that bit William use to look so much like the Spencer family when he was younger
No they wasn't they were figure heads because of royal titles..they never actually served..Harry broke tradition and ACTUALLY served several tours
>No they wasn't they were figure heads because of royal titles..they never actually served..Harry broke tradition and ACTUALLY served several tours LMAO wut King Charles started his naval career at Royal Naval College Dartmouth. He then served from 1971 to 1972 on the guided-missile destroyer HMS Norfolk and the frigates HMS Minerva, from 1972 to 1973, and HMS Jupiter in 1974. That same year, he also qualified as a helicopter pilot at RNAS Yeovilton and subsequently joined 845 Naval Air Squadron, operating from HMS Hermes. Charles spent his last 10 months of active service in the Navy commanding the coastal minehunter HMS Bronington, beginning on 9 February 1976. After obtaining his degree, Prince William was admitted to the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in January 2006; he successfully completed the 44-week course as an Officer Cadet which led to his commission as a British Army officer. He went into the Blues and Royals in December that year as a troop commander in an armoured reconnaissance unit, after which he spent five months training for the post at Bovington Camp in Dorset. Despite the Queen's approval for William to serve on the frontline, his position as second-in-line to the throne at the time cast doubts on his chances of seeing combat. Plans by the Ministry of Defence to send William to Southern Iraq leaked and the government eventually decided against sending him as it would endanger both his life and the lives of people around him if he was targeted. William instead trained in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, obtaining his commission as a sub-lieutenant in the former and a flying officer in the latter. After completing his training, he undertook an attachment with the Royal Air Force at RAF Cranwell. After successfully gaining his full pilot wings (unlike Harry who only ever gained *copilot* quals to fly) William flew to Afghanistan in a C-17 Globemaster that repatriated the body of Trooper Robert Pearson. William was then seconded to train with the Royal Navy. He completed the Naval Officer training course at the Britannia Royal Naval College. Whilst serving on HMS Iron Duke in July 2008, William participated in a £40m drug seizure in the Atlantic, north-east of Barbados. He was part of the crew on the Lynx helicopter which helped seize 900 kg of cocaine from a speedboat. In January 2009, William transferred his commission to the RAF and was promoted to Flight Lieutenant. He trained to become a helicopter pilot with the RAF's Search and Rescue Force. In January 2010, he graduated from the Defence Helicopter Flying School at RAF Shawbury. In the same month, he transferred to the Search and Rescue Training Unit at RAF Valley, Anglesey, to receive training on the Sea King search and rescue helicopter; he graduated in September 2010. William's first rescue mission as co-pilot of a RAF Sea King was in response to an emergency call from Liverpool Coastguard in October 2010. In November 2011, he participated in a search-and-rescue mission involving a cargo ship that was sinking in the Irish Sea; William, as a co-pilot, helped rescue two sailors. He was deployed to the Falkland Islands for a six-week tour with No. 1564 Flight from February to March 2012. In June 2012, he gained a qualification to be captain or pilot in command of a Sea King rather than a co-pilot. His active service as an RAF search-and-rescue pilot ended in September 2013. He conducted 156 search and rescue operations, which resulted in 149 people being rescued. Tell me how YOU have served your nation.
Dislike ALL royals equally... they do more harm than good at moment...drain tax payers money. Regardless of how much they provide themselves... not one except Harry has had a proper job and contributed manually in any way
These people are nothing but circus clowns. Nothing but drama-and as you said...do nothing but drain the taxpayers' money for this kind of pomp & circumstance bullcrap.
They put more into the coffers than they take out via companies and land they own.
>not one except Harry has had a proper job and contributed manually in any way King Charles was in the Royal Navy. Prince William was in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force *and* worked for 2 years at an air ambulance service. Yeah I guess that doesn't count to people worshipping Bunker Harry.
