Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

to not understand why anyone would love the Royal family

(140 Posts)
kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 20:22:34

I mean they do their job well. Turn up for charity events, national events etc.

But they're just doing their job. Why do people love and adore them?

ComposHat Belgium Tue 05-Mar-13 11:52:34

Pam better or not subject to the same degree of scrutiny as elected officials? in public office Charles/Philip would have been sacked or forced to resign many times over.

letsgo the fact that the queen has been a dutiful (if unimaginative) monarch is mere chance, the luck of a genetic draw. If you don't like an elected head of state you can boot them out. With a monarchy you are lumbered with them.

LadyPessaryPam Tue 05-Mar-13 08:33:30

Yes I like the immediate Royals. They are far better then the politico we would get under a presidential system. And the Queen works very hard.

letsgomaths Tue 05-Mar-13 07:34:16

One advantage to the royals is:

Cameron is not the most powerful person in the country. (Shudders at the thought)

I don't think Diana was anything special per se. However, I think she used her position in a way not seen in the Royal Family before and she did that very well indeed.

I'm not a huge royal "fan but I quite like the fact that we have a royal family. I like the historical aspect of it all.

ChairmanWow Mon 04-Mar-13 14:38:22

I say Alan Bennett for President. He could serve Earl Grey and macaroons to world leaders.

Seconded! I want to hear his Christmas speech. It would have a lovely air of domesticity to it, delivered in that unique voice of his. He would make such withering remarks to his Prime Ministers too.

ComposHat Belgium Mon 04-Mar-13 14:34:18

Yes the 'tourism' argument is pretty bogus, the Palace of Versailles is pretty well visited.

I hate the instituion itself as outmoded and absurd, but have a degree of sympathy with its members, forced to fulfill a role that you have no real choice about, your entire life mapped out for you at birth. Admittedly having a gold carraiage and six houses must be some compensation.

Dawndonna Mon 04-Mar-13 14:26:34

Spain, Germany, France. All get plenty of tourists, all manage perfectly well without a monarchy.
Out and out Republican here.

ComposHat Belgium Mon 04-Mar-13 14:23:08

Brian Cox? David Attenborough? Or the lovely Clare Balding

I say Alan Bennett for President. He could serve Earl Grey and macaroons to world leaders.

MammaMedusa Mon 04-Mar-13 14:17:34

I think that Diana was brave. When she chose AIDS and landmines as a campaigning focus, they were difficult and brave choices. Some of the things she did, such as hugging Aids patients were very radical at the time.

She didn't need to do that, she could have just focused on furry animal and cute kid charities.

I also think she was flawed in many ways, but I think it is not fair to dismiss her out of hand as having added nothing.

The few times I have seen the Queen personally, she has not looked remotely dour. She soldiered on with a huge grin in horrendous hail at a Richmond Park event last year when I (forty-something years younger) felt like curling up with a cup of tea.

I think it is fine to debate whether we need a monarchy. I'm not 100% convinced we do. But I don't think attacking individuals wins this debate, any more than I find it wins any other.

RaspberryRuffle Italy Mon 04-Mar-13 14:14:28

To answer Kim, I know people who would profess to 'love and adore' the monarchy, one is a very good friend but we agree to disagree on the matter.
I basically dislike the privileged public positions that the royals hold being passed down to that family for generations, of course many people are born into wealthy families, some wealthier than the royals, but they don't have the position.
I don't hate the royals, I just don't think they deserve to continue to hold this role in the modern day.

Some comments imply you have to meet people to know what they are like as a person, I disagree with this, we can all form opinions based on what we see, hear or read. Obviously not everything in the media is true but we have to form our opinions based on something, so we do know that the royals do a lot of charity work, and we also know that they live in fantastic residences out of most people's reach. The queen may well have a different work ethic to the younger royals, but then many of our grandparents would have had a different work ethic to us. And she may be 86 and in hospital, but she will not be like many of our elderly who are in poor conditions looked after by nurses who are stretched too thin to ensure their dignity is maintained.

I do really dislike the fawning over the royals, I have met some of them through work and was embarrassed (and slightly worried) at the gushing of some of my colleagues.

