Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

I dunno about that - the British royals are a billion dollar industry and being in mind boggling amounts of tourist dollars … and for the first time ai ce Queen Victoria, brought a lot of cultural stability …

Queen Elizabeth had a knack for hitting the right balance between public ritual/ majestic rituals/ common touch with people/ public service . She just showed up every day in countless ways to bring a sense of British stiff upper lip normalcy in a rapidly changing world.

Charles is more arrogant and out of touch. I hope he can connect with people in the ways that commonwealth citizens expect of a king, but let’s see . His reign may hasten Republican movements around the commonwealth - or he may prove himself to be honest s mother’s son and find ways to reinvent the monarchy according to changing times …

I doubt Charles will be able to fulfill his mothers role
It just isn’t the same anymore
I doubt that they are the billion dollar industry you say
Funeral will cost millions, coronation too
Charles will likely reign for just a decade at the most

Then what?
William is plain and boring

Note: No one expects bipolar creativity for the British royals. William and his wife Kate have amazing social skills and connect with its many different types of people.

Regarding royal Boost to British economy - not insignificant and more importantly many British subjects were proud of the modern form
Of monarchy (hybrid parliamentary-monarchy democracy where royals hold symbolic rather than literal power). The symbols still matter in an ancient living culture ,.,

>>>>>>

Queen Elizabeth II, 95, is the world's most famous monarch, having been on the throne for almost 70 years, and the British Royal Family is known across the globe. While UK taxpayers contribute to the Crown via the Sovereign Grant, the Royal Household also brings in plenty of cash to help boost Britain's economy - and the figure amounts to some billions of pounds.


How much money does the Royal Family bring in?
According to Forbes Magazine, the House of Windsor is estimated to be worth £19 billion ($28 billion) and pumps hundreds of millions of pounds into Britain's economy every year.
According to a financial expert, it is the 1,000-year-old Firm's public perception and influence that makes it so valuable.
Chief executive of Brand Finance David Haigh told Forbes: “It is a very formalized influencer business."

Mr Haigh explained that unlike a celebrity family such as the Kardashians, the Windsors don’t personally profit from the business itself.
However, they contributed an estimated £1.9 billion ($2.7 billion) annually to Britain's economy pre-pandemic.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1437145/how-much-money-does-the-royal-family-bring-in-to-uk-evg

I find it highly unlikely that UK tourism would dwindle to nothing if English royalty went the way of German/French/Italian royalty. It's not like they'd be able to take the big historic castles and palaces with them if they got demoted and refuse to let tourists in to visit them. And it's not like the changing of the guards is the only thing that brings tourists in. Most tourists to the UK never see a royal anyway. The stuff about royal warrants bringing in millions also seems overblown. People would still be buying Johnny Walker and Cadbury without the queen's stamp of approval. I've never heard of the royal warrants before.

Tend to agree with this. The monarchy will always be the UKs legacy, but it is no longer relevant. The Queen was the monarchy. She was the last vestige of the integrity it represented. Now it’s just an episode of real housewives of Windsor.

We can’t know for sure except that common sense tells us that nothing happens overnight (except for 45’s denigration of US popular discourse into course rabble Rousing) … Charles III’s lack of social skills and popular appeal would lead most likely lead to gradual chipping away at the dignified but human mystique of the British royalty… hope Charles can miraculously cut it late in life but I really think he should retire as early as possible and let William and Kate lead the way. He won’t of course. I hope the damage to the British royalty will be minimal but as a commonwealth citizen, I know that he has been unpopular for decades.

Long alive the King’s retirement !

You are wrong. Charles will now have the full weight of the UK government behind him. His minders and staff will spin him up. Just like they did for the queen. The queen was not popular or respected after the Diana disasters. The minders and staff forced major changes on her and the whole family. People forget how bad it was. Give Charles a few years and everything will be right as rain. In 10 years he will be the beloved Grandfather.

Nah … I have been a commonwealth subject for decades - and Charles was born with his foot in his mouth . There is no spinning some of his nonsense (eg love letters to Camilla when he was cheating on Diana declaring he wish he was her tampon).

The success of the royalty depends on maintaining a balance of medieval pageantry, dignity, human touch and being above the fray. He has been below the fray for way too long to win over the hearts of minds of a new generation.

