The people in the UK I speak with have absolutely no interest in the older members of the family and certainly not their off-spring. In fact they do not even know and can' be bothered to know how the Kents or Gloucester's are even related to the King! The demographical basis for the support for the monarchy as an institution is narrowing fast so it might be a good idea to read the room and adapt to a new reality. If that reality looks more like a continental monarchy? We are glad to be that beacon of hope and common sense, once again.
Given your focus on the monarch and his direct heirs, why do you exempt the Princess Royal and the Edinburghs from your proposed 'pogrom'?
Secondly, the ideas that you espouse do not reflect the way in which the monarchy has worked in the UK and the other realms, where Her late Majesty's sister and cousins played important roles in maintaining royal visibility. Notwithstanding his earlier comments about downsizing the monarchy, The King will need help in maintaining a royal presence in the other realms which are not predestined to become republics, as some assume.
Just as the British don't seek to export their more expansive system to continental Europe, I don't why or how the more restrictive systems of continental Europe offer a workable model for the UK and the other realms to follow.
Finally, non of your comments have any bearing on the Sussexes, who are not working royals, just as the Michaels of Kent are not. And who have not, as I said, done anything in my view to warrant Parliament even noticing their sad existence.
335
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index