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?

flatbread Sun 03-Mar-13 20:29:45


I don't think they are doing a particularly good 'job' either.

Queen - grim and no idea what she stands for
Her old man - seems like a racist twat
Charles - comes across as an entitled and pompous fart
William - angry and whiney about 'privacy'
Kate -lazy
Harry - promiscuous

Only one who seems somewhat likable is Camilla, but she was The Other Woman, so no respect for her either

SkinnybitchWannabe Sun 03-Mar-13 20:34:56

I love the 'proper' royals.

hermioneweasley Sun 03-Mar-13 20:36:26

YANBU. Flatbread sums it up nicely.

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 20:37:05

But why skinnybitchwannabe

What do you love about them?

ChairmanWow Sun 03-Mar-13 20:37:31

Wot Flatbread said. And let's not even mention Andrew.

Branleuse Sun 03-Mar-13 20:39:03

The french had the right idea

cookielove Sun 03-Mar-13 20:41:52

Can't stand any of the royals, can't understand any of the hype about them <urgh they make me shiver when i think about it>

However that said i do think they are a good tourist attraction, but that is it!!

aquashiv Sun 03-Mar-13 20:43:15

Some people love to 'know your place and be oppressed perhaps? It's beyond reason why a country as poor as ours still keep them.
When the Queen goes we should send them down the job centre.

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 20:43:38

I'm still not sure what there is to "love" or "adore" about them. They're just doing their job.

aquashiv Sun 03-Mar-13 20:44:38

What is a 'proper' Royal anyway?

RattyRoland Sun 03-Mar-13 20:48:20

Yanbu, agree with flatbread.

I'm not very interested in them myself. TBH I wouldn't be hugely in favour of executing them or even of pensioning the Queen off, but I think we can probably dispense with the whole concept when she finally dies. WHich will be within 20 years as living much longer than that will only start the old lizardy conspiracists off again.

ReturnOfEmeraldGreen Sun 03-Mar-13 20:50:24

The Queen is a lizard? confused

Sunnywithshowers Sun 03-Mar-13 20:56:41


LtEveDallas Sun 03-Mar-13 20:56:43

I don't 'love' them, but I think they are good for the country, help national pride, are a focus of interest and a hark back to the old days with all the fabulous pomp and ceremony.

I'm amused at Flatbreads list (as I always am when these threads come up). It's all supposition. I highly doubt that anyone as vehemently anti-royal as FB has actually met or spent any time with them, so it's nothing but guess work based on what? The newspapers? The Internet?

cluelesscleaner Sun 03-Mar-13 21:00:33

What gets me is the amount of news coverage the BBC gives them. Do I want to keep hearing about them and their pampered, entitled existence - no I bloody don't!

SucksToBeMe Sun 03-Mar-13 21:00:55

Flatbed summed it up really well!


ChairmanWow Sun 03-Mar-13 21:04:05

By the same token how could any of us 'subjects' possibly live them?

You've got to admit that the Queen does look like a right miserable old fucker though. I'm not sure standing around looking bored and pissed off helps engender a sense of national pride. National meh maybe.

Also what good old days are these? The feudal system? Not sure the rest of the population did right well out of that TBH.

ChairmanWow Sun 03-Mar-13 21:04:58

<love> them. D'oh!

MrsDoomsPatterson Sun 03-Mar-13 21:09:17

Flatbread on the nose baby.

idiot55 Sun 03-Mar-13 21:11:42

I feel sorry for them, what a nightmare having little privacy.

The queen in 86, quite entitled to look miserable I think with all she has to put up with.

LtEveDallas Sun 03-Mar-13 21:15:48

I didn't say 'good' old days confused.

It's the pomp and ceremony of the old days that interests and pleases me. The traditions, the ceremonies, the homes, the clothes. All the stuff that is being worn away by modern life. They still have footmen in tights for Gods sake! Formal dinners take forever due to all the toasts that have to be held, in accordance with a tradition set in stone 100 years ago. I love all that stuff, I love all the history and the reasons behind the traditions. It fascinates me.