He's really mellowed out and is much more likeable now than he was when he was young. Cheating on Diana with Camilla is really horrible. However, it's old OLD news. Water under the bridge.

He won't be king for long. Then Prince William will be a handsome and popular king and Kate will be his pretty Queen. And the public will watch their kids grow up with all the fascination we have always had with the royals. The monarchy isn't going anywhere.

Anonymous wrote:Something doesn’t sit right when he says “he plans to serve with loyalty, respect and love”, sure King Charles, since when?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

I dunno about that - the British royals are a billion dollar industry and being in mind boggling amounts of tourist dollars … and for the first time ai ce Queen Victoria, brought a lot of cultural stability …

Queen Elizabeth had a knack for hitting the right balance between public ritual/ majestic rituals/ common touch with people/ public service . She just showed up every day in countless ways to bring a sense of British stiff upper lip normalcy in a rapidly changing world.

Charles is more arrogant and out of touch. I hope he can connect with people in the ways that commonwealth citizens expect of a king, but let’s see . His reign may hasten Republican movements around the commonwealth - or he may prove himself to be honest s mother’s son and find ways to reinvent the monarchy according to changing times …

I doubt Charles will be able to fulfill his mothers role
It just isn’t the same anymore
I doubt that they are the billion dollar industry you say
Funeral will cost millions, coronation too
Charles will likely reign for just a decade at the most

Then what?
William is plain and boring

Note: No one expects bipolar creativity for the British royals. William and his wife Kate have amazing social skills and connect with its many different types of people.

Regarding royal Boost to British economy - not insignificant and more importantly many British subjects were proud of the modern form
Of monarchy (hybrid parliamentary-monarchy democracy where royals hold symbolic rather than literal power). The symbols still matter in an ancient living culture ,.,

>>>>>>

Queen Elizabeth II, 95, is the world's most famous monarch, having been on the throne for almost 70 years, and the British Royal Family is known across the globe. While UK taxpayers contribute to the Crown via the Sovereign Grant, the Royal Household also brings in plenty of cash to help boost Britain's economy - and the figure amounts to some billions of pounds.


How much money does the Royal Family bring in?
According to Forbes Magazine, the House of Windsor is estimated to be worth £19 billion ($28 billion) and pumps hundreds of millions of pounds into Britain's economy every year.
According to a financial expert, it is the 1,000-year-old Firm's public perception and influence that makes it so valuable.
Chief executive of Brand Finance David Haigh told Forbes: “It is a very formalized influencer business."

Mr Haigh explained that unlike a celebrity family such as the Kardashians, the Windsors don’t personally profit from the business itself.
However, they contributed an estimated £1.9 billion ($2.7 billion) annually to Britain's economy pre-pandemic.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1437145/how-much-money-does-the-royal-family-bring-in-to-uk-evg

I find it highly unlikely that UK tourism would dwindle to nothing if English royalty went the way of German/French/Italian royalty. It's not like they'd be able to take the big historic castles and palaces with them if they got demoted and refuse to let tourists in to visit them. And it's not like the changing of the guards is the only thing that brings tourists in. Most tourists to the UK never see a royal anyway. The stuff about royal warrants bringing in millions also seems overblown. People would still be buying Johnny Walker and Cadbury without the queen's stamp of approval. I've never heard of the royal warrants before.

Tend to agree with this. The monarchy will always be the UKs legacy, but it is no longer relevant. The Queen was the monarchy. She was the last vestige of the integrity it represented. Now it’s just an episode of real housewives of Windsor.

We can’t know for sure except that common sense tells us that nothing happens overnight (except for 45’s denigration of US popular discourse into course rabble Rousing) … Charles III’s lack of social skills and popular appeal would lead most likely lead to gradual chipping away at the dignified but human mystique of the British royalty… hope Charles can miraculously cut it late in life but I really think he should retire as early as possible and let William and Kate lead the way. He won’t of course. I hope the damage to the British royalty will be minimal but as a commonwealth citizen, I know that he has been unpopular for decades.

Long alive the King’s retirement !

