Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2

AIBU?

To think the 21st century is the time for a slimmed down Monarchy?

48 replies

Buxhoeveden · 05/05/2015 13:20

I was browsing a few of the many royal baby threads at the weekend and it struck me quite forcefully how many mentions of the baby's future career choices there were.

Surely, as DD of a King and then sibling of another King, she won't get a fully fledged 'career' (if any) and certainly not a free choice of one. I thought that was very sad.

Isn't it time we scaled it all back quite a bit? Or made plans to do so? Or Charles and/or William indicated his/their inclination to do so? Either Scandi-style or otherwise?

What would be the downside?

OP posts:

Report

angelos02 · 05/05/2015 13:22

YANBU. I'd slim it down...to zero. It is incredible that people buy into this stuff in this day and age.

Buxhoeveden · 05/05/2015 13:24

Perhaps "slimmed down" will garner more support from all sides than abolition though?

I can't help feeling a little girl has just been born into a type of luxurious slavery.

OP posts:

squoosh · 05/05/2015 13:28

I think there are plans to do this. I'm sure I read something about Prince 'waste of space' Andrew getting his knickers in a tizz at the planned demotion of his daughters.

TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 05/05/2015 13:30

YANBU - but you won't get many supporters on here.

The royalists will soon be out in force asking why you hate a little baby and are you jealous? And do you know how much money they bring into the country? ...yada yada...

Buxhoeveden · 05/05/2015 13:32

Did he? He's not really on board then

Maybe it will all happen when Charles acedes to the Throne. I doubt it will be radical, though, somehow.

OP posts:

angelos02 · 05/05/2015 13:32

luxurious slavery What?

Buxhoeveden · 05/05/2015 13:33

The royalists will soon be out in force asking why you hate a little baby and are you jealous? And do you know how much money they bring into the country?

OP posts:

squoosh · 05/05/2015 13:34

'Princes at war: How Charles' plans for a slimmed-down monarchy have 'driven a dagger through Andrew's heart'

All the lolz.

Like Andrew has a heart.

Buxhoeveden · 05/05/2015 13:35

In terms of her personal self-determination angelos.

In addition to the obvious point, that the extent of the luxury is somewhat obscene given the proliferation of foodbanks in the UK. Obviously

OP posts:

Buxhoeveden · 05/05/2015 13:39

How odd

It's hardly a case of Beatrice and Eugenie being asked to sign on...

Poor Andrew

OP posts:

DrankSangriaInThePark · 05/05/2015 13:48

But it's already being slimmed down and has been for years.

Loads of the old biddy Aunts were turfed out of KP weren't they? And chopped off the civil list. And we never hear about their kids.

When I was a girl it was Duchess of Kent, Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Gloucester etc. Now I couldn't tell you if they are dead or alive or if their kids have taken over the hideous pastel frockcoat thing or not.

Buxhoeveden · 05/05/2015 13:56

Maybe I was envisionung something more low key as well as involving slightly fewer bodies.

OP posts:

shakemysilliesout · 05/05/2015 14:09

Lolz pastel frockcoat

lastuseraccount123 · 05/05/2015 15:36

agreed, though i wonder why we need a monarchy at all. but if we HAVE to have one, it should be very small. Tiny.

lastuseraccount123 · 05/05/2015 15:37

and yes yes yes to cutting Andrew "statutory rapist in the US" out and his sprogs. Buh-bye.

ineedabodytransplant · 05/05/2015 15:43

I agree with the total slimming down of them all. Beyond zero if possible.

I mean come on, a woman gives birth to a baby!! Not like it happens every minute of every frigging day, is it? Not newsworthy in the slightest.

Don't get me wrong, I hope the little girl is healthy, but I don't need to see it plastered everywhere

Buxhoeveden · 05/05/2015 16:09

It does seem a tad OTT.

OP posts:

noddyholder · 05/05/2015 16:13

yes absolutely

FirstWeTakeManhattan · 05/05/2015 16:14

God yes. If we didn't have a royal family, it's hardly like we'd invent it.

There should be no monarchy after the present queen.

sleepyhead · 05/05/2015 16:19

I wonder if William gets cold feet at all? It must be even worse when you have children yourself and know what's coming.

Ideally he'll chuck it, but I guess he'd feel like he was then landing his children in it.

Ok, best case scenario is he chucks it, his children also say "no thanks", it passes to Harry who says "piss off", crown then passes to Andrew and the country pulls the plug.

William can get on with being a pilot, Kate can be a SAHM or do whatever she likes, the children can grow up, go on gap years and behave disgracefully and settle down to a job in the city.

Quills · 05/05/2015 16:20

YANBU in the least OP, and I suspect that when Queen Elizabeth either passes away or steps down, there will be something of a quiet revolution. For all his faults, Prince Charles has certainly got his finger on the pulse and I suspect he sees that if the monarchy is to survive past the next 20 years or so, public perception needs to change, and the 'slimming down' you mention would be a massive step towards that.

EmeraldThief · 05/05/2015 16:22

Urghh Prince Andrew and his two hideous daughters. Have those two lazy over privileged brats ever done a days work in their lives? I will give William and Harry and Princess Anne's kids their dues, they all seem to have careers of some sort. Bea and Eugenie seem to spend all of their days on holiday, but then I suppose we shouldn't be surprised given who their parents are.

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Email address

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

PercyGherkin · 05/05/2015 16:27

Again - I thought they were doing this. Eg most recently balcony appearances I thought they made a point of it being the core Royals - Queen, Duke