The slimmed-down monarchy ‘is going to be a seriously underweight monarchy’

The slimmed-down monarchy is basically a skeleton at this point. King Charles is being treated for cancer and his events have been extremely limited this year. Queen Camilla needed a 10-day vacation after doing a dozen events in five weeks’ time. The Princess of Wales has not been verifiably seen by the public since Christmas 2023. Prince William is just… MIA, in general. Sophie and Edward are crushingly boring. All of which has led to the royal rota being culled, have you noticed? In the past year or so, suddenly all of those self-important stenographers to power are being sh-tcanned. Thankfully, the royal historian industry is booming, especially when they can chime in with commentary in the American gossip media. Speaking of, royal historian Gareth Russell told Us Weekly that the slimmed-down monarchy is not sustainable and that by the time Huevo and Buttons are on the throne (or whatever), it really will just be the two of them, trying to manage all of the work. Hahahahaha good luck with that.

The slimmed-down monarchy may not be “a mistake,” but royal historian Gareth Russell exclusively told Us Weekly “it’s not what was intended.”

“If you are to use the metaphor, the monarchy is underweight at this stage, it was never intended to reach the levels that it did,” Russell told Us while promoting his book The Palace: From the Tudors to the Windsors, 500 Years of British History at Hampton Court. “It was always anticipated that you would have [King] Charles III with three working siblings and two working children and their wives, and that that would be a sustainable footing for the monarchy going forward.”

In the past five years, the firm lost Prince Harry and Meghan Markle (the pair stepped down from their senior duties in 2020), Prince Phillip (he died at age 99 in 2021), Prince Andrew (his titles were removed in 2022 after he was accused of sexual assault, which he has denied) as well as Queen Elizabeth II (she died at age 96 in September 2022).

“So at the minute we’re looking at a monarchy that really was just holding it together in terms of the number of functions they had to attend and events, overseas visits and particularly their charitable and military obligations,” Russell told Us, adding that Charles, 75, and Princess Kate Middleton’s aligning cancer battles shows “the cracks turning into craters.”

Russell noted that this has sparked conversation among the British media about the possibility that Prince Edward and Sophie’s daughter, Lady Louise Windsor and Andrew’s two daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, could be moved into senior working royal statuses.

“Otherwise it is unsustainable … At the minute, Prince William is the only senior working royal man under the age of 60 and above the age of 16,” Russell said, adding that two women royals fall into that category: Kate, 42, and Sophie, 59.

Russell noted that when Princess Anne, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, Queen Camila, Charles begin to scale back their duties, “there is going to be a seriously underweight monarchy when potentially you would just have King William and Queen Catherine dealing with it, doing all of it until their children come of age.”

“The slim-down monarchy sounded a very good idea when there were so many working royals back in 2000, 2001, but through a variety of factors it is now something that needs to be rethought,” Russell told Us. Russell noted that when conversations about a condensed monarchy began, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and Princess Margaret were alive. “That’s how long ago it was,” he added.

[From Us Weekly]

Two parallel conversations need to happen in this space, where Kate and Charles are both dealing with health issues and William is… somewhere, not working. One conversation is: are the Windsors actually missed by the general public, is there actually an outpouring of sympathy and/or an urgent need to have the royals out and about? The second conversation is: with the core senior royals largely out of sight for months now, does that make anyone rethink the funding/money part of the grand royal calculation? As in, the British taxpayer can say: here’s what I’m getting for my taxes and support of the monarchy this year.. and it’s just Camilla neighing in church while everyone else has gone missing. It’s a pretty weird element, one which the British media rarely discusses – the slimmed down monarchy has become anemic and they’re barely doing their “jobs,” so why are the taxpayers still footing the bill? Why are they still being funded to this degree?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

82 Responses to “The slimmed-down monarchy ‘is going to be a seriously underweight monarchy’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Tessa says:

    Louise is going to university she should not do royal duties. William needs to do more work
    End of.

    • seaflower says:

      The BM would rip Louise to shreds. i know Sophie wants her to do it, but the poor thing needs to live first and determine if she wants to do it.

