The Cambridges News and Updates ( Prince William, Kate Middleton, George, Charlotte and Louis)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts on the points expressed above, without repeating that extremely long set of quotes. They will manage with fewer royals until Will and Kate's kids grow up. The principals don't need to spend so much time cutting ribbons at every building opening-they can amplify their work with social media. Plus, a royal family with fewer active members will cost less which is good considering challenging times in Britain.

I just don’t see it. They are not popular amongst the youngest people so I think as they do less they will seem less and less useful to a population that has much less attachment to them.

But this is the way it has always been and for whatever reason when those young people grow up they become nostalgic or something for the BRF. This is not a new phenomenon with disaffected youth. Look at all the youngish famous people who have accepted OBE or CBE recently.

Umm no it hasn’t. Princess Elizabeth was incredibly popular from her youth and participation in WWII activities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts on the points expressed above, without repeating that extremely long set of quotes. They will manage with fewer royals until Will and Kate's kids grow up. The principals don't need to spend so much time cutting ribbons at every building opening-they can amplify their work with social media. Plus, a royal family with fewer active members will cost less which is good considering challenging times in Britain.

I just don’t see it. They are not popular amongst the youngest people so I think as they do less they will seem less and less useful to a population that has much less attachment to them.

But this is the way it has always been and for whatever reason when those young people grow up they become nostalgic or something for the BRF. This is not a new phenomenon with disaffected youth. Look at all the youngish famous people who have accepted OBE or CBE recently.

Umm no it hasn’t. Princess Elizabeth was incredibly popular from her youth and participation in WWII activities.

Most of the people who remember those days are dead. I'm talking about youth in the 60s and 80s who rebelled against the royal family. The punks of the 80s seemed to have mellowed out now that they are middle aged. Royal family popularity has waxed and waned over the years and survived various crises. I think it may be short sighted to count them out because the 18-24s don't think they're cool. I'm not the only one who thinks this too shall pass.

"This latest controversy is certainly damaging and does dent the royal family’s reputation," he says. "That’s no small concern, but doesn’t seem likely to end the monarchy completely. It might increase momentum for more modernization of the monarchy."

The last time there was a vote in a major Commonwealth country about whether to jettison the monarchy – in Australia in 1999 – it failed in part because of reluctance to throw out a familiar mode of government and reconstruct a new one.

"I suspect the crown benefits also from the current widespread mistrust of politicians," Gristwood says. "If the queen weren’t head of state, who would be? And how many of us would want them?"

Even The Guardian, Britain's monarchy-skeptical newspaper, reports that republicans' latest optimism about achieving their goals may be misplaced. Columnist Jonathan Freedland, a longtime republican, wrote last week that revelations of family dysfunction help explain some of the monarchy's enduring appeal: It "provides a rolling soap opera, a perpetual source of gossip, human drama and distraction" featuring royal rifts and scandals.

"There’s a reason the monarchy has stood as long as it has," Freedland wrote. "For all the Windsors’ glaring deficiencies, the odds remain stacked in their favor. Republicanism is a just cause – but, for now at least, it seems a lost one."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2021/03/17/can-monarchy-royals-survive-harry-meghan-crisis/4652508001/

[Anonymous]

Charles will screw it up. Hell do or say something that crosses the line into the political realm or make some big mistake. He’s extremely un likable and comes off as petulant and whining. Combine this with how amazingly bad the BRF communications and PR teams are and it’s a disaster waiting to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Charles will screw it up. Hell do or say something that crosses the line into the political realm or make some big mistake. He’s extremely un likable and comes off as petulant and whining. Combine this with how amazingly bad the BRF communications and PR teams are and it’s a disaster waiting to happen.

Charles seems to be getting the lovable grandpa edit Bush Sr and lately GW Bush benefited from. Hated at one time, the pendulum swung the other direction later on in their lives. Charles has come back from his previous lows post Diana death. He may well screw it up but his image is better now than it has been.

[Anonymous]

Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

Much of that either fully or still quasi belongs to the BRF. So if the monarchy is abolished and all of the wealth of the BRF is taken, then they would probably either be forced to leave penniless or meet their fate the way other revolutions have done.

No, I don't think there's any way for George and Charlotte and Louis to live a life of ease and luxury in exile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles will screw it up. Hell do or say something that crosses the line into the political realm or make some big mistake. He’s extremely un likable and comes off as petulant and whining. Combine this with how amazingly bad the BRF communications and PR teams are and it’s a disaster waiting to happen.

Charles seems to be getting the lovable grandpa edit Bush Sr and lately GW Bush benefited from. Hated at one time, the pendulum swung the other direction later on in their lives. Charles has come back from his previous lows post Diana death. He may well screw it up but his image is better now than it has been.