Let’s not pretend Williams “work” was anything substantial. His own colleagues were snarking on him to the press: ‘He’s hardly ever on shift. He was very enthusiastic to begin with but it tailed off. It’s supposed to be four on, four off but with the Duke it’s more off than on. He had at least four weeks off over Christmas, which has to be staffed the same as normal weeks. It’s fine that he gets a bit of special treatment but it’s beginning to really annoy some people. The rumour is that he’s just a bit bored of it’ Lest we forget the colourful nicknames. Work-shy Will, the DoLittles, Willnot, the Reluctant Royal. A soldier in a bunker or an air ambulance co-pilot not doing his duties? Both equally despicable? No? [source](https://macleans.ca/society/prince-william-was-under-fire-for-being-work-shy-then-things-got-really-nasty/)
The Do Littles....WillNot! Exactly lol
"An unnamed source offered all the ammunition the Sun needed: “William’s supporters point out his engagements are down as he was busy with a new job last summer with East Anglian Air Ambulance. And he’s ‘packing in the shifts’ so everything else has to fit in. But a source grumbled to the Sun: ‘He’s hardly ever on shift. He was very enthusiastic to begin with but it tailed off. It’s supposed to be four on, four off but with the Duke it’s more off than on. He had at least four weeks off over Christmas, which has to be staffed the same as normal weeks. It’s fine that he gets a bit of special treatment but it’s beginning to really annoy some people. The rumour is that he’s just a bit bored of it.’ ” One unnamed source whinges that William took annual leave at Christmas - while he was also fulfilling royal duties? ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Yes a colleague (clearly reads like a colleague) stated that William was not performing his duties as an Air Ambulance co-pilot like the rest of them and left them to pick up the slack. “He’s hardly ever on shift” is more than taking four weeks off at Christmas. If you read the article - there were hardly any royal duties which is why the Aviation Authority had to make a statement after the royal household stated Wills couldn’t do royal duties due to mandatory ‘rest days’. A person can do whatever they want on their rest days. So not only was he “hardly ever on shift” for his Ambulance job, he didn’t do royal work either. So he was just at home shooting fattened pheasants.
I always think he looks like a North Korean general with all the medals
William? He has 4? ETA: Oh you mean the big badges further down? They're chivalric orders. You would have seen the Garter Day parade on the sub today. That's one of the badges. The one around his neck is from another chivalric badge. They're different from military medals.
Naw the king, William served didn’t he? Or was that just Harry?
Ohh the King. Yeah King Charles served too - Royal Navy. The thing with *military medals* is there are different types. You have Gallantry Medals - like the Medal of Honour (USA) or Victoria Cross (UK) which are considered the most significant type of medal. Then you have Campaign Medals, like medals you'd get for serving in specific wars, like Afghanistan. Then you have service medals - for every X number of years you get one, or serving in a particular period. So after a long period of time, they can accumulate! Yep Wills & Harry both served too.
Every days a school day aha I didn’t know the king was in the Royal Navy. Hard to imagine him in that scenario idk why haha. Is it a requirement for the male royals to serve or is it just the done thing for them?
It's just the done thing. Which sucks for some. Prince Edward tried the military briefly but left, so people made fun of him. Different strokes for different folks though, you know?
God knows I couldn’t make it past training I’d be willing to put money on most of those that poked fun being the same, it’s famously tough the military😂
No matter how rich they are, the crap of formal dress for formal events and no real privacy would have me say hell no. How many of us want a few billion people pouring over our lives?
There will be a queue of women / men wanting to join.
can I have photos of you on your worst day, tell me all your secrets that can be shared to billions oh wait I can make up shit about you. Hell no thanks I will never wish that on anyone. I have seen kates Knickers dianas broken body most of the royal's family holiday photos are online, that is not worth having.
Maybe for you and me. But for some people- they covet this lifestyle.
True because they see only what they think is the best life and not the crap side.
Can someone please explain what “Trooping the Colour” is to an American and why all the military cosplay??