      • Nubia says:

        If I were Sophie I would keep my child as far away from royal duties therefore the BM as humanly possible. They are going to have a field day with that girl if allowed. Just stay away!

    • Kingston says:

      This part just made me shake my head:
      “Russell noted that this has sparked conversation among the British media about the possibility that Prince Edward and Sophie’s daughter, Lady Louise Windsor and Andrew’s two daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, could be moved into senior working royal statuses.”

      First of all, are these living human beings merely chess pieces to be “moved into………..working royal statuses?” Its 2024 and the monarchy still shows it has no intention of changing their M-O.

      I recall H saying in Section 3 of Spare, when he is describing how chucky had abruptly cut his annual funding, that: chucky wasnt just his father; that he was his boss, comptroller, keeper of the purse strings all his life. That he hadnt ask for this life, he was born into it; that the agreement was, the monarchy would feed, house and clothe them and in return, they agree to keep all their limbs within the golden cage, go where theyre told to go and do what theyre told to do. And that therefore, in cutting him off, chucky was firing him after a lifetime of service and after deliberately preventing them from learning any semblance of independence.

      And when I read that, I thought to myself, wow, no matter how thick the gilt on the cage was, could I survive under those conditions? Especially when you recall how they used to send H all over the world and do everything because the heir was and is a lazy worthless bum; and also especially when you add in the Truman show aspect of it all. Its soul crushing even to contemplate.

      And secondly, back to the original quote: this is just more evidence that the shitmedia is the one pushing the RF buttons, telling them whats acceptable and whats not acceptable. Slim-down monarchy was an acceptable goal, but now that its in effect and has gone wrong, its time to bring in some new blood.


      • lanne says:

        It makes me increasingly sad for the Wales kids. The royals racist obstinancy will ensure that they will learn nothing, and continue their financial abuse into the next generation. So Louis and Charlotte will be trapped like Harry was trap, totally dependent on a jealous father who will control their money (and Will seems even more of a tightwad than Charles), control what work they do and how much, and ultimately control the decisions they make, like who they can marry.

        It’s a perfect opportunity for a major rebellion, if those kids have any desires for independence or self detrmination, and they will have the example of Uncle Harry and Aunt Meghan, no matter how much poison they are being fed right now. If William is this open about hating his brother to the media, I can only imagine what his children are hearing. And we already have the example of them avoiding Meghan when Archie was an infant–and no child would ignore a baby unless they were told too and feared what would happen if they didn’t do as told.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Lanne, same. It makes me so sad to even think of those three children. There’s no way that their futures aren’t bleak. The only positive aspect is the access to information that they’ll have that other royals didn’t, growing up. I have no doubt that eventually they’ll get curious and want to know more about what really happened to Uncle Harry, and in addition to the internet, hopefully they’ll smuggle a copy of Spare in and all three will read it. George already strikes me as sensitive and somewhat sad, and I sincerely hope that somehow, things change, and he doesn’t suffer the same fate as his father.

    • StillDouchesOfCambridge says:

      Louise will get convinced to do it, but 100% it will be a mistake

  2. Concern Fae says:

    The taxes/value for money argument was always a dangerous one to make. Because the answer depends far more on how much you support the monarchy than anything the royal family is actually doing, or how much tax money they are getting. Also sets you up for endless critical articles.

  3. seaflower says:

    “Camilla neighing in church” bwahahahaha.

  4. Eurydice says:

    This piece is so interestingly dispassionate. Perhaps it’s because this guy is an historian, but there’s no sense of alarm, no blaming of H&M, no blah blah about how William hates Harry. Just “the monarchy is dying of starvation – oh, well.”

    • Tuesday says:

      I noticed the writer’s tone as well. Hopefully we will see more semi neutral reporting going forward.

    • Julianna says:

      Gareth Russel is definitely not like the rota rats but don’t be fooled by him and this article. He is definitely part of the “royal payroll plan”. He is on the royal beat often enough twisting himself into pretzels trying to say how wonderful they all are. He does talk about H&M and will be critical but nothing in comparison to the others.

