Advanced search

to not understand why anyone would love the Royal family

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

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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.

PeahenTailFeathers Mon 04-Mar-13 07:19:06

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?

LaurieFairyCake Mon 04-Mar-13 08:12:39

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 ?

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