I've been able to work 'with' one Royal and one Royal spouse, do some work 'for' another and have met a few in passing/introductions etc. None of them have come across as offensive, well except Princess Anne who is a law unto herself. Like I said I don't 'love' them, but I do like them and what they bring to the table.

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 21:18:20

The USA do all the pomp and pageantry quite well.

Kewcumber Sun 03-Mar-13 21:22:36

I have little opinion on the royal family beyond that the queen seems a reasonably competent and not overly expensive head of state compared to others. But am loving the concept that we are such a terribly "poor" country that we can't afford the £1 per year per person (or whatever) they cost us!

Kewcumber Sun 03-Mar-13 21:25:31

clueless they get way less coverage than football - equally entitled and pampered and imvho even more boring than the royals.

ClippedPhoenix Sun 03-Mar-13 21:31:54

They are an integral part of what makes England unique. I come from a tiny little Island in the whole scheme of things count my country as the best.

What would you want then OP, a President as in America? The ones I recall were a total joke. One was a part bit actor, one was a total war monger and as for the latest.

England has HISTORY and I'm proud of my monarchy the same way I'm proud to be English.

I don't "love" them as that would just be plain weird but I'm very glad we have them.

lappy Sun 03-Mar-13 21:36:51

I love them. I find the history behind the royal family fascinating. I wouldn't want to be one myself though!

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 21:37:18

Ah - the who do you want instead comment?

Why are people proud of the Monarchy?
Do you know your history and how the Monarchy have treated the public?

idiot55 Sun 03-Mar-13 21:50:20

clipped, do you mean United Kingdom?

LtEveDallas Sun 03-Mar-13 21:54:20

Ahh Kim, but America doesn't have as much history, so I'm not as interested (plus the fact I'm not American smile)

I'm interested though, what would you have if not the Monarchy?

ClippedPhoenix Sun 03-Mar-13 21:56:53

No, I mean what I said idiot. England.

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 21:57:56

If we need a Head of State who has no political powers, I'm sure we could find a suitable apolitical candidate who does not express their views but is someone the country could look up to.

Or not have a Head of State and just have let our PM do the ceremonial meeting of dignitaries. At least he's been elected.

ClippedPhoenix Sun 03-Mar-13 21:59:13

Do you know what despots do all over the world? Which has been going on for centuries? and is still going on.

ClippedPhoenix Sun 03-Mar-13 22:00:53

Elected by who? us? are you mad. It's all bloody spin and there isn't even a government about at the moment that I'd piss on if they were on fire.

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 22:01:36

The despots argument as well.

You can play monarchy bingo.

Did you know what King Leopald of Belgium did in the Congo? Only 100 years ago.

ClippedPhoenix Sun 03-Mar-13 22:01:48

Politics is a big game, can't you see that?

ClippedPhoenix Sun 03-Mar-13 22:03:37

I dont really care about King Leopald to be honest. I care about Englands Monarchs and there's really no comparison, it just makes you appear foolish to mention it.

MissAnnersley Sun 03-Mar-13 22:05:29

I can't see anything loveable about them.

I would like to have a republic. Other countries manage without a monarchy.

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 22:07:42

You brought up despots in other countries as an example of what happens. I mentioned what some Monarchs are capable of.

I'm pretty sure we can have someone as a Head of State who's not a despot.

Brian Cox? David Attenborough? Or the lovely Clare Balding could have a go when needed for special occasions. grin

Bartlebee Sun 03-Mar-13 22:08:56

I neither like nor loathe them. I have little interest in them tbh. We went to Legoland when Kate & William got married so saw none of it. I do think those people that camp out in the mall to wave their flags or laid flowers at KP when Diana died are slightly unhinged.