You are wrong. Charles will now have the full weight of the UK government behind him. His minders and staff will spin him up. Just like they did for the queen. The queen was not popular or respected after the Diana disasters. The minders and staff forced major changes on her and the whole family. People forget how bad it was. Give Charles a few years and everything will be right as rain. In 10 years he will be the beloved Grandfather.

Nah … I have been a commonwealth subject for decades - and Charles was born with his foot in his mouth . There is no spinning some of his nonsense (eg love letters to Camilla when he was cheating on Diana declaring he wish he was her tampon).

The success of the royalty depends on maintaining a balance of medieval pageantry, dignity, human touch and being above the fray. He has been below the fray for way too long to win over the hearts of minds of a new generation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

I dunno about that - the British royals are a billion dollar industry and being in mind boggling amounts of tourist dollars … and for the first time ai ce Queen Victoria, brought a lot of cultural stability …

Queen Elizabeth had a knack for hitting the right balance between public ritual/ majestic rituals/ common touch with people/ public service . She just showed up every day in countless ways to bring a sense of British stiff upper lip normalcy in a rapidly changing world.

Charles is more arrogant and out of touch. I hope he can connect with people in the ways that commonwealth citizens expect of a king, but let’s see . His reign may hasten Republican movements around the commonwealth - or he may prove himself to be honest s mother’s son and find ways to reinvent the monarchy according to changing times …

I doubt Charles will be able to fulfill his mothers role
It just isn’t the same anymore
I doubt that they are the billion dollar industry you say
Funeral will cost millions, coronation too
Charles will likely reign for just a decade at the most

Then what?
William is plain and boring

Note: No one expects bipolar creativity for the British royals. William and his wife Kate have amazing social skills and connect with its many different types of people.

Regarding royal Boost to British economy - not insignificant and more importantly many British subjects were proud of the modern form
Of monarchy (hybrid parliamentary-monarchy democracy where royals hold symbolic rather than literal power). The symbols still matter in an ancient living culture ,.,

>>>>>>

Queen Elizabeth II, 95, is the world's most famous monarch, having been on the throne for almost 70 years, and the British Royal Family is known across the globe. While UK taxpayers contribute to the Crown via the Sovereign Grant, the Royal Household also brings in plenty of cash to help boost Britain's economy - and the figure amounts to some billions of pounds.


How much money does the Royal Family bring in?
According to Forbes Magazine, the House of Windsor is estimated to be worth £19 billion ($28 billion) and pumps hundreds of millions of pounds into Britain's economy every year.
According to a financial expert, it is the 1,000-year-old Firm's public perception and influence that makes it so valuable.
Chief executive of Brand Finance David Haigh told Forbes: “It is a very formalized influencer business."

Mr Haigh explained that unlike a celebrity family such as the Kardashians, the Windsors don’t personally profit from the business itself.
However, they contributed an estimated £1.9 billion ($2.7 billion) annually to Britain's economy pre-pandemic.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1437145/how-much-money-does-the-royal-family-bring-in-to-uk-evg

I find it highly unlikely that UK tourism would dwindle to nothing if English royalty went the way of German/French/Italian royalty. It's not like they'd be able to take the big historic castles and palaces with them if they got demoted and refuse to let tourists in to visit them. And it's not like the changing of the guards is the only thing that brings tourists in. Most tourists to the UK never see a royal anyway. The stuff about royal warrants bringing in millions also seems overblown. People would still be buying Johnny Walker and Cadbury without the queen's stamp of approval. I've never heard of the royal warrants before.

Tend to agree with this. The monarchy will always be the UKs legacy, but it is no longer relevant. The Queen was the monarchy. She was the last vestige of the integrity it represented. Now it’s just an episode of real housewives of Windsor.

We can’t know for sure except that common sense tells us that nothing happens overnight (except for 45’s denigration of US popular discourse into course rabble Rousing) … Charles III’s lack of social skills and popular appeal would lead most likely lead to gradual chipping away at the dignified but human mystique of the British royalty… hope Charles can miraculously cut it late in life but I really think he should retire as early as possible and let William and Kate lead the way. He won’t of course. I hope the damage to the British royalty will be minimal but as a commonwealth citizen, I know that he has been unpopular for decades.

Long alive the King’s retirement !