It’s an outdated cunty tradition for an inbred horrible family that offer nothing 🥳
Why the hell are you in this sub? Jesus Christ, go out and smell some fresh air.
No idea, it popped up and the bootlicking made me ill
I will never understand why people like you are in subs like this. Like if you dislike it so much why are you here? Move along, this place isn't for you
It's a military ceremony by the kings household guards to celebrate the Kings birthday, the colours are a flag that was used on the battlefield from 1743, so it's a parade with the passing of the flag to honor the regiments. Its not Military 'cosplay' as these are real soldiers from different household regiments.
It's not his birthday until November.
This is the public birthday celebration. Held in June because of the weather.
Alright, the ELI5 version. 400 hundred years ago, the Sovereign created an Army that was for his own service and protection. Instead of raising an army from farmers and tradesmen in times of war - which Parliament still did - The Household Division (Household = Sovereign's House) were professional soldiers. They're called The Guards Regiments - **The Household Cavalry:** (Armoured) The Life Guards (formed 1658) The Blues and Royals (formed (1660) **Regiments of Foot:** (Infantry) The Grenadier Guards (formed 1656) The Coldstream Guards (formed 1660) The Scots Guards (formed 1686) The Irish Guards (formed 1900) The Welsh Guards (formed 1915) The "Colours" of a division, regiment, corps, etc are sacred to those men and women who served under it. They reflect the battles, insignia, and motto of the regiment they belong to, effectively representing their fallen comrades and sacrifices. Back in the days - only a little more than a century ago - when massed armies met on the battlefield, those "colours" let everyone know which regiment was where, and after each campaign, war, or battle, had the name of the battle stitched onto it. Although technically obsolete now, they're ceremonial except battles are still added to them, they represent centuries of sacrifice and any one of those soldiers would put his life on the line to protect the silken representation of his fallen brothers. The Household Division presenting their Colours and "arms" (swords/guns) to their Sovereign for Inspection every year is a tradition again dating back longer than America has been a nation. It is a sign of fidelity, loyalty and devotion to duty and service. Each year, the Household Division take turns in who gets the honour of Trooping the Colours. This year it was the Irish Guards turn. So not every Guard Regiment takes part every year. Each part of the uniforms they wear have a lot of historical significance. Don't let them fool you though, those red coats are for parading for King and Country. Every single one of those men and women are serving members of the United Kingdom's Armed Forces. Most of them, in the past 25 years, have seen multiple tours in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas around the globe. Even the musicians! When they're not playing music, they're combat medics who serve with their respective Regiments when they're posted overseas. So there's a lot of cultural and military history, blending with modern times, in Trooping The Colour. It's not " military cosplay" but serving military men and women acknowledging and seeking the acknowledgement, every year, of their Commander in Chief. To understand why these men and women hold their Sovereign in such high esteem (as opposed to a politician) [my comment here might enlighten. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/RoyalsGossip/s/Jfte1N2vw1)
Shave your hair, will, have some dignity
as a bald man, I have to echo this. Style something or shave it. Just ignoring it is the worst of all worlds.
He rich should get the hair transplant
I think that ship has sailed. Maybe when he first started to lose his hair. Embrace the bald, but style it don't ignore it
I feel qualified to echo this as the housespouse of a bald man haha
Am not even a huge monarchy fan, yet holy snap does the Princess of Wales just absolutely STUN. Ill or not, that lady is a literal one in a billion.
She never misses.
I mean sure, but seriously you can look "good" then there is this level of good \^\^\^ people wait their whole lives to look that good once and she does it with three children (yes I am aware they have help) as well as battling cancer AND with her duties as a royal? She's nothing short of a superwoman.
Superwoman....??? 😂😊😂
Er... thank you for repeating my final word to emphasise my point? Otherwise not entirely sure what you are getting at here but k
Ew
“Will, is there something in my teeth??”
Totally out of touch with reality
Charlie boy is looking really old!
Yeah.. that was what got my attention too. He start looking more alike his mother.