    • Lorelei says:

      They refer to the members of the RF as widgets, not actual human beings with agency.

  5. equality says:

    If it’s unsustainable how come other countries have fewer royals on the payroll and get along? The unsustainable part is allowing the royals to control 2 duchies plus large amounts of the rest of the country and paying them big bucks. Cut back on the pay like other European countries have and a monarch and spare should be sufficient. If the royals are such a draw, charities who want their patronage should be able to raise enough funds to pay them for appearances, same as with the celebs that the royals look down on. It sounds bad but when the title said “seriously underweight” I thought about how some of the royals do seem to be looking slimmer lately.

    • Smart&Messy says:

      equality, so true about the two duchies. I think most of the UK taxpayers have no idea how much the family rakes in from those two estates. One of the commenters here mentioned a correctional facility on the D of Cornwall estate that pays millions in rent to Peg and yet the upkeep of the property is paid by the government (the one who pays rent too). I am sure this is just one of many examples the general public doesn’t know much about. We keep hearing how the Duchy yields William about 20-something million a year. Since this sum is so widely reported, I bet the real amount is much bigger than that and he just lets this smaller amount circulate. Their supporters keep saying how it’s their private property, but how did it get to be, you know?

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        Their supporters are so ignorant they repeat that line about how the royals are self sufficient, really makes you wonder if they failed to teach feudalism to these poor pick-mes.

      • Lorelei says:

        Can a Brit explain to this American why the amount of money the RF gets can only go up, and never be reduced? Because that is batsh!t crazy. At the very least, the amount spent on them annually should be tied to how many of them are actually working, FGS.

  6. s808 says:

    Folks keep ringing the alarm about this. As soon as H&M were ran out, everyone should’ve realized this was a real possibility but their arrogance in thinking they be as abusive as they wanted with no consequences blinded them.

    Also, the king and the heir do not care about the lack of working royals. They’re happy there’s less people to hog funds and take up the spotlight (though W seems to be running in the opposite direction of said spotlight)

    • Josephine says:

      I think that’s the bottom line – the royals DO NOT CARE and there is no way to hold them accountable for their lack of work ethic. They are doing less and less and still taking money. They are absolutely shameless in amassing vast amounts of property and cash that they simply have not earned.

      Until people wake up, they will continue to do exactly as they please.

      • pottymouth pup says:

        apparent lack of work ethic is an understatement considering that Queen side-piece is considered a workhorse clocking in with a whopping *checks notes* 12 events over a 35 calendar day period

    • Oh come on. says:

      Apparently even after H&M left, Chuck and his advisers didn’t foresee that their generation would get old and W&K would be the only remaining working-age adults.

      Sorrows. Prayers.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      We went from that smug mean girl look on their faces as they wore the same color to stick it to Meghan to Quiet Quitting AI Princess and Zoom Prince.

      Apparently taxpayers are fine paying £127,000 a day (though I later saw this was PER HOUR) for a once a month zoom prince and a never appearing AI Princess.

      • SueBarbri33 says:

        I’ll never forget the strange, public pettiness of them all wearing lilac or maroon or whatever for the little Christmas concert. It was one of those odd moments in life when the subtext becomes text, when gossip and speculation becomes real. They should have been embarrassed, but instead they seemed to think it was a real winning effort. The RR and the RF have done all of this to push out H&M and to support and uplift Will and Kate and now they are getting absolutely nothing in return, and I love that for them. And for all of us.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Sue, that was so cringeworthy. I had secondhand embarrassment from even watching them. That’s a stunt one would expect from a clique of mean girl middle-schoolers.

  7. SarahCS says:

    Unless you pay attention, I wonder how much the wider population has even noticed any changes (beyond ‘where’s Kate’ becoming a pop culture moment recently). Most people DNGAF if anyone royal is turning up at a charity or opening something and not only because they’re worried about feeding their family or keeping the lights on at home, they royals are just not relevant to our lives.