You are wrong. Charles will now have the full weight of the UK government behind him. His minders and staff will spin him up. Just like they did for the queen. The queen was not popular or respected after the Diana disasters. The minders and staff forced major changes on her and the whole family. People forget how bad it was. Give Charles a few years and everything will be right as rain. In 10 years he will be the beloved Grandfather.

Nah … I have been a commonwealth subject for decades - and Charles was born with his foot in his mouth . There is no spinning some of his nonsense (eg love letters to Camilla when he was cheating on Diana declaring he wish he was her tampon).

The success of the royalty depends on maintaining a balance of medieval pageantry, dignity, human touch and being above the fray. He has been below the fray for way too long to win over the hearts of minds of a new generation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden says he is going to the funeral. I wonder if other former POTUSs will go.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-will-attend-queen-elizabeth-ii-funeral/

somehow I bet Donald will not get an invite

I suspect all but him will be invited. Especially the Obamas. It’s a state event.

I don’t think the Brits will want to start off with a diplomatic row. They’ll probably invite only Biden.

I would fully expect a U.S. delegation that includes past presidents, at least one Republican and one Democratic. It's about showing respect, not whether you like them personally or not. Makes sense to invite the Trumps and Obamas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden says he is going to the funeral. I wonder if other former POTUSs will go.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-will-attend-queen-elizabeth-ii-funeral/

somehow I bet Donald will not get an invite

I suspect all but him will be invited. Especially the Obamas. It’s a state event.

I don’t think the Brits will want to start off with a diplomatic row. They’ll probably invite only Biden.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

I dunno about that - the British royals are a billion dollar industry and being in mind boggling amounts of tourist dollars … and for the first time ai ce Queen Victoria, brought a lot of cultural stability …

Queen Elizabeth had a knack for hitting the right balance between public ritual/ majestic rituals/ common touch with people/ public service . She just showed up every day in countless ways to bring a sense of British stiff upper lip normalcy in a rapidly changing world.

Charles is more arrogant and out of touch. I hope he can connect with people in the ways that commonwealth citizens expect of a king, but let’s see . His reign may hasten Republican movements around the commonwealth - or he may prove himself to be honest s mother’s son and find ways to reinvent the monarchy according to changing times …

I doubt Charles will be able to fulfill his mothers role
It just isn’t the same anymore
I doubt that they are the billion dollar industry you say
Funeral will cost millions, coronation too
Charles will likely reign for just a decade at the most

Then what?
William is plain and boring

Note: No one expects bipolar creativity for the British royals. William and his wife Kate have amazing social skills and connect with its many different types of people.

Regarding royal Boost to British economy - not insignificant and more importantly many British subjects were proud of the modern form
Of monarchy (hybrid parliamentary-monarchy democracy where royals hold symbolic rather than literal power). The symbols still matter in an ancient living culture ,.,

>>>>>>

Queen Elizabeth II, 95, is the world's most famous monarch, having been on the throne for almost 70 years, and the British Royal Family is known across the globe. While UK taxpayers contribute to the Crown via the Sovereign Grant, the Royal Household also brings in plenty of cash to help boost Britain's economy - and the figure amounts to some billions of pounds.


How much money does the Royal Family bring in?
According to Forbes Magazine, the House of Windsor is estimated to be worth £19 billion ($28 billion) and pumps hundreds of millions of pounds into Britain's economy every year.
According to a financial expert, it is the 1,000-year-old Firm's public perception and influence that makes it so valuable.
Chief executive of Brand Finance David Haigh told Forbes: “It is a very formalized influencer business."

Mr Haigh explained that unlike a celebrity family such as the Kardashians, the Windsors don’t personally profit from the business itself.
However, they contributed an estimated £1.9 billion ($2.7 billion) annually to Britain's economy pre-pandemic.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1437145/how-much-money-does-the-royal-family-bring-in-to-uk-evg

I find it highly unlikely that UK tourism would dwindle to nothing if English royalty went the way of German/French/Italian royalty. It's not like they'd be able to take the big historic castles and palaces with them if they got demoted and refuse to let tourists in to visit them. And it's not like the changing of the guards is the only thing that brings tourists in. Most tourists to the UK never see a royal anyway. The stuff about royal warrants bringing in millions also seems overblown. People would still be buying Johnny Walker and Cadbury without the queen's stamp of approval. I've never heard of the royal warrants before.