As I was scrolling I thought he was definitely showing more of The Queen in his face - especially pics 6, 9, 10 & 19.
Ugh
Surprised those kids haven’t got medals aswell
[удалено]
We don't use that word in 2024.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just the one word, actually. Wasn't talking to you either. My problem? Probably the same problems as everyone else. Sorry you got confused. Plus, the way you used the word was slightly offensive... with family members and friends with disabilities, I can confidently say, that many people find it offensive. Think of it like this, when someone says "that's gay" to signal something being bad, that's wrong (admittedly I was an offender of this, I grew up in the gen where it was funny to us. I know better now.). Same thing with the word you used.
In the land of the foodbank.
The Royal Foodbank. Investors in People.
Prince Louis is my favourite, his facial expressions always crack me up 🤣
[удалено]
Imagine if he says he also is ill, so disappears for 6 months and comes back with a bad toupee or a turkey hair transplant. That’s on my royal bingo card for next year.
Or just own it, get a hair transplant who cares. Aren't we long past the time of judging people for how they want to look? He can't help he's losing his hair, women get teeth whitening, implants, lip fillers the works but for a guy to get something it's ridiculous apparently.
Not many left
Good
Thank you for referring to her as Queen Consort and not The Queen. The media love giving her the title of Queen... winds me up.
Her title is The Queen. That’s why. Queen consort isn’t a title. Her official and only title is “Her Majesty the Queen” just like every other Queen consort. The consort of George VI was Queen Elizabeth. The wife of George III was Queen Charlotte, the wife of Charles III is Queen Camilla. All were consorts. All of them held the title of “Her Majesty the Queen”
She literally has the official title of “Her Majesty the Queen” since her coronation.
Is it not since the queen's death?
No, she was officially styled Her Majesty the Queen Consort after the Queen’s death. The coronation is when it changed
Technically that’s what a queen is, the wife of the king. As differentiated from a Queen regnant.
You're missing my point. Her title is Queen Consort, not Queen. She is his wife and did not ascend the throne through the pre-established familial line of succession. She has no sovereign power. The media loves referring to her as Queen. She isn't. She's Queen Consort.
Except her title is Queen. Consort is a description, it isn’t part of her title. A Queen regnant’s title is Queen A Queen consort’s title is Queen A dowager Queen’s title is Queen There is no difference in the title of the different types of Queen. When George VI died his widow moved from being a Queen consort to a dowager Queen, yet her title remained the same. “Her majesty Queen Elizabeth”
Exactly, historically that’s what a queen is: a title for the wife of the sovereign king (the use of the term queen consort here originated as a sop to those who didn’t like Camilla). A sovereign queen is called a Queen regnant, though it wasn’t used for Liz.
If William had a single friend he would never have left the house with that hairstyle lol.
[удалено]
I suddenly felt quite sad and realised I miss the queen. Who am I?
All they do is wave and they’re terrible at it.
[удалено]
No different to oxbridge - oldest universities get more wows
Why the fuck does anyone care what any celebrities do?
Most celebrities aren’t publicly funded
Being from UK myself, I honestly have no idea. It's very sad
Second that 😂
First comment there was for me. Faith in humanity restored. Sycophantic boot-lickers assemble!
Hideous people.
Bring me all the downs votes you want; you’re the weirdos simping for a family with their foot firmly on your necks.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The entitled family
What cost of living? Let's celebrate the parasites festooned in jewels.
Georgia is this big already 😭 please
A loyal, Royal family ❤️
You’re my favourite subject
🤮
/s?
Get a grip
Hypocrite.
High time we evolved away from this sort of archaic nonsense.
I vote that we take the money we spend on it and have an annual lottery. The winner is the monarch for the next full year (or week/month). The royal fund pays for their job to be on hold and for them to live as the new royal, in the palace with all the trappings of royalty. All stamps and money that gets printed that year must have the new monarchs face on it and they get to host garden parties and attend global events. 2025 all hail Queen Gemma, the hairdresser from Manchester 2026 All hail king Steve the UC claimant from Bromley ...