I quite fancy a republic.

flatbread Sun 03-Mar-13 22:13:03

We don't need an unelected hereditary head of State

We have an elected Prime Minster
A deputy PM
A house of elected representatives and an upper chamber of many non-political experts
Appointed professional ambassadors
Plus people who have excelled at sports/arts/business/social work as unofficial ambassadors

If thee is any constitutional crisis, it should be settled by the judiciary

If you hold elected leaders in disdain, but look up to hereditary monarchy, you are in the wrong century smile

mogwai Sun 03-Mar-13 22:16:10

I think the whole concept of monarchy is very outdated, however I also try to stand back and see how they form part of our fabric as a nation.

When Diana died I had a real sense of living through an interesting period of history. They don't cost me much, personally.

The queen is bloody marvellous. She didn't ask to be born into the role, she got no choice and has such a sense of duty. I think she sets a great example and I don't think she's miserable at all, I think she has a lovely face full of expression. Not a huge fan of the rest of them, but wouldn't want to swap with the poor buggers either. Good luck to them with their palaces and their comforts. I bet they'd swap for your freedom.

There's a radio dj who quotes that the Monarchy costs something like 27p a year per person to 'maintain'.
Why? The Queen is one of the richest people in the UK (if not the World)

When the Queen Mothers residence was redocorated for Prince Charles whp paid? The Queen? The Great British Public?
Similarly (IIRC Windsor Castle) the fire. Who paid?

The Olympics- when the camera caught the Queen she looked so blardy miserable and picking her nails.

Prince Andrews DD going travelling- who paid for the security?

I'm not a fan but I can see the revenue it brings to the UK.
But should only be IMMEDIATE royal family (ie Queen, Phillip, her 4 DC + grandchildren).
Not the cousins / Aunts/Uncles

kissmyheathenass Sun 03-Mar-13 22:17:39

Wot Flatbread said. Exactly!

INeverSaidThat Sun 03-Mar-13 22:21:14

I would much rather not have any Royal family. I don't know them so can't say that I like or dislike them as individuals.

I really don't get why people fawn over them.

squeakytoy Sun 03-Mar-13 22:21:54

We need the income that tourism fetches, which is mainly involving the Royal Family. It keeps thousands of people in this country in employment.

Agent64 Sun 03-Mar-13 22:22:27

70 I am not a monarchist but the Queen picking her nails was the highlight of the Olympics for me grin


kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 22:24:40

So we'd lose money if we had no Royal Family? I'm sure the palaces would still be a draw - as would London and our lovely countryside.

We do have a lot of history.

And democracy is important.

Morloth Sun 03-Mar-13 22:25:06

I don't really get the love, but I don't get the hate either.

Never met any of them so I pretty much have no opinion of them personally.

The next politician in Australia who pushes for a republic gets my vote.

Don't want or need a royal family IMO.

DioneTheDiabolist Sun 03-Mar-13 22:26:28

I like them. Royalty give good gossip, good entertainment and good Head of State for a reasonable price.

MissAnnersley Sun 03-Mar-13 22:34:48

I don't think the US suffer too much in the tourism stakes from not having a monarchy.

When I visited Paris I still went to Versailles even though nobody royal had lived there from quite some time.

Tourists would still come if we were a republic.

And we would find something else to gossip about I'm sure.

hiddenhome Sun 03-Mar-13 22:36:21

I'm not really interested in them. I feel quite sad when I hear the BBC news rattling on about her being in hospital and having to have 'tests' <shock, horror> and I think about all the elderly folk I've cared for who've been let down by the system and received totally inadequate care. The Queen is thoroughly pampered and she has no idea of what it is to go without or really suffer with age related problems. She doesn't have to cook, clean or struggle to the doctors or shops sad

When our street flooded we had quite a few elderly people living in various houses and the council didn't even come around to check on them sad

The Queen will be fine, it's other people we should be worrying about.