He was but that took a hit with a lot of the Diana stuff has come back up due to Harry and the Crown. Not PP but I agree he will mess it up. He seems reasonably intelligent but is basically similar to Harry in being ruled by his poor little rich boy emotions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts on the points expressed above, without repeating that extremely long set of quotes. They will manage with fewer royals until Will and Kate's kids grow up. The principals don't need to spend so much time cutting ribbons at every building opening-they can amplify their work with social media. Plus, a royal family with fewer active members will cost less which is good considering challenging times in Britain.

I just don’t see it. They are not popular amongst the youngest people so I think as they do less they will seem less and less useful to a population that has much less attachment to them.

But this is the way it has always been and for whatever reason when those young people grow up they become nostalgic or something for the BRF. This is not a new phenomenon with disaffected youth. Look at all the youngish famous people who have accepted OBE or CBE recently.

Umm no it hasn’t. Princess Elizabeth was incredibly popular from her youth and participation in WWII activities.

Most of the people who remember those days are dead. I'm talking about youth in the 60s and 80s who rebelled against the royal family. The punks of the 80s seemed to have mellowed out now that they are middle aged. Royal family popularity has waxed and waned over the years and survived various crises. I think it may be short sighted to count them out because the 18-24s don't think they're cool. I'm not the only one who thinks this too shall pass.

"This latest controversy is certainly damaging and does dent the royal family’s reputation," he says. "That’s no small concern, but doesn’t seem likely to end the monarchy completely. It might increase momentum for more modernization of the monarchy."

The last time there was a vote in a major Commonwealth country about whether to jettison the monarchy – in Australia in 1999 – it failed in part because of reluctance to throw out a familiar mode of government and reconstruct a new one.

"I suspect the crown benefits also from the current widespread mistrust of politicians," Gristwood says. "If the queen weren’t head of state, who would be? And how many of us would want them?"

Even The Guardian, Britain's monarchy-skeptical newspaper, reports that republicans' latest optimism about achieving their goals may be misplaced. Columnist Jonathan Freedland, a longtime republican, wrote last week that revelations of family dysfunction help explain some of the monarchy's enduring appeal: It "provides a rolling soap opera, a perpetual source of gossip, human drama and distraction" featuring royal rifts and scandals.

"There’s a reason the monarchy has stood as long as it has," Freedland wrote. "For all the Windsors’ glaring deficiencies, the odds remain stacked in their favor. Republicanism is a just cause – but, for now at least, it seems a lost one."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2021/03/17/can-monarchy-royals-survive-harry-meghan-crisis/4652508001/

That's a great summarization but he's talking about one massive blow when we're talking about a death by a thousand cuts.

The U.K. head of state used to be the crown monarched of nearly 60 countries plus the Emperor/Empress of India which wasn't so long ago either - the Queen's father was Emperor of India.

Now they've got 16 realms - many of which are setting up to depose them (including Barbados and Scotland) - and more who are wondering what use a monarch is or isn't especially in a post-Brexit world were the UK has lost prominence as a whole and is begging for trade deals.

Look, do I think the British monarchy is gone tomorrow? No. Do I think the BRF is looking at constant attrition until the only crowns they hold are England, Wales, and Tuvalu? I absolutely do.

Being a member of the Commonwealth used to mean something - increased access to power, trade, and security via the British navy. Now these countries get that on their own and/or look to alliances like the EU/NATO (Scotland), NAFTA (Canada), and APEC (Australia).

Australia just agreed to a trade deal with the U.K. You know what the big things they got out of it? Sausages and free visas for interns.

I'm not kidding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

Margaret was a spendthrift. It’s not entirely surprising her children were not left in the best financial shape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

I’m not saying this issue isn’t valid, but a good estate planner has already modeled out all the scenarios and made adjustments, when possible. I’d suspect the Queen has access to a good estate planner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

I’m not saying this issue isn’t valid, but a good estate planner has already modeled out all the scenarios and made adjustments, when possible. I’d suspect the Queen has access to a good estate planner.

The estate planner for the BRF focuses on the monarch and the success line of monarchs - keeping them in power and income is the priority.

The 5th great-grandchild who is going to be living in a retrofitted barn in 40 years? Not so much. Ask King George's nieces, nephews and grand-nieces/nephews how life is now. Or his grandchildren outside of the monarch's line.

When he died the only grandchildren around were Anne and Charles - they certainly didn't get much. Not that Charles needed as he had the Cornwall income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

I’m not saying this issue isn’t valid, but a good estate planner has already modeled out all the scenarios and made adjustments, when possible. I’d suspect the Queen has access to a good estate planner.

The estate planner for the BRF focuses on the monarch and the success line of monarchs - keeping them in power and income is the priority.

The 5th great-grandchild who is going to be living in a retrofitted barn in 40 years? Not so much. Ask King George's nieces, nephews and grand-nieces/nephews how life is now. Or his grandchildren outside of the monarch's line.

When he died the only grandchildren around were Anne and Charles - they certainly didn't get much. Not that Charles needed as he had the Cornwall income.

Huh? I don’t think I’ve seen Anne standing in line at the soup kitchen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

You don’t think that after centuries on the throne monarchies would have figured some of these things out?