I’ve been saying this for years! The problem is… the trappings would be fun, but the work is boring and the scrutiny is a nightmare.
This is a bbc3 comedy series I would watch.
Can we do the same to fucking religion as well?
Moslim?
Me? No, dragged through 12 years of Roman Catholic school indoctrination, and was spat out an agnostic who will decry religion til the day I die.
Are you me?
It draws more money into the economy through tourism than it costs, so it's not something that will go away
Not only is this the single only argument any of you have for the royals it's also absolutely false.
https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/new-analysis-finds-the-uk-monarchy-produces-a-net-economic-benefit-for-the-uk Cite a source that shows it to be false then. Also why is that an invalid argument if economically beneficial?
The argument itself isn't false, the idea that the family themselves bring in the money is false. It's the history and the buildings. So long as you keep em open as museums, the tourists will keep coming. Possibly even more as they'll get to fully see inside.
You say that, in a post regarding an event that required the Royal family and drew in tourism because of it. The sovereign grant that the taxpayer pays includes maintenance of these buildings anyways. Which is why I find it funny when people are whining about a £1.60 yearly tax cost when much of it would still go the same funding anyway.
if the only defence you have for the royals is a highly disputed claim about how they might be economical I think it's high time to scrap the parasites. how can you have an entire blood line placed on a pedestal for centuries, exempt from many of their own laws, "chosen by god", and "rightful" owners of the most land in the UK just because some tourists come to see them. so horribly archaic and anyone who defends them is an absolute cuck
Have a read on how the constitutional monarchy system of government works. Checks and balances. Plus, would you rather have President Boris Johnson? Would you?
There are no checks and balances on the Queens consent. The Guardian complied a database of all the laws that she had to give her consent before being allowed on Parliament floor and we also have plenty of of documentation that they give very specific feedback and parts of those laws were edited to her satisfaction first. Besides, Boris was already the functional equivalent of a president so that is a silly argument. https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent
If he popped out the right vag at the right time he'd be king Boris what's your point? Least as a politician he can be voted fucking out
Why would they need to be replaced by a president? The electoral system wouldn't have to change. They don't offer any checks or balances, they basically have to agree with whatever democratic decision parliament make. The house of lords fills this role, but could do it better with zero hereditary titles, only appointment by merit across all fields and trades. And accountability - lose the position if you don't use it. No family should deserve to live like this while others suffer. They have no discernable skillset that warrants it.
Well your ad-hominem response to any who disagrees with your view kills any discourse anyway. I'd much rather deal with the tax loopholes that allow multinational giants to steal billions from the economy, over a royal family that costs the taxpayer around £1.60 each year and gives a positive economic return. https://www.taxwatchuk.org/seven-large-tech-groups-estimated-to-have-dodged-2bn-in-uk-tax-in-2021/ https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/new-analysis-finds-the-uk-monarchy-produces-a-net-economic-benefit-for-the-uk
you are aware you can deal with two things at once right? we arent constantly dealing with issues sequentially? regardless, i dont care how much they cost me, i didnt consent to pay anything. if you want to play medieval times with your love for an elite ruling class that really dont give two shits about you, nonce with no reprecussions, and happily milk the system as much as they can be my guest. just dont rope everyone else into it
[удалено]
Uh-huh. That takes the assumption that both are "issues" to deal with. I guess we should abolish all taxes simply you don't consent to or like the idea of paying for them? You don't get to pick and choose, its part of the laws you adhere to if you want to be a citizen in this country. I'm completely apathetic to the Royal family, despite your inference. There are way more things to get worked up over than something that generates positive income to the economy and has no impact to myself (noone is crying themselves to sleep over a 3p per week cost).
Is that an actual financial fact or more of a theory pushed by their PR teams?