WillSantaComeAgain Sun 03-Mar-13 22:45:41

70 Windsor castle paid for by opening Buck House to the public.

flatbread do you know Prince Charles personally then? Because pomposity is probably a character trait that requires at least one dinner party to have actual knowledge of.

Prince Charles is actually quite a visionary. He was expounding the virtues of organic farming, sustainability and eco friendliness years before it became mainstream (and was widely derided for his views, IIRC). He also turned the Duchy of Cornwall estates from almost bankruptcy into a multi million pound business. His Princes Trust scheme has supported hundreds of young people that the state, the education systems and even the penal system had considered to be lost causes.

Prince William's mother was killed by press intrusion when he was 13. I think that would make me somewhat touchy about my wife's privacy.

The Queen apparently keeps that somewhat dour expression to stifle the giggles. And frankly, if you see some of the turgid displays that she is forced to watch, you would do well not to be sitting there actually crying with boredom. She is an 86 year old who works 363 days of the year. She provides a source of private, experienced counsel to our Prime Ministers without ever expressing a political view. I think most of the 16 PMs have publicly stated how much they value their weekly meetings.

What the Royals do without question is the huge amount of publicity they can bring to charities. The coverage that a royal visit brings is invaluable.

So, love them or loathe them, but at least acknowledge some of the good they do.

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 22:48:24

" I think most of the 16 PMs have publicly stated how much they value their weekly meetings."

I think they have to - it's the kind of thing a PM has to say. In fact - I don't think the Monarchy can be discussed in Parliament.

kim147 Sun 03-Mar-13 22:50:16

And I do acknowledge the work they do for charities - it's part of the job description. If they did not do that stuff, then I think the Royal Family would really be seen in a poor light.

So they know - and their PR people know - exactly how to play the game to keep their status high - as well as to use their position to do some good.

andubelievedthat Sun 03-Mar-13 23:30:24

could not care one jot re any of them ,what i do admire thou was the surname change, the timing of it and the reasons for the change ! it was done soooo well there are people who think their surname is Windsor ! P.R. at its best ! Well done "The Firm"

FairPhyllis Mon 04-Mar-13 00:24:12

I don't know that I 'love' or 'adore' them, but I do like them.

I like the sense of connection they give to the past - the sense of continuity they give us as a country. I guess you either value this or you don't.

I like the fact that they play a role in public life which I don't think a politician could ever do convincingly - they are sort of secular priests who pronounce blessings on people in the form of honours or on particular causes by patronage. It wouldn't feel quite as special or non-partisan coming from some political random. And I like all the quasi-priestly stuff about the monarch being the source of justice and fountain of honour and all that stuff. That sort of mythic personification stuff really appeals to me as a way of organising a state - as long as it's a constitutional monarchy where that person doesn't exercise real power, which is what we have anyway.

They tend to be serious about public service to the extent of literally putting their necks on the line for the country (William and Harry's determination to see active service) and when the chips are down they don't bugger off - George VI and his family stayed in Britain during WWII despite being advised to go to Canada.

I personally admire the Queen's lifelong Christian witness.

I am also not above enjoying some of the soap opera aspects of their lives. And I don't have to adore each and every member of the family- or indeed any of them - to still feel all the above.

I think that what really pisses people off about them is that they have a visibly privileged life in some respects. But you know what? If a republic was declared tomorrow, they would still have a privileged life. As do many other people who aren't as high-profile as them.

ripsishere Mon 04-Mar-13 03:03:55

Can't be arsed to worry or even think about them TBH. IMO, they are anachronistic and don't bring revenue to the country. People would still visit England/UK to see their houses and jewelry.
I also agree 100% with the poster who wrote about ordinary old people and their lack of support.

jynier Mon 04-Mar-13 03:22:45

I don't wish the Queen any harm; she won't be put on the Liverpool Care Pathway in any case!

HillBilly76 Mon 04-Mar-13 03:29:14

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

May I add another "what Flatbread said?"

I've just read a thread where someone referred to the royals as "betters" ffs. I thought we lived in 2013, not 1913 hmm.