Tend to agree with this. The monarchy will always be the UKs legacy, but it is no longer relevant. The Queen was the monarchy. She was the last vestige of the integrity it represented. Now it’s just an episode of real housewives of Windsor.

We can’t know for sure except that common sense tells us that nothing happens overnight (except for 45’s denigration of US popular discourse into course rabble Rousing) … Charles III’s lack of social skills and popular appeal would lead most likely lead to gradual chipping away at the dignified but human mystique of the British royalty… hope Charles can miraculously cut it late in life but I really think he should retire as early as possible and let William and Kate lead the way. He won’t of course. I hope the damage to the British royalty will be minimal but as a commonwealth citizen, I know that he has been unpopular for decades.

Long alive the King’s retirement !

You are wrong. Charles will now have the full weight of the UK government behind him. His minders and staff will spin him up. Just like they did for the queen. The queen was not popular or respected after the Diana disasters. The minders and staff forced major changes on her and the whole family. People forget how bad it was. Give Charles a few years and everything will be right as rain. In 10 years he will be the beloved Grandfather.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

I dunno about that - the British royals are a billion dollar industry and being in mind boggling amounts of tourist dollars … and for the first time ai ce Queen Victoria, brought a lot of cultural stability …

Queen Elizabeth had a knack for hitting the right balance between public ritual/ majestic rituals/ common touch with people/ public service . She just showed up every day in countless ways to bring a sense of British stiff upper lip normalcy in a rapidly changing world.

Charles is more arrogant and out of touch. I hope he can connect with people in the ways that commonwealth citizens expect of a king, but let’s see . His reign may hasten Republican movements around the commonwealth - or he may prove himself to be honest s mother’s son and find ways to reinvent the monarchy according to changing times …

I doubt Charles will be able to fulfill his mothers role
It just isn’t the same anymore
I doubt that they are the billion dollar industry you say
Funeral will cost millions, coronation too
Charles will likely reign for just a decade at the most

Then what?
William is plain and boring

Note: No one expects bipolar creativity for the British royals. William and his wife Kate have amazing social skills and connect with its many different types of people.

Regarding royal Boost to British economy - not insignificant and more importantly many British subjects were proud of the modern form
Of monarchy (hybrid parliamentary-monarchy democracy where royals hold symbolic rather than literal power). The symbols still matter in an ancient living culture ,.,

>>>>>>

Queen Elizabeth II, 95, is the world's most famous monarch, having been on the throne for almost 70 years, and the British Royal Family is known across the globe. While UK taxpayers contribute to the Crown via the Sovereign Grant, the Royal Household also brings in plenty of cash to help boost Britain's economy - and the figure amounts to some billions of pounds.


How much money does the Royal Family bring in?
According to Forbes Magazine, the House of Windsor is estimated to be worth £19 billion ($28 billion) and pumps hundreds of millions of pounds into Britain's economy every year.
According to a financial expert, it is the 1,000-year-old Firm's public perception and influence that makes it so valuable.
Chief executive of Brand Finance David Haigh told Forbes: “It is a very formalized influencer business."

Mr Haigh explained that unlike a celebrity family such as the Kardashians, the Windsors don’t personally profit from the business itself.
However, they contributed an estimated £1.9 billion ($2.7 billion) annually to Britain's economy pre-pandemic.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1437145/how-much-money-does-the-royal-family-bring-in-to-uk-evg

I find it highly unlikely that UK tourism would dwindle to nothing if English royalty went the way of German/French/Italian royalty. It's not like they'd be able to take the big historic castles and palaces with them if they got demoted and refuse to let tourists in to visit them. And it's not like the changing of the guards is the only thing that brings tourists in. Most tourists to the UK never see a royal anyway. The stuff about royal warrants bringing in millions also seems overblown. People would still be buying Johnny Walker and Cadbury without the queen's stamp of approval. I've never heard of the royal warrants before.

Tend to agree with this. The monarchy will always be the UKs legacy, but it is no longer relevant. The Queen was the monarchy. She was the last vestige of the integrity it represented. Now it’s just an episode of real housewives of Windsor.