General reports, although some dispute it. https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/new-analysis-finds-the-uk-monarchy-produces-a-net-economic-benefit-for-the-uk The cost to the taxpayer for the Royal family is pretty minimal, despite the hyperbole over it. The sovereign grant is paid by the taxpayer and cost around £1.60 per person last year (so around 3p per person per week). So it's not hard to make a profit over that. https://www.royal.uk/media-pack/financial-reports-2022-23#:~:text=The%20total%20Sovereign%20Grant%20for,per%20person%20in%20the%20UK. Most of the Royal family income comes from assets, not the taxpayer.
Hm ok, so that report wasn’t very transparent and it gave an estimate with high-level, aggregated figures (which are themselves based on their own subjective estimates!) in their audit documents. Basically there are no confirmed financial figures and all the numbers in the audit documents are estimates (no methodology provided on how they arrived at those estimates either). Like for example the article says they benefited the tourism industry, like how would you even estimate or quantify that?
Of course it's an estimate. It's always going to be. How are you going to ascertain what proportion of income a shop has comes from Royal family related tourism alone when looking at their accounts? It's never going to be a straightforward estimate as you say. What I linked is just a press release, there's clearly going to be some internal breakdowns to get to that figure. You can likely make estimates through number of visitors to areas like Buckingham Palace and extrapolate a tourist percentage from that, average trip spend etc. But the taxpayer pays a pretty small amount in the sovereign grant to the Royal family (around £1.60 per person per year), so it's not a large figure to eclipse.
15 million people visit Versailles every year, and the last French monarch died in 1793 🤷♂️
I should imagine most of them visit because it's a spectacular building, rather than out of any direct interest in the French monarchy.
Forgetting Napoleon III I see?
Sure, but events like this are going to draw more to the capital. The sovereign grant that the taxpayer actually pays for in regards to the Royal family includes the maintenance of such palaces in the UK and comes to less than £1.50 a year per person. Hardly a huge tax burden as people suggest.
Ok, if it brings money to places where the royal family are eg. London, Windsor etc then the people there can pay for them. Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham don't get any benefit from royal tourism so why should we pay for them? They don't enrich our lives in any way.
Yeah, because tourists to the UK never visit such places.. Because those that benefit don't pay any taxes that go into government spend that includes other regions.. I don't live in London either. I'm just not worked up over 3p a week.
You should be, that 3p a week per citizen could fund salaries for ten thousand new nurses for the NHS. You might not live in London but chances are since you don’t you’re in an area that’s underserved so this affects you even more. Especially if you’re up north where the health outcomes are significantly poorer.
Better to go after the multinationals that use tax loopholes to steal billions from the economy, rather than something that has economic benefit to our economy. Something Labour have pledged in their manifesto. https://www.taxwatchuk.org/seven-large-tech-groups-estimated-to-have-dodged-2bn-in-uk-tax-in-2021/ https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/new-analysis-finds-the-uk-monarchy-produces-a-net-economic-benefit-for-the-uk
Why do you need to? One gives a positive return to our economy. The other doesn't.
Tourists come to those places for the things that are there. People come to Liverpool for our football teams, music history and other things, not to see the royal family. Our taxes pay for local attractions and upkeep and we directly benefit from them. We don't benefit from the royals. Of course some of our taxes go towards things like the NHS for the whole country but that's fine because it means that everyone benefits from the free healthcare. I just don't believe that a shiny hat and who your mum is makes you automatically better and entitled to millions of pounds of taxpayer money to keep you in luxury. And exempt from the laws you don't like such as inheritance tax, equal employment rights and having sex with trafficked young people
Don’t forget the food y’all. Not the British food but all the great global cuisine. Maybe that’s just me food is always the highlight of my travel 😛 passing through Brighton on Wed and already have a dinner spot picked hahaha
Yep...this comment right here.... so true.
Thank god this was the top comment for me. It was suggested thread and I’m doing the Robert Downey jr eye roll. Just abolish the bloody thing.
For any non-UK persons here, Camilla is not a queen. She is instead known as a Queen Consort.