DontmindifIdo Mon 04-Mar-13 14:11:51

BTW - I neither love or particularly admire them (although I do admire anyone brave enough to actually serve in the armed forces, but that's not paying much attention to if they are royal or not) - but I find it really horrible that we order our society that a certain group, due not to their own actions but to those of their parents/grandparents will live their lives under threat of attack, then begrudge them the cost of securing them.

lottieandmia Mon 04-Mar-13 14:09:42

YANBU - I don't see anything likable about them at all. People who 'like' them are kidding themselves.

Nancy66 Mon 04-Mar-13 14:08:39

I begrudge the cost of protection for their never ending jollies....

JemimaPuddle Mon 04-Mar-13 14:07:32

Im well under the age of 80 and I'm a big fan of the royals smile

Dontmind actually I begrudge the Royal Family every penny they cost us.

<shrugs>

DontmindifIdo Mon 04-Mar-13 14:03:32

Wait, are we really begrudging William and Harry the cost of Royal protection? Does anyone really think they want to be terrorist targets? Bearing in mind, they are considered high risk targets due to decisions made by a Government they don't get to vote for (all members of the royal family don't vote). While the Queen herself could be said to be a target due to her own choices as she does have some influence and power (even if she choses not to use it), William, Harry and the rest have no influence and power, yet are targets.

How much did we spend as a nation keeping Tony Blair, salman rushdie etc alive? Shouldn't we pay as a nation for any citizen who is under threat of attack? Do we really think if you do become a target (your fault or someone else's), that your access to security should be based on your ability to pay rather than a policing decision?

What flatbread* said.

I have to switch channels when Nicholas fucking Witchell starts slobbering on about them - unbearable and irrelevant load of twaddle and I can't believe anybody under the age of 80 is remotely interested.

themottledcat Mon 04-Mar-13 13:50:12

OK, forget about Harry, let's try Prince Edward and the Marines smile

LtEveDallas Mon 04-Mar-13 13:36:18

you sat on the final marking board yet all papers are nameless but you know he passed

Yes. You are wilfully misunderstanding me, so what's the point? One last time. If he didn't pass he wouldn't have gone before RCB. If he wasn't accepted by the RCB he wouldn't have gone to RMAS. If he hadn't passed Sandhurst he wouldn't be a serving officer now. So yes, I know he passed, and guess what, so do you.

Depressing how people love to arse lick royalty. I just don't understand how anyone would get off on doing that

Actually I like him because he is a good soldier and an excellent leader. I like all good soldiers. Bad ones get people killed.

TarkaTheOtter Mon 04-Mar-13 13:21:17

I am no fan of the monarchy but some of you are being particularly obtuse on this thread.

ltEve has NOT said that she saw Harry's paper or his score directly. She just said that she knows that the process is anonymous so if he got in it must have been on his merits.

ZolaBuddleia Mon 04-Mar-13 13:11:34

I was always entirely baffled by the adulation for Diana, when people gushed about her special qualities. Maybe she was a nice woman, maybe she was witty, clever and kind, who knows, but I've always suspected people were so bowled over to meet a person of such fame who wasn't a total cow that they mythologised her.

frillyflower Mon 04-Mar-13 12:54:58

Ltdallas - I would suspect you of being Prince Harry but you are too literate.

Depressing how people love to arse lick royalty. I just don't understand how anyone would get off on doing that.

FreudiansSlipper Mon 04-Mar-13 12:42:31

you sat on the final marking board yet all papers are nameless but you know he passed

how because of the system which does not apply to the royals or inside information if you are implying inside information yes you are breaching confidentiality

flatbread Mon 04-Mar-13 12:36:59

The ruling clearly states that the duchy is a public entity separate from Charles, or indeed the Windsor family.

You can read the whole ruling here. Skip to the last few pages where it is quite clearly laid out.

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2010_0182.pdf

grovel Mon 04-Mar-13 12:36:21

I thought you needed 2 A levels for Sandhurst. Harry got 2 A levels. He was also senior in Eton's CCF - showing commitment to the military.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now