We can’t know for sure except that common sense tells us that nothing happens overnight (except for 45’s denigration of US popular discourse into course rabble Rousing) … Charles III’s lack of social skills and popular appeal would lead most likely lead to gradual chipping away at the dignified but human mystique of the British royalty… hope Charles can miraculously cut it late in life but I really think he should retire as early as possible and let William and Kate lead the way. He won’t of course. I hope the damage to the British royalty will be minimal but as a commonwealth citizen, I know that he has been unpopular for decades.

Long alive the King’s retirement !

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

I dunno about that - the British royals are a billion dollar industry and being in mind boggling amounts of tourist dollars … and for the first time ai ce Queen Victoria, brought a lot of cultural stability …

Queen Elizabeth had a knack for hitting the right balance between public ritual/ majestic rituals/ common touch with people/ public service . She just showed up every day in countless ways to bring a sense of British stiff upper lip normalcy in a rapidly changing world.

Charles is more arrogant and out of touch. I hope he can connect with people in the ways that commonwealth citizens expect of a king, but let’s see . His reign may hasten Republican movements around the commonwealth - or he may prove himself to be honest s mother’s son and find ways to reinvent the monarchy according to changing times …

I doubt Charles will be able to fulfill his mothers role
It just isn’t the same anymore
I doubt that they are the billion dollar industry you say
Funeral will cost millions, coronation too
Charles will likely reign for just a decade at the most

Then what?
William is plain and boring

Note: No one expects bipolar creativity for the British royals. William and his wife Kate have amazing social skills and connect with its many different types of people.

Regarding royal Boost to British economy - not insignificant and more importantly many British subjects were proud of the modern form
Of monarchy (hybrid parliamentary-monarchy democracy where royals hold symbolic rather than literal power). The symbols still matter in an ancient living culture ,.,

>>>>>>

Queen Elizabeth II, 95, is the world's most famous monarch, having been on the throne for almost 70 years, and the British Royal Family is known across the globe. While UK taxpayers contribute to the Crown via the Sovereign Grant, the Royal Household also brings in plenty of cash to help boost Britain's economy - and the figure amounts to some billions of pounds.


How much money does the Royal Family bring in?
According to Forbes Magazine, the House of Windsor is estimated to be worth £19 billion ($28 billion) and pumps hundreds of millions of pounds into Britain's economy every year.
According to a financial expert, it is the 1,000-year-old Firm's public perception and influence that makes it so valuable.
Chief executive of Brand Finance David Haigh told Forbes: “It is a very formalized influencer business."

Mr Haigh explained that unlike a celebrity family such as the Kardashians, the Windsors don’t personally profit from the business itself.
However, they contributed an estimated £1.9 billion ($2.7 billion) annually to Britain's economy pre-pandemic.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1437145/how-much-money-does-the-royal-family-bring-in-to-uk-evg

I find it highly unlikely that UK tourism would dwindle to nothing if English royalty went the way of German/French/Italian royalty. It's not like they'd be able to take the big historic castles and palaces with them if they got demoted and refuse to let tourists in to visit them. And it's not like the changing of the guards is the only thing that brings tourists in. Most tourists to the UK never see a royal anyway. The stuff about royal warrants bringing in millions also seems overblown. People would still be buying Johnny Walker and Cadbury without the queen's stamp of approval. I've never heard of the royal warrants before.

Tend to agree with this. The monarchy will always be the UKs legacy, but it is no longer relevant. The Queen was the monarchy. She was the last vestige of the integrity it represented. Now it’s just an episode of real housewives of Windsor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

I dunno about that - the British royals are a billion dollar industry and being in mind boggling amounts of tourist dollars … and for the first time ai ce Queen Victoria, brought a lot of cultural stability …

Queen Elizabeth had a knack for hitting the right balance between public ritual/ majestic rituals/ common touch with people/ public service . She just showed up every day in countless ways to bring a sense of British stiff upper lip normalcy in a rapidly changing world.