CloudsAndTrees Mon 04-Mar-13 07:55:10

I don't understand why I anyone wouldn't like them. They give us great buildings to be able to go and see, they give out awards, they have great celebrations that we all get to enjoy, they do stuff for charity. What's not to like?

I think a Republic is a good idea politically - but then I'm in favour of narrowing the gap between rich and poor.

I still admire the Queen greatly and have much fondness and respect for her - I believe she works incredibly hard and I believe she is profoundly dutiful to her country. I really believe she serves us faithfully because of her Christianity - and I think that is admirable.

I am not interested in the 'celebrity' side of the Royals generated by the media - I completely abhor the idea that someone would stalk Kate to get photos of her breasts - my feelings as a feminist outweigh my feelings as a socialist on this one. I'd honestly want people charged for infringing on their privacy.

I cannot imagine feeling antipathy to William or Harry confused as they are members of our Armed Forces. My dh went to uni with William and Kate and was in a sports team with him - he says they are completely normal, nice people - in fact he struggles to say anything about them as he doesn't connect the idea of 'who they are' with the perfectly ordinary shy girl he knew only slightly and the really quite funny and slightly perfectionist William.

I also think it's perfectly possible to 'like' someone without knowing them - I like Patrick Stewart and Gabriel Byrne and I think I've seen enough interviews about them to have a thought that I like them.

cory Mon 04-Mar-13 08:39:39

I don't think there's any reason to believe that a republic would narrow the gap between rich and poor. The US which is a republic has a far greater rich-poor gap than the Scandinavian monarchies. A cheap, politically circumscribed monarchy is very compatible with a welfare state, or any other type of democratic state. I believe the Queen has been useful in keeping relationships running smoothly; like a good hostess at a dinner party.

But this type of modern monarchy absolutely requires that the monarch accepts a non-political role= keeping his mouth shut on political issues.
This is why I am worried about Prince Charles: he is a bit of a loose cannon and you never know what he is going to spout off about next. And after a liberal youth, he seems to be turning into a miserable colonel Blimp. He doesn't seem to get what the Queen understands so well: that if you really believe you can serve your country in this role, you've got to stick to the rules; you can't have it both ways.

WestieMamma Mon 04-Mar-13 08:47:04

I love the monarchy because it keeps the likes of Cameron and Blair off the top of the shit heap.

Wishiwasanheiress Mon 04-Mar-13 09:01:54

I don't know anyone who loves and adores the monarchy.

Neither am I extremely pleased to say do I know anyone who is as derogatory about them as flatbread. I respect them and the dignity they have tried very hard to bring to a role that has undergone some very tumultuous times across the last 30yrs particularly but that is intrinsic to our British culture across centuries. Most people I know have a quiet appreciation of them.

But love? Adoration? Don't be ridiculous they aren't celebs. This isn't team Andre/ team Jordan. Might be fun tho, team char-milla or team will-erine?

Kewcumber Mon 04-Mar-13 09:23:59

someone asked why we even pay 27p each per year for the civil list when the royals are indepently wealthy (not even close to being wealthiest in the world!). Lots of people (like it or not) inherit wealth, they aren't obliged to do anything to justify it or to maintain expensive palaces. If I were the queen I'd be perfect happily to give up the publically owned palaces in exchange for living the life of riley. I doubt she sees it like that though.

We don't pay for the aunts uncles cousins etc. Civil list covers only the queen and duke of edinborough. any money paid to anyone else is refunded to the treasury by the queen (she is allowed a deduction for this as a business expense against her tax bill - accountant alert!)

Bakingnovice Mon 04-Mar-13 09:30:28


I think the popularity has decreased recently since will married Kate. They're such a disappointment and add nothing. To see photos of them on the slopes when the queen is in hospital highlights the difference in work ethics between young and old royals. I agree with flatbread.

