ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
To want to throw up a little bit (Prince William comment)(178 Posts)
Just seen a clip on BBC breakfast of a speech given by Prince W, last night somewhere i presume, about how he and Kate are to be forgiven for nervously keeping an eye on their mobiles during the evening; George left at home.
Simpering laughter all round
I'm not anti-royal - bit on the fence - but this made me <vom>.
Over egging the 'ordinary man' pudding IMO. We're not stupid. I know it was light hearted, but come on. Like one of the staff would ring William's mobile mid-speech to say 'oi, Will, where d'y'keep the nappies mate?' FFS. They haven't left him with the teenager from next door!
(Plus i'm now going to have to listen to my mother simpering about did i see how 'Our William' had his mobile on ready in case the baby woke up)
It's early. I'm grumpy.
Thanks Raspberry I will pass your comment onto him.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
YANBU Fluffy, as you say it's all this 'ordinary people' malarkey, winds me up, sooo contrived.
Well done Mignonette's son, in our times with fairness being an ideal, in terms of equal opportunities for all I can't stomach the 'born to rule' logic at all.
Actually although I am no fan of any of them I thought it was disgusting the 'great' British public demanded they return from Balmoral so as to be paraded in London as 'proof' they cared. They were doing what all families do after a death-going into seclusive mourning and protecting the children.
Disgusting parading those children around outside looking at a bunch of mouldering tatty flowers and overblown hysterical 'tributes' from a load of people in love with the drama of it all.
It was ironic that it was the most ardent Monarchists who seemed to expect this public demonstration of mourning. Not the Republicans at all. All those loons in their Union Jack outfits camping outside KP so they could catch a glimpse of the bereaved princes.
I sort of hope you are right, Grow, and that they are just being phased out slowly.
But public image is one thing, and political influence is another. There's growing public concern at the use of the veto, royal correspondence with ministers and so on. Public attitudes may will shift when it looks like Charles is going to get his turn and it'll be interesting to see what happens.
In the meantime, it seems fairly clear that the royal PR team is capitalising on the kid to promote this 'normal family' shtick. It's pretty patronising really.
That's just it though, I'm saying it's changing. I think the British public and Tony Blair as PM forced the Queen into a corner over Diana's death, she was forced into making a public statement I don't think for a minute she wanted to make. There was a slight shift in power at that time.
Just as nothing is set in stone, nothing is going to change overnight either. If you think in our lifetime or that of our children we will see the end of the monarchy I think you are deluded. We are moving forward though, look at the reforms to the House of Lords.
Slowly and surely, whilst maintaining the checks and balances and so providing stability. That's the way to go in my opinion.
We do, as you say, "have a constitution created over many centuries". And it's going to keep changing.
It baffles me that people will point out that the nation's political structure has developed historically, and use that long history to suggest that it's now, finally, set in stone.
Oh please do stop w/ the patronising Grow. It is very tedious.
My son may have absorbed some of our values but he votes differently to us but happens to have kept his same moral and political views re inherited rule.
Feeling sorry for the individual for some of what they experience has got nothing to do w/ what people feel over the institution of the monarchy.
mignonette When I was 12 I would have said all the same things as him. My folks pretty much held the beliefs you have expressed here, and through my youth I agreed with them.
Now, not so strongly really. I feel quite sorry for Prince William, even the baby. I can't for the life of me see why Kate (and her family) wanted to marry into it all. As I said upthread, the 20th Century were not good for that family on a personal level. Loads of tragedy - most of it due to the fact that they were the Royal Family. Now I don't care what you may say about privilege, on a basic human level we are all the same and all touched by the same things on a basic level, and everyone cares about their parents and their children (unless maybe in an abusive situation).
I also think that we have a constitution created over many centuries, and it isn't going to change overnight. I think just now we've not got such a bad thing. They aren't abolished, but they are more or less where we want them. You think the Queen actually wanted Madness on her roof, or does she just do as she is told now? Is that another legacy of Tony Blair?
I stopped liking the royal family when 92 yr old Prince Philip had his 'abdominal surgery' so quickly when my poor Dsis had to wait weeks and weeks for important cancer op only to have it cancelled and then rescheduled a month later. I have really gone off them, big time.
He belonged to a debating group and regularly had to debate an opposing POV. That is the cornerstone of the society really, to stretch them but every now and again you get matched w/ something you actually believe in. He is capable of balanced argument (he's more measured than me )especially now he is an adult.
mignonette Great that he was only 12. I wonder how he might have tackled it if he was asked to debate the opposing view to the one he actually held. That might have ended up more interesting and more of a stretch for him.
I'd love to live in a palace that I don't own
Does that also mean that they don't pay for the upkeep or utilities?
How much property is actually owned by the royals, though? The crown estates were signed over to the government by George III to cover his debts or something; the royals are just allocated an income.
And what mignonette said ^
I think i'm getting more republican as i get older.
Not too sure of my facts re: RF being value for money, but i am sure that many people would take the ethos of a RF better, in these modern times, if it were a smaller circle, the immediate family and not all the cousins thrice removed and other hangers on, that got all the perks.
I am prepared to worship the ground upon which David Bowie walks though
My point Burberry and Heads. No matter what the 'hard work' debate is, fact is the concept of rule by birth alone is an ugly one. It has no rightful place in a modern society.
My son was 12 by the way when he gave that debate and there was a lot more to what he said and yes he factored in royal gala days including the most up to date information regarding cost including cost of shipping in police from other forces to cover numbers. I just can't be arsed to go look it up in all the boxes of school work in the attic but i can assure you the figures are alive and well online if anybody cares to research this.
Either way, I will not dip my head to somebody because of their birth. An accident of fate. Not of achievement, worth or effort.
absolutely - i mean tourists do not visit Versailles and say -ooh yes lovley but it would be so much better with an incumbent monarch' do they?
No, tourism isn't a reason to keep the British Monarchy. I'm not a Royalist. I am just disagreeing with what mignonette was saying about her son's analysis of both tourism and 'hard work' based solely on the facts and figures she stated. There is more to it than that.
In depth analysis of what, exactly?
Speculation on whether or not there may or may not be some effect?
Come on, the most visited tourist attraction in the UK is the Tower of London - all about the history of Britain and its historical rulers, not a current royal in sight.
Whether or not the UK could lose an unquantifiable number of tourists who, for some reason, would simply stop visiting the country if the Monarchy abdicated tomorrow (seems unlikely, don't you think) is only a tiny, tiny part of the argument.
Is our entire political administration and democracy going to be beholden to a hypothetical number of tourists?
Sorry, but tourism isn't even that huge a slice of of our economy anyway (8.8%) and most of that is domestic tourism.
But music is different, because that has stayed alive, so although The Beatles aren't about anymore doesn't mean the music isn't being played all over the world, and that is what keeps it in the public eye. The RF keeps itself in the public eye with stuff like this, and if they were gone, people may visit relics from the past, but they wouldn't be lining the streets for special events like weddings, jubilees and even run of the mill Royal visits (BTW - did your son factor those sorts of things in).
And I think the fact that something isn't measurable doesn't actually weaken any argument. It just provides a need for more in depth analysis.
"Kate is breastfeeding so would obviously be wondering how their baby was doing with bottles of ebm."
however do you know that?
Leave the lad alone! Bet he's going to be great Dad
"To say something cannot be measured is not to say something doesn't exist."
But it does say that it's not a very strong basis for an argument.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.