    The only people with true vested interest are the royals themselves and the media. The media are the reason we won’t have those conversations that we should be having.

    • Christine says:

      It really is fascinating. They have convinced the population that the monarchy is vital for the U.K.’s image while making all of their money raging at the two members of the royal family who left the entire continent and are self-sufficient.

      The “there’s nothing to see here” has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, two of the four most senior royals are almost entirely absent, and the other two are barely hobbling along. God forbid anyone talk about the taxpayer funding or the feudal duchy system that ensures that the monarch and heir have unimaginable wealth even if they do nothing at all. There is zero critical thinking happening, other than the small ‘r’ republicans.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Christine, it really is wild to watch. For every reason you stated. Hopefully the movement to abolish the monarchy will grow as older royalists die off and younger generations look more critically at how much money is wasted on it.

  8. Chloe says:

    The way the press gets the titles wrong all the time is really bothering me. Meghan has been married for nearly 6 years now. Either just call her Meghan or address her by her actual title: Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex. And Kate is NOT a princess. Either just call her kate or just call her Catherine, the princess of wales. Or just PoW

    • Tuesday says:

      I understand your frustration, but they do that for search engine optimization. They use the terms people are most likely to search for to drive traffic and clicks. This site does it, too. That’s why Kate is “Kate Middleton.”

    • Concern Fae says:

      This is because the royal household staff can’t be bothered to find a naming convention for married in women that meets what newspapers are willing to print. The official version is that Kate and Meghan should be called Princess William and Princess Harry. So the media refers to them by their maiden names instead. The problem became obvious with Diana and Sarah, but they’ve done nothing in the 30 years since. Ridiculous.

  9. Mslove says:

    More money, less work. Who wouldn’t be happy about that? The family grift continues.

  10. Jais says:

    I don’t know that it matters how many royals there are or how many show up? The SG is set and the cost is going up. Apparently it can never be reduced. Unless the tabloids decide to start writing about that which I’m think they won’t, what’s going to happen? Maaaybe, if Labour wins the next election but even then Im not sure? Idk but I’m feeling cynical this morning. Like what’s really going to happen?

    • Amy Bee says:

      Labour as it exists now is basically Tory light and very much pro-monarchy.

    • SURE says:

      I think it’s unlikely SIR Keir Starmer will reduce or restructure the SG, ensure that KFC & W’s duchies pay corporate tax or enact laws requiring KFC & W to pay personal income tax on their earnings from the duchies.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      I agree with you and the above replies. Labour will do things to support industrial action and be more pro workers, nurses, etc but they’re hardly set to charge the ramparts.

      Still, after decades of conservative rule, it’s really important that Labour get elected. They have to form a government and serve for a while before a further left push can even be tolerated.

  11. Mads says:

    Whilst the lack of working royals is a problem for the media and the institution on a PR standpoint, the real danger is William ascending to the throne. He’s lazy AF and will not be able to cope with the discipline and requirements of the constitutional role of the monarch, let alone the public PR requirements of attending engagements, garden parties etc. Charles was a very busy PoW with varied interests that kept him incredibly busy; William can barely make himself feign interest in anything other than his pet projects. It’s going to be a disaster.

    • rosa mwemaid says:

      William has already said he isn’t interested in the Commonwealth or the Church so that’s a couple of problems gone. Will he get someone else to read the red boxes and just tell him the interesting bits. The late Queen would not be happy.

      • Lorelei says:

        Liz is SPINNING in her grave

      • Mads says:

        Plus, we have KP already briefing he will be carrying out his role very differently i.e. less engagements, charities and working from home. If he cannot keep on top of the red boxes and that has a detrimental effect on the business of government, then that will require a change in some elements of the monarch’s constitutional role. George may ascended to a greatly diminished monarchy where he is purely a figurehead and not integral to the functioning of government.

  12. Amy Bee says:

    As long as the press is backing the Royal Family the public will not be allowed to have the conversation about whether the monarchy is still needed.