Kewcumber Mon 04-Mar-13 09:35:07

I am a heartless cow - I wouldn't come back from skiing if my gran had gastroenteritis either unless she was at serious risk. Would you really? There's plenty of ammo you can legitimately use if you are anti royal without exaggerating perfectly reasonable acts.

sue52 Mon 04-Mar-13 09:52:26

I can't love people I have never met (except David Bowie) and have little in common with.

Bakingnovice Mon 04-Mar-13 09:58:49

Kew - it's not about them coming back from holiday. It's about the difference in work ethics. Will and Kate seem to be on one long holiday whilst the queen works very hard and continued to work whilst feeling ill. The queen did not want an ambulance or any fuss. Kate was whisked to hospital in a convoy of vehicles when she had her phantom HG.

thegreylady Mon 04-Mar-13 10:01:37

I don't understand why you don't understand to be honest. The Queen is 86,still working full time out of duty not need. You accept that any nation needs ambassadors - well most (not all) of the Royal Family are the best this country could have. I can't think of another country I would rather belong to.

sue52 Mon 04-Mar-13 10:02:01

Bakingnovice that is too harsh and unkind.

recall Mon 04-Mar-13 10:02:43

....they are our it or not.

What problems would be resolved by getting rid of them ?

jidelgin Mon 04-Mar-13 10:12:23

<helpless head nodding laughter> grim... whiney... lazy... Flatbread you have made my hideous day smile

FreudiansSlipper Mon 04-Mar-13 10:13:03

I am sure Charles and Camilla will be first to visit today grin

Why can we not have a referendum regarding the royal family once the queen dies

Nancy66 Mon 04-Mar-13 10:25:09

When the Queen was admitted to hospital I found myself thinking that i'd be quite sad if she died.

I think she's been a good monarch and she still seems to have a very full schedule at 85 or whatever she is.

The rest I couldn't give a shit about

flatbread Mon 04-Mar-13 10:30:56

Slavery and colonialism (Royals played a crucial facilitating role) are part of our heritage too. But good we got well rid.

We have plenty of goodwill ambassadors to promote the concept of hard work, talent, achievement and racial equality. Don't need a hereditary monarchy, which stands for just the opposite

Interesting fact: US has the highest profile charities and more charitable giving per capital than UK. That is partly because successful people like Gates and Buffet promote charities and know how to get people on board...unlike our non-achieving hand-waving royals

LtEveDallas Mon 04-Mar-13 10:32:08

Will and Kate seem to be on one long holiday

Prince William gets no more 'holidays' than any other member of the Armed Forces. He is entitled to 30 working days plus 8 Bank Holidays. He is entitled to Post Operational Tour Leave and Extra Authorised Absence or 'Block Leave' as directed by the extingencies of the Service. Many of the trips we see him on will be official duty and as such will not come off his allowance.

I don't mind people that don't like them, it's a personal choice after all, but you should make sure you know what you are talking about when you spout guff like that.

Kewcumber Mon 04-Mar-13 10:33:33

well Kate is on one long holiday atm as she doesn't work, neither does my sister because she can afford not to - lucky them neither my sister nor kate are funded by the taxpayer so good luck to both of them. William has a job (and equally not funded by the royal grant) so I assume he can't be on holiday more than any other wealthy person. I also haven't read about any fake illnesses of kate or requests for the maximum number of vehicles to accompany her. Perhaps I'm reading the wrong newspapers. I would assume the lowest possible profile transporting the queen to hospital is a security issue as much a personal preference, but she may have said differently so I would bow to someone with superior knowledge.

flatbread Mon 04-Mar-13 10:34:26

Jidelgin grin

FreudiansSlipper Mon 04-Mar-13 10:38:41

Kate has never worked

Does the armed forces wage really pay for private beach holidays in the carribbean?

Of course they are funded by the tax payer

Nancy66 Mon 04-Mar-13 10:39:09

Kate and William's security detail is funded by the tax payer.

And I just don't agree that William and Harry are like any other working member of the armed forces.

