Many readers may judge your headline in this week’s highlights as being funny, but it is also gratuitous and baseless.

One can honestly debate whether a hereditary principle based on the power derived from the economic circumstances in a feudal and agricultural society should still be upheld for the job of Head of State in today's vastly changed world. Nevertheless, until people in countries with constitutional monarchies decide they would prefer a republican form of government instead, they continue to exist.

All of these monarchies have well defined functions with duties prescribed for and expected of Royals for which they get paid out of the public purse. Yes, they all have considerable inherited wealth in their own right, which makes them no different from anyone else in similar social strata performing a top corporate or public function. So why the cheap shots at the Royals? It is a poor way to advertise the Economist's liberal credentials.

Surely, by commenting on the Royals in Britain as a 'welfare family', the Economist is not suggesting that all inherited wealth, or 'private income', as it is put so nicely in England, would automatically qualify the beneficiaries as being on welfare..?

I'd be happier if she had ever held down a proper job away from her family. But let's hope that the engagement will persuade Charles to bow out. He's just not up to it and as for Camilla ...... I'd better stop here.

William Cuthbertson wrote:
Nov 18th 2010 11:43 GMT

Quoted from me:

"A pound to a penny there are more outside the UK who care than there are inside. They are not paying!"

You replied:

I believe the cost is two pence a week for each of us. Seems good value to me.

-------------

That would make about £1.00 each per year so £60,000,000 per year in total. That just about covers the annual interest lost on Charlie-the-Chump's personal fortune (est £1billion). I think the full cost (not just the cash welfare payments) is very much higher.

Mr Naegele,

I found the comparison between the royals and the Hollywood-type princesses hilarious. Those so called "princesses" are botox/silicone-filled puppets in the hands of the entertainment industry that are only meant to provide circus to the illiterate. They don't have any class, they don't have any education, most of them probably never finished high-school and they talk like five-year olds. Maybe the royals don't really have a role these days, but they have an education and (still) command respect for various reasons. BTW that Sarah Palin is a real piece of work and it looks like she's working hard on her tabloid credentials with that ridiculous reality show. That will surely pave the way to presidency for Momma Grizzly.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/royal-engagement-sets-back-a-republic-...

"Australian republicans are rolling their eyes as news of a royal wedding floods the media and women's magazines.

The potential popularity of the future King William and Queen Kate might also complicate Prime Minister Julia Gillard's plan for Australia to become a republic, which was only to happen once Queen Elizabeth was no longer the monarch.

Despite the engagement having the potential to disrupt her plans for a republic, Ms Gillard welcomed the couple's news.

Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM) have welcomed news of William's pending marriage, which they expect will preserve Australia as a constitutional monarchy."

I have two words to describe your headline. Trite and Boo! To call the Royal family a welfare family rather overlooks that Prince William is an officer in the RAF on active duty! So his bride to be is unemployed for now? That only makes her like millions of others, and there are many varied reasons why this could be so. Perhaps the author of the headline would care to join her?

Though Kate does not have the star power as Diana, she can definitely fit into her future role and the marriage can last. It is just because she has the Diana's history, 7 years of courtships, royal events, years of Paparazzi's activities, etc. to prepare her. She is old enough to understand what will be her future. She seems a quick learner for her new life and the Royal family has given a lot of opportunities for her to practise to be part of the Royal family.

So, let's see how well Princess Catherine can perform her royal duties.

Sorry guys - irrespective of the apathy, disinterest and sheer revulsion that the royal family provokes amongst most of the world (and UK even) - THIS ARTICLE WAS IN JUST BAD TASTE.

I found your author's tone and views rather detrimental and derogatory, and even libelliously insulting to the female characters and women, their child bearing capabilities. Just the fact very few of the royal family - both surviving and deceased are popular seemed to have granted your author licence to write in this tenor.

Disappointing...!!!!!!!!!

With hair falling over the shoulders.

In the soft
chirping of
the new day
there's a delicate
quietness, and
even a fantasy,
like a velvety
flight in the
sound of a word.

Francesco Sinibaldi

I find a lot of the hostility towards the Crown a bit baffling. It does ellicit the strangest of split personality disorders.