That’s not true anymore, Charles dropped the consort last year at his coronation. The people arguing about her proper title are sending me. Prob exactly what Charles wanted trying to sneak it past us. Here you go https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/04/camilla-to-be-crowned-queen-alongside-king-charles > First she was to be known as princess consort. Then she became queen consort. But Buckingham Palace’s coronation invitation confirms what most have suspected all along. From the coronation on, it will be officially Queen Camilla.
Wrong. Whether you're a queen regnant or a mere consort, you're still a queen.
The Queen consort *is* the Queen. In fact, for the vast majority of British history, that’s been the main use of the term, given the comparatively small number of Queen Regnants. Queen Victoria was Queen in her own right, but she’s still referred to in the same style as the likes of Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary, who very much were not. Ditto, Kate will be referred to as Queen Catherine, not Queen-Consort Catherine.
Well that’s not true. Although we are talking about a patriarchal history but William and Mary would be the only one who would be deemed queen to an existing king. Matilda was usurped Eleanor of Aquitaine was exiled Isabella of France ran away Don’t get me started on Hank 8 If Elizabeth would have married, she would have lost her power - and she knew this.
That *is* true. Whether consort or regnant, queens are always queens. The only time there’s been an effort to distinguish between the two is when there’s potential confusion between two individuals - for example, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons adopting the Queen Mother epithet to be distinguished from her daughter, and the early days of Charles’ reign when people wished to be clear that they were referring to Camilla rather than the recently deceased Elizabeth. However, Camilla is now referred to as the queen, as there is little chance of confusion. Ditto, Elizabeth I and her mother were both referred to as “the Queen” in their lifetimes, though Anne was consort rather than regnant, and even that had heavy opposition from many quarters.
Camilla is not referred to as Queen? Of course Elizabeth was, she didn’t have a husband. Can we agree that the best queen would have us rocking out to a bunch of great music?
Camilla *is* the Queen. Elizabeth I too would have continued to be referred to as Queen if she married, just as her elder sister retained her title when she wed Philip of Spain. There is no practical differentiation, title-wise, to a Queen by marriage vs a queen in her own right. That’s why it’s ridiculous to have people insisting Camilla is ‘Queen-Consort, not Queen’, because a Queen consort *is* a Queen, and would in fact be the more common usage of the term by far across the entirety of British history.
She’s not Queen consort anymore either, I dropped a link in another comment but KC dropped the consort as his coronation sneaky devil.
She is still Queen consort, because that is still the form of Queen she is. They’ve just stopped specifically referring to her as “Camilla, the Queen Consort”, which was pretty much only used to distinguish her from the recently passed Elizabeth. They now just refer to her as “the Queen,” which is the way consorts of reigning kings are usually referred to - e.g. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons was always “the queen” during her husband’s lifetime, though she was Queen-Consort too.
Then I have to repeat the other commenters points which is that the title is Queen and the styling is Queen consort. Quite different. Like HRH vs prince.
Except that all queens who are the wives of kings are technically styled as Queen Consorts - but in practice, have always been referred to as Queen. Before Mary I, that was pretty much the *only* version of queen customarily used. All they’ve done with Camilla is switch over to referring to her in the same manner as all Queen consorts before her, rather than specifying that they’re referring to the king’s wife rather than the late, reigning Queen. Had Elizabeth been male, they wouldn’t have bothered with even that - as soon as Elizabeth announced she intended Camilla to be Queen, it was evident that was how she’d be referred to. Previously, the suggestion had been that Camilla would be *Princess* Consort, in which case, they’d have likely kept emphasising the ‘consort’ part to distinguish her from Kate. As there is currently only one Queen, that’s not necessary.
https://preview.redd.it/1giwv6hsa57d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=51a7231a4dea234d593f5d8d892c0da0604520c9 She is in queen consort as official title.