Charles is more arrogant and out of touch. I hope he can connect with people in the ways that commonwealth citizens expect of a king, but let’s see . His reign may hasten Republican movements around the commonwealth - or he may prove himself to be honest s mother’s son and find ways to reinvent the monarchy according to changing times …

I doubt Charles will be able to fulfill his mothers role
It just isn’t the same anymore
I doubt that they are the billion dollar industry you say
Funeral will cost millions, coronation too
Charles will likely reign for just a decade at the most

Then what?
William is plain and boring

Note: No one expects bipolar creativity for the British royals. William and his wife Kate have amazing social skills and connect with its many different types of people.

Regarding royal Boost to British economy - not insignificant and more importantly many British subjects were proud of the modern form
Of monarchy (hybrid parliamentary-monarchy democracy where royals hold symbolic rather than literal power). The symbols still matter in an ancient living culture ,.,

>>>>>>

Queen Elizabeth II, 95, is the world's most famous monarch, having been on the throne for almost 70 years, and the British Royal Family is known across the globe. While UK taxpayers contribute to the Crown via the Sovereign Grant, the Royal Household also brings in plenty of cash to help boost Britain's economy - and the figure amounts to some billions of pounds.


How much money does the Royal Family bring in?
According to Forbes Magazine, the House of Windsor is estimated to be worth £19 billion ($28 billion) and pumps hundreds of millions of pounds into Britain's economy every year.
According to a financial expert, it is the 1,000-year-old Firm's public perception and influence that makes it so valuable.
Chief executive of Brand Finance David Haigh told Forbes: “It is a very formalized influencer business."

Mr Haigh explained that unlike a celebrity family such as the Kardashians, the Windsors don’t personally profit from the business itself.
However, they contributed an estimated £1.9 billion ($2.7 billion) annually to Britain's economy pre-pandemic.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1437145/how-much-money-does-the-royal-family-bring-in-to-uk-evg

I find it highly unlikely that UK tourism would dwindle to nothing if English royalty went the way of German/French/Italian royalty. It's not like they'd be able to take the big historic castles and palaces with them if they got demoted and refuse to let tourists in to visit them. And it's not like the changing of the guards is the only thing that brings tourists in. Most tourists to the UK never see a royal anyway. The stuff about royal warrants bringing in millions also seems overblown. People would still be buying Johnny Walker and Cadbury without the queen's stamp of approval. I've never heard of the royal warrants before.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

I dunno about that - the British royals are a billion dollar industry and being in mind boggling amounts of tourist dollars … and for the first time ai ce Queen Victoria, brought a lot of cultural stability …

Queen Elizabeth had a knack for hitting the right balance between public ritual/ majestic rituals/ common touch with people/ public service . She just showed up every day in countless ways to bring a sense of British stiff upper lip normalcy in a rapidly changing world.

Charles is more arrogant and out of touch. I hope he can connect with people in the ways that commonwealth citizens expect of a king, but let’s see . His reign may hasten Republican movements around the commonwealth - or he may prove himself to be honest s mother’s son and find ways to reinvent the monarchy according to changing times …

I doubt Charles will be able to fulfill his mothers role
It just isn’t the same anymore
I doubt that they are the billion dollar industry you say
Funeral will cost millions, coronation too
Charles will likely reign for just a decade at the most

Then what?
William is plain and boring

Note: No one expects bipolar creativity for the British royals. William and his wife Kate have amazing social skills and connect with its many different types of people.

Regarding royal Boost to British economy - not insignificant and more importantly many British subjects were proud of the modern form
Of monarchy (hybrid parliamentary-monarchy democracy where royals hold symbolic rather than literal power). The symbols still matter in an ancient living culture ,.,

>>>>>>

Queen Elizabeth II, 95, is the world's most famous monarch, having been on the throne for almost 70 years, and the British Royal Family is known across the globe. While UK taxpayers contribute to the Crown via the Sovereign Grant, the Royal Household also brings in plenty of cash to help boost Britain's economy - and the figure amounts to some billions of pounds.


How much money does the Royal Family bring in?
According to Forbes Magazine, the House of Windsor is estimated to be worth £19 billion ($28 billion) and pumps hundreds of millions of pounds into Britain's economy every year.
According to a financial expert, it is the 1,000-year-old Firm's public perception and influence that makes it so valuable.
Chief executive of Brand Finance David Haigh told Forbes: “It is a very formalized influencer business."