For example angrily calling them German imports and then hand on heart solemly condemning xenophobia in the strongest possible forms. And then theres one moment saying they do "bugger all" and then condemning them for doing stuff.

Finally then there is the constant drip-drip complaining about how much they cost while ignoring how much the Presidents of France and Germany cost (i.e. quite a lot compared to the Queen).

Thats not to mention the Republican lobby never having a straight answer to the question "what would you have in the Queen's place?"

Why waste time and pixels with these characters?
Are you turning into a tabloid?

There is a lyric from a song called "My British Tour Diary" by the band, Of Montreal, that I really like. It goes:

"On my trip to England I noticed something obscene / People actually gave a s*** about the Queen"

I think that pretty much sums up my feelings about this article and the British royal family in general.

Judging from the highly derogatory, close to obcene, remarks made about the Royals by a number of readers only reinforces the point of my earlier post that the tabloid headline chosen for this article by the Economist is not worthy of this publication. It is a dumbing down of its standards. The number of low-life comments should therefore come as no surprise.
Such people insult even the concept of republicanism. All they have to offer is venting an unspecified anger by schoolyard name-calling in what they take for humor. Sadly, this is not the first time I have noticed the Economist slipping. Perhaps it is true that many pieces are written by stubble-chinned youths barely out of college, raring to show their editor and the world that they know everthing by engaging in arrogant journalism.

"Since people from stable families are more likely to produce them, she has a better chance of making a go of her marriage than Diana had."

This statement appears to be based on an illogical idea that only a woman can make or break a marriage. It takes two people to make a marriage work.

By your theory, if people from stable families indeed are more likely to produce them, then whatever advantage Ms Middleton is supposed to have inherited as being a product of a 'stable family', is instantly nullified by the fact that her future partner, Prince William is a product of an 'unstable family'. So, together their chances of making the relationship work are neither higher nor lower than any other average couple.

@Timothy D. Naegele and GAULOISETCANADIEN in particular.

As John Pope said, if you had actually met the Queen, you might realise she has more political nous than most of the clown’s we elect to run things. With a long term view (she doesn’t have to be re-elected), she can advise and assist whatever leader is trying to lead.

Common sense, unparalleled gravitas, and stability are characteristics very few other people have, in or out of power.

It’s easy and childish to despise something one can never have, or understand.

Even George Orwell was wise enough to keep the monarchy in his novel 1984.

I am not saying we should let the Monarchy run things (though is doubtful they could do a worse job than the leaders of most of the world have done), but variety of input makes for a better debate.

As to cost, the British public have done very well out of the transfer of wealth from the Monarchy to the Nation, and the subsequent setting up of the Civil List. (a fixed amount paid to the Monarchy in return – a mere fraction of the income made from the portfolio now owned by the nation).

Apart from Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and very few other’s, how many of the very rich the world over would give up all their fortunes for a fixed annuity in perpetuity?

Nah, they keep on buying politicians so that they can continue to amass wealth. If you want to have a go at a group of rich exploitative elitists, have a go at the rich of the west, particularly those in America.

Anyway, I will give a life time subscription to the Economist magazine to anyone who supports the monarchy who is not of English ancestry.

I get a warm fuzzy feeling when I think of them, mainly because my ancestors where better at doing what they did, than any other country’s, which is why the Empire was so successful, and the world speaks English.

What I love about the Royal family is how newsworthy they are. These days serious topics are generally so mind numbing that they don't get on the menu. More digestible topics such as football matches, televised dancing competitions and Brits abroad provide the meat and potatoes with bite-sized rantings about the French, gays, fox hunters and wickedly veiled Muslim ladies to add some fibre, but where would we be without the Royals to provide pure gravy? Effortlessly they ooze news. Harmless, tongue-in-cheek news open for discussion by all.

Long live them all.

most royal families are really big jokes,with all due respect, they are just symbals now. The really royal families are the Bush's,Kenedy's.....

She sounds lovely and also ready for and well suited to the job. Who can but wish them the very best?

Wills seems to be imitating his grandfather, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Very nice couple.

Wills seems to be imitating his grandfather, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Very nice couple.