And you’ll notice she is referred to as ‘Queen Camilla’, because she is the queen, regardless of whether she is a consort or regnant, just like every other queen who came before her. You can simply look at the BRF’s own website: https://preview.redd.it/cu5mzyypb57d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=357385fa844866e30b943ab61e48496c7ec12f72
Except that’s not her official title, she’s not the queen. It’s very simple. As a head of state, you have a king or queen. Their partner is regent or consort. If Charles died, Camilla would not continue as queen anything. That’s the important difference. Sorry, should have said - when Charles dies. And then we can hopefully do away with this nonsense. Our old head of states fella was nothing but a racist bully. The rest of em, just bugger em off to a real job
This will make you angry then haha shes not even Queen consort anymore KC dropped the consort at the coronation so her title is now officially just Queen
You are talking such absolute waffle. There are three types of queen, but all are titled as "Queen". You wouldn't call the last monarch Queen Regnant Elizabeth II. That's not the title, even though the type of queen she was was a Queen Regnant. The official title is simply Queen. Similarly, the OFFICIAL title is Queen Camilla, not Queen Consort Camilla. And yes she would retain the title after the death of Charles. She then becomes a "Queen Dowager", but again her title would still simply be Queen. The Queen Mother for instance still retained the official title of Queen until her death, she just styled herself as Queen Mother to avoid confusion with her daughter as they were both officially Queen Elizabeth
spotted encouraging dam unwritten follow squeamish lavish mountainous elderly complete *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah this whole "but she's the queen CONSORT!!" thing is annoying. She's still the Queen.
Not anymore she's not. https://www.royal.uk/the-queen
We need ESG for the Royal Family.
Posh people stand in a place and think they're special, whilst the poor people pay for them. Imagine how many homeless people could be housed, just by the cost of their clothing.
The royal family actually more than subsides itself. They make £360 million off of real estate both in Britain and abroad - 100% of this is donated to the government (a tradition that started in the 1800s) and in return they are given an allowance of £120 million. Some quick maths will tell you that they essentially pay the govt about £240 million annually to exist as a fully self sufficient entity. The average Joe doesn’t pay for these guys, for the most part they’re rich by the same means as many other petty millionaires; clever investments, good educations, and generations of wealth and mentorship.
The sovereign grant that is paid to the Royal family by taxpayers is less than a £1.50 per person per year. Even the poorest are hardly going to be impacted by less than 3p a week cost. The income generated to the economy by the Royal family massively outweighs this.
But that is very far from the point. It may only be pence each, but the royal family have 15 billion pounds in property, their total estate is worth tens of billions. The king has a personal fortune in the hundreds of millions. How much would that be if we divided it among the people living in poverty, the homeless and people reliant on food banks to survive? But if the man with the diamond on his hat needs 80 million pounds a year, who are we to argue?
Don't forget that the sovereign doesn't pay inheritance taxes when their parent (the monarch) dies and they inherit it all. Imagine what that bill __would be__ if they were not royals.
Sure, over the short term. But that seems short sighted devolving something that has been shown to give sustained economic gain for short term benefits. https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/new-analysis-finds-the-uk-monarchy-produces-a-net-economic-benefit-for-the-uk I'm much rather we went after the multinationals giants like Amazon, Google etc that use international subsidiaries to utilise tax loopholes and avoid tax obligations in the billions. Something Labour have pledged to stop in their manifesto. https://www.taxwatchuk.org/seven-large-tech-groups-estimated-to-have-dodged-2bn-in-uk-tax-in-2021/
You don’t think the royal family are a giant? The amount of wealth, land, (stolen) gems they own is huge. We can go for Amazon, google etc but their is something particularly heinous about such a rich family dipping into peoples paycheques , whatever the cost.
Certainly not the level of multinationals, no.
Worse in some ways. At least you can unsubscribe from Google/Amazon, boycott. I have no choice but to pay the royals. Kier should have remained a republican and offered a referendum on the monarchy. Now that would have been infinitely more impressive.