For starters Harry wouldn't even have got into Sandhurst if he wasn't who he was

grovel Mon 04-Mar-13 10:39:45

Will inherited millions from his Mum.

Kewcumber Mon 04-Mar-13 10:42:24

Charitable giving in UK vs USA is way more complex than what the royals do and is more to do with Americans belief in individual responsibility for both themselves and society generally vs in the UK where we tend to believe it is governments responsibility to provide social care education etc. through taxes. They have a totally different philosophy. Such is the opinion of my friend who has/does fundraise professionally in both UK and US.

Lots of good arguments for a republic - charitable giving a peculiar one IMO.

FreudiansSlipper Mon 04-Mar-13 10:43:54

He received his inheritance recently was it not when he turned 30 what happened before was he given a loan

Kewcumber Mon 04-Mar-13 10:53:23

lots of people get jobs they shouldn't because of who they are. Few people keep them unless they are at least competent. Prince Edward a good example.

Taxpayer pays for security agreed. Nothing else (for William and kate).

I should state for the record that I would have no problem with a republic any more than I do with the Queen being head of state, I think it would make virtually no practical different. But I can understand for some it is a philosophical difference.

Becoming a republic won't make the royals any less wealthy or smug or entitled or whatever they were described as and its unlikely to save us any money or increase charitable giving or make kate buckle down and get a job. But at least I suppose some people won't feel irritated by them anymore.

Kewcumber Mon 04-Mar-13 10:56:36

freudian I don't know the details of Williams trust but most trusts allow trustees to distribute money to minors sufficient for their needs. No doubt 'needs' are liberally interpreted if you are in all practical senses a millionaire.

LtEveDallas Mon 04-Mar-13 10:59:17

For starters Harry wouldn't even have got into Sandhurst if he wasn't who he was

Yes he would. Academic standards can be set aside if they perform well at Pre-RCB - which he did.

Does the armed forces wage really pay for private beach holidays in the carribbean

He has a private income, and actually, just like his brother chooses not to draw his military wage, although he still does have to pay the taxt on it (there are quite a few independantly wealthy soldiers and officers that do this).

Nancy66 Mon 04-Mar-13 11:04:38

Harry was proved to have cheated in his A levels and should, therefore, have lost his place.

LtEveDallas Mon 04-Mar-13 11:24:28

Harry was proved to have cheated in his A levels and should, therefore, have lost his place

What place? He wasn't commissioned as a result of his A levels. His entry to RMAS wasn't conditional.

Nancy66 Mon 04-Mar-13 11:28:46

Harry's acceptance into Sandhurst was incredibly dodgy and the palace pulled many strings....

flatbread Mon 04-Mar-13 11:45:17

Of course they live off our public money.

Charles gets £25 million from the Duchy of Cornwall. It is not his personal property though. It is the 'salary' we pay him for being head-of-state-in-waiting

Do away with the monarchy as head of state, and the duchy income reverts to the Treasury, aka, the taxpayer.

Plus these guys have only in the last few decades started paying income tax. But they are not subject to inheritance tax on their private residences nor to capital gains tax. That is additional income that would come to us.

We pay for security, state trips and unnecessary lavish expenditure. In total they cost us over £200 million a year

LtEveDallas Mon 04-Mar-13 11:54:05

Harry's acceptance into Sandhurst was incredibly dodgy and the palace pulled many strings

Nancy you are talking shite. Prince Harry's acceptance into RMAS was based on his performance at Pre-RCB and acceptance on the RCB - which was excellent.

His commission comes on the back of his excellent performance at RMAS. He could have been dropped at any time, but wasn't. You're a journo love, sometimes you really need to back away from the bullshit non-stories and listen to fact rather than rumour control.

Harry was proved to have cheated in his A levels

Was it proved? It was alleged by a teacher who was apparently sacked due to poor teaching standards and who was trying to claim unfair dismissal but was it proven?