Mr Haigh explained that unlike a celebrity family such as the Kardashians, the Windsors don’t personally profit from the business itself.
However, they contributed an estimated £1.9 billion ($2.7 billion) annually to Britain's economy pre-pandemic.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1437145/how-much-money-does-the-royal-family-bring-in-to-uk-evg

I find it highly unlikely that UK tourism would dwindle to nothing if English royalty went the way of German/French/Italian royalty. It's not like they'd be able to take the big historic castles and palaces with them if they got demoted and refuse to let tourists in to visit them. And it's not like the changing of the guards is the only thing that brings tourists in. Most tourists to the UK never see a royal anyway. The stuff about royal warrants bringing in millions also seems overblown. People would still be buying Johnny Walker and Cadbury without the queen's stamp of approval. I've never heard of the royal warrants before.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

I dunno about that - the British royals are a billion dollar industry and being in mind boggling amounts of tourist dollars … and for the first time ai ce Queen Victoria, brought a lot of cultural stability …

Queen Elizabeth had a knack for hitting the right balance between public ritual/ majestic rituals/ common touch with people/ public service . She just showed up every day in countless ways to bring a sense of British stiff upper lip normalcy in a rapidly changing world.

Charles is more arrogant and out of touch. I hope he can connect with people in the ways that commonwealth citizens expect of a king, but let’s see . His reign may hasten Republican movements around the commonwealth - or he may prove himself to be honest s mother’s son and find ways to reinvent the monarchy according to changing times …

I doubt Charles will be able to fulfill his mothers role
It just isn’t the same anymore
I doubt that they are the billion dollar industry you say
Funeral will cost millions, coronation too
Charles will likely reign for just a decade at the most

Then what?
William is plain and boring

Note: No one expects bipolar creativity for the British royals. William and his wife Kate have amazing social skills and connect with its many different types of people.

Regarding royal Boost to British economy - not insignificant and more importantly many British subjects were proud of the modern form
Of monarchy (hybrid parliamentary-monarchy democracy where royals hold symbolic rather than literal power). The symbols still matter in an ancient living culture ,.,

>>>>>>

Queen Elizabeth II, 95, is the world's most famous monarch, having been on the throne for almost 70 years, and the British Royal Family is known across the globe. While UK taxpayers contribute to the Crown via the Sovereign Grant, the Royal Household also brings in plenty of cash to help boost Britain's economy - and the figure amounts to some billions of pounds.


How much money does the Royal Family bring in?
According to Forbes Magazine, the House of Windsor is estimated to be worth £19 billion ($28 billion) and pumps hundreds of millions of pounds into Britain's economy every year.
According to a financial expert, it is the 1,000-year-old Firm's public perception and influence that makes it so valuable.
Chief executive of Brand Finance David Haigh told Forbes: “It is a very formalized influencer business."

Mr Haigh explained that unlike a celebrity family such as the Kardashians, the Windsors don’t personally profit from the business itself.
However, they contributed an estimated £1.9 billion ($2.7 billion) annually to Britain's economy pre-pandemic.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1437145/how-much-money-does-the-royal-family-bring-in-to-uk-evg

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine the UK and the world without her.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193345/The-Queen-kept-medical-supervision-Balmoral.html#comments-11193345

Why? There is a reason you posted this in entertainment and pop culture. The UK will be fine without her.

I dunno about that - the British royals are a billion dollar industry and being in mind boggling amounts of tourist dollars … and for the first time ai ce Queen Victoria, brought a lot of cultural stability …

Queen Elizabeth had a knack for hitting the right balance between public ritual/ majestic rituals/ common touch with people/ public service . She just showed up every day in countless ways to bring a sense of British stiff upper lip normalcy in a rapidly changing world.

Charles is more arrogant and out of touch. I hope he can connect with people in the ways that commonwealth citizens expect of a king, but let’s see . His reign may hasten Republican movements around the commonwealth - or he may prove himself to be honest s mother’s son and find ways to reinvent the monarchy according to changing times …

I doubt Charles will be able to fulfill his mothers role
It just isn’t the same anymore
I doubt that they are the billion dollar industry you say
Funeral will cost millions, coronation too
Charles will likely reign for just a decade at the most

Then what?
William is plain and boring