  13. KeKe Swan says:

    “The slimmed down monarchy is a skeleton!” Ka-BOOOOOOM! Now that’s what you call a mic drop!

  14. Alexandria says:

    What’s the problem? Oh that’s right, lesser royals but more funding! 🤣

  15. The Hench says:

    If I had a magic wand, here’s what I would do:

    1. Remove EITHER the Sovereign Grant OR the duchy incomes – both Lancaster and Cornwall. The SG is set to be £145m this year. Income from both duchies is over £40m.
    2. Since the SG is a subset of profits made on Crown land etc probably makes most sense to fold the duchies back into overall Crown property and keep the SG.
    3. Royal properties need streamlining. They only need one huge property in or near London – they don’t need Buckingham Palace AND Clarence House AND St James’ Palace AND Kensington Palace AND Windsor Castle. (let’s not forget the taxpayer £369 MILLION being spent on BP’s restoration over and above any other spending!!). Especially not when there’s like three of them doing one or two ‘events’ a week – if that. Suggest keeping KP and Windsor.
    3. The slimmed down RF – including WFH Willy and MIA Kate can manage their workloads and their security on the SG. If they can’t – given how little they do – then some questions…
    4. Let’s not forget the Monarch inherited over half a billion tax free – there’s also got to be an enormous income on that – they have plenty of money.
    5. Security costs – estimated at over another £100m – go back to the tax payer. Again – why are security costs as high as they were when multiple members were out doing 300+ events a year??

    Just a loose starter for ten…

    • Agnes says:

      Put them all in council flats FFS.

      • QuiteContrary says:

        Sue Townsend wrote a hilarious novel with this very scenario, “The Queen and I.”

        One character complains: “I mean, what are the Royal Family for, if they’re goin’ to be jus’ like ordinary people?”

        Take note, WFH Willy.

    • HuffnPuff says:

      I like where you’re going with that, Hench. That’s where the slimming needs to happen. I think this is the fight many of us are having. It’s us against people who yearn for the old days. They don’t like the idea of the castles not being lived in although that is exactly what is happening now and what has been happening. The British taxpayers are funding empty buildings in the name of tourism. Well if that’s what the castles are there for, why not make really money from them? Turn the into museums, condos and hotels. The remaining royals can have some property but there’s no need to have multiple homes. And they seem to be capable of generating their own wealth so if they need security beyond the big ticket events, that should be on them.

      • Lorelei says:

        That’s exactly it— their BS argument about the RF bringing in tourists might actually become somewhat viable if people could actually visit BP — all of it, not just a sectioned off part for a couple of weeks a year — and some of the other well-known residences. Open up Balmoral except for the month of August, when the monarch is typically there. Same with Sandringham— close it at Christmas but full access the rest of the time. This will likely never happen, but it would help these people to actually bring in some money instead of always just spending it. (I know the RF claims they “privately own” some of these properties, but that’s bullsh!t…everything they have can be traced back to the taxpayers.)
        I’m not sure what’s supposed to happen with Anne, Edward, and Andrew’s properties after they pass away, but those sweet “leases” the Queen gave them should only exist for THEIR lifetimes. (I don’t even think they should get that much, but I know there’s no way that’s changing.)

        None of them need multiple homes, either…imagine how much ££ could be made turning Anmer Hall, Frogmore Cottage, Highgrove, and a bunch of others I’m forgetting into B&Bs.That’s another thing that won’t happen, but could be a real moneymaker if the royals weren’t so greedy.

    • Lulu says:

      Thank you, Hench! I just want to add that I can’t think the slimmed down monarch is good for tourism. IF the RF are to be drawing in tourists there need to be more than seven under 80 y/o. Judging by the last few years, the Wales televised events (Earthshot and Christmas concert) get abysmal ratings, so they clearly there is little interest in them. Diana, QEII, Margaret, the Queen Mum, and Philip probably did draw in tourists in their day. Of course, Harry and Meghan would, but they were the biggest draw and that was the reason they were hounded out of the country.

  16. Brassy Rebel says:

    The keeled over trombone player is the perfect symbol for the monarchy. If they’re about to have only W&K as “working royals”, that’s the end, right there. Maybe instead of abolish the monarchy, the slogan should be defund the monarchy.

    • SarahCS says:

      Good point, many (but not all) of my objections would go away if they weren’t leeching off the country and giving nothing in return. Take away the SG and ‘crown’ properties and they would still be far from poor but the nation would have a lot more to spend on the actual people who need it.

    • QuiteContrary says:

      I hooted when I saw that photo on this post. Kaiser is a genius.

  17. Sunday says:

    “here’s what I’m getting for my taxes and support of the monarchy this year.. and it’s just Camilla neighing in church while everyone else has gone missing.”

    lmfaooooo cannot stop cackling

  18. Oh come on. says:

    They get paid millions of £££ per year out of the taxpayer’s pocket. It’s not fee-for-service, they can’t easily be sh*tcanned nor can their pay easily be reduced. If they work more, they don’t get more £££, their outrageous wealth and income stays the same.

    All the incentives point toward minimizing how much they “work”. Will is milking that for all it’s worth. Which is a lot.

  19. Becks1 says:

    There is a real conversation to be had about the cost of the royal family but as long as the mainstream british press keeps parroting the “tourism” issue and the idea that only costs one pound per year per person in the UK or whatever, its going to be a tough for that conversation to gain steam.

    Honestly, George is 11 this year. If they are that hard up for working royals, it may end up that he doesn’t get the multiple decades that his father has gotten of “learning the ropes” or a “private life” before he has to start working as a FT royal. He may have to start at 22 or 23, just because by then – you won’t have the Gloucesters most likely, you probably def won’t have the duke of kent working, Anne will be in her 80s, Edward will be in his 70s, etc.

    Charles really should have considered this before he pushed H&M out the door but oh well, they’re better off.

    • Lulu says:

      I don’t think that figure takes into account the money the UK taxpayers are giving the Charles by not charging inheritance tax.

  20. Harper says:

    Slimmed down monarchy always seemed like a public relations campaign to me. Back when it started, in the early 2000s, people were still mad at the Windsors for being the only ones in the world who were rude and mean and terrible to Diana and basically snubbed their noses at everyone that was justifiably shocked and wounded by her death.

    The slimmed down monarchy was a bone tossed to the peasants to make them think that the royals were actually good people who were conscious of their immense good fortune and were going to be mindful custodians going forward. So I love this skeletal collapse for them. Just goes to show that the universe saw what was falsely put out into the world back then and is now giving them what they said they wanted but on steroids.

  21. Shawna says:

    Just a post to say how glad I am H&M are out of this. They’d undoubtedly have stepped up and done so much work since January, and then Camilla and Carole would be on the phone to the rota rats constantly to give the press a way to spin what they’re doing. And then the furor about “protocol” and “overshadowing” would have let William and Kate have more cover. Workshy Huevo is being given way too much slack as it is.

  22. Blithe says:

    Eh. This says so much about Charles’s values and planning skills. The York kids and the Wessex/Edinburg kids — and their parents — were informed early on that there would be no places for them as working royals. This was in sharp contrast to the way that the Queen and prior generations supported and used their immediate and extended family members.

    Did Charles expect his aging siblings to hang in there as working Royals forever? Did he expect the Sussexes to put up with abuse indefinitely? The biggest issue though, from a practical standpoint, is that no one in their right mind would want their own well-being or that of their children to rest in William’s hands. Either Charles can’t see that — or flat out doesn’t care.

    Charles’s selfish pursuit of Camilla has really been quite insidiously destructive. I hope Charles realizes what he’ll be known for in the history books.

    Charles the Whipped? Followed by William the Unready? (Help me out here peeps! Lol)

    That pic with the fallen trombonist is PERFECT!

  23. Lau says:

    The British people is basically being scammed daily, how have they not overthrown this entire institution yet is beyond my comprehension. They are literally getting nothing out of it in return. Royalists can say that the royal family is a touristic attraction by itself all the want it doesn’t make the people of this country any richer, on the contrary.