DioneTheDiabolist Mon 04-Mar-13 11:56:30

AFAIK, the Duchy of Corwall is crown property. The only time it belonged to the State was during Cromwell's rule. If we were to do away with the monarchy it would still belong to Charles.

Nancy66 Mon 04-Mar-13 12:01:05

LTeve - what makes you think you know all the 'facts'....?

flatbread Mon 04-Mar-13 12:01:50

Absolutely not. Charles would like to claim that it is is his private entity. The court has ruled it is a public entity and not owned by a private individual.

I think you are suffering under a misapprehension of what Crown means. It refers to the government, not a private individual.

specialsubject Mon 04-Mar-13 12:05:14

you may well ask. You may also ask why people idolise thugs that run about kicking balls, drug-addicted clothes horses, talentless pop stars, shrieking harpies who host chat shows, terrible actors and everyone else in the cult of celebrity.

to be honest, Brenda and family are a lot more likeable and useful than all that lot!

LtEveDallas Mon 04-Mar-13 12:07:15

LTeve - what makes you think you know all the 'facts'?

I was working for the Officer in charge of RCB at the time. I entered approx 1000 score sheets from the independants and sat on the final marking board - all of which takes place 'nameless'. I know the system and know he would have been filtered out if he had been crap.

Nancy66 Mon 04-Mar-13 12:11:14

you seriously think that a member of the royal family wouldn't have been given special treatment?

DioneTheDiabolist Mon 04-Mar-13 12:12:17

Just checked, The Duchy of Cornwall is held by the monarch in a personal capacity (wiki), it does not belong to the state.

Quenelle Mon 04-Mar-13 12:14:18

I don't see the point of a Royal family but I don't pay much attention to them so have no particular problem with individual members.

I'll feel sad when the Queen dies though, although I won't be joining the wailing throngs lining the route at her funeral.

LtEveDallas Mon 04-Mar-13 12:15:41

you seriously think that a member of the royal family wouldn't have been given special treatment?

No, I know it. I was there, you weren't. If anything he had more to prove.

FreudiansSlipper Mon 04-Mar-13 12:19:28

you just said that the papers were nameless

or you are breaching confidentiality tut tut

Nancy66 Mon 04-Mar-13 12:20:34

You know nothing - you think William is just like any other serviceman!!!

flatbread Mon 04-Mar-13 12:21:04


It is not your opinion vs. mine. It is about actual legal rulings

LtEveDallas Mon 04-Mar-13 12:23:00

The papers are nameless. I'm not breaching any confidentiality. Do you actually know what you are talking about?

ButteryJam Mon 04-Mar-13 12:24:46

Yanbu. I don't understand either.

FreudiansSlipper Mon 04-Mar-13 12:25:26

yes you just said that the papers are nameless but you know he passed

keeping a client/patient/persons information confidential is not naming them surely in such a position you were in your should know that

FreudiansSlipper Mon 04-Mar-13 12:26:10

or hinting at who they are

LtEveDallas Mon 04-Mar-13 12:26:10

You know nothing - you think William is just like any other serviceman

Prince William is treated the same as his peers whilst he is in his job - he has the same T&Cs and follows the same rules. He isn't on a normal contract because he is split over service with all 3 Services. He cannot become a 'career soldier' in the way that Harry can.

But we were talking about Harry weren't we? Are you getting confused?

DioneTheDiabolist Mon 04-Mar-13 12:28:09

I never said that it was my opinion Flatbread. I have read your link and still can't see anything that says the Duchy if Cornwall belongs to the state.confused

LtEveDallas Mon 04-Mar-13 12:34:26

yes you just said that the papers are nameless but you know he passed

Umm Freudian, the whole world knows he passed - he wouldn't have gone to Sandhurst if he didn't grin

So you don't really understand what I was talking about.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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


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

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

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

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.

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.

RaspberryRuffle 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.

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.

ComposHat 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

ComposHat 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.

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