  24. Mary Pester says:

    Oh, sorry, have the Royals been somewhere? I thought they were just doing their usual “yeah we got the wage rise so we’ve fkd off on holiday till Christmas (as usual).
    Facts, Charlie is sick
    Fact, Kate pretends to be
    Fact, Andrew is a sick twisted individual
    Fact, William is a lazy, incandescent pratt
    Fact Sophie thinks SHE’S the next queen
    Fact, Edward goes along to get along
    Fast Beatrix and Eugene are Andrews daughters so are tainted by him (not fair I know)lady Louise is to immature
    Fact, camzilla is a part time queen, so all in all they are a really fkd up monarchy going nowhere fast

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Mary Pester, I think about when KFC is no longer here and Billy Idle tells the Escort she’s out. The older worker bees will be pensioned off (I hope) by KFC and there will only be Ed & Sophiesta. I suspect that will happen way sooner than anyone imagined. Times will get interesting.

      • Mary Pester says:

        @saucy&sassy, see I’m starting to ask, WHERE is Charlie,
        Also we have all got it wrong, when they said they wanted a slimmed down monarchy, they ACTUALLY meant, a slim downed Working Week for the Royal family!! /

  25. TIFFANY says:

    It was never about liking Bald and Bones. It was always about hating Meghan and Harry.

    They got what they wanted, The Sussexes are gone and not they are admitting what we already knew. They never liked The Wales.

  26. Cait says:

    Why is that trombone player laying on the ground?

    • Feeshalori says:

      Poor guy looks like he collapsed, but in the spirit of doing his duty, he’s still playing the trombone./s What an apt metaphor for the monarchy.

    • Sarah says:

      If memory serves, he passed out from the heat.

    • Jaded says:

      They frequently faint at these events. A combination of having to stand ram-rod straight for hours, heavy beaver hats and often in very warm weather.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Bear hats, they kill a bunch of Canadian bears for those hats. Beavers got killed off in the 19th century (for the most part; of course they still exist, just in far fewer numbers). Beaver tummy pelts were used for those stupid top hats.

  27. ohwell says:

    Only the tabloid media care about the slimmed down monarchy.

  28. AlexS says:

    Charles and the British media made the crucial bunder of thinking William and Kate would step up to the plate and pick up the slack for Harry and Meghan. This of course didnt happe and now with Charles and Kate ill and William seemly cant be bothered to do any work, it shows they have miscalcuted. They cant blame Harry and Meghan either, i think its why they keep wishcasting that Harry will come back and help.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      AlexS, they thought Harry would be back within a few months after cutting off his funding and security. I think the brf have held onto that theory and expected Harry to return. Now, it’s probably finally sinking in that that will not happen. For some reason, they never planned what to do without Harry. He’s been gone 4 years, yet no other plan is in place.

      Most businesses have 5-year, 10-year, etc. plans for the future. The Monarchy isn’t a Firm or business. I can’t figure out what it is–perhaps just a bunch of people who are related by blood with no clear picture where they will go in future.

  29. Gabby says:

    I cannot think of a more apt metaphor for the BRF than that picture of the trombone player on the ground and all the others around him continuing to play instead of checking to see if he is OK. No. Humanity. Whatsoever.

    Revise the sovereign grant to pay the royals by the hour and make the fools log in and account for their time.

  30. JudyB says:

    I cannot imagine why people think that the two York daughters would want to step into this mess. They are both happily married and have young children, as well as having jobs and husbands who are doing well financially. They have been out in the real world, and have been watching all this stuff that Harry and Meghan have had to put up with, as well as their own experiences with the media.

    And yet, they keep getting mentioned as if they are just waiting in the wings for their chances to back up W&K and KC, as if they have been well-treated by these royals or have even shown they care about them.

    So, poor Louise, and certainly poor Charlotte and Louis, and even poor George for having to wear a suit to the occasional sports event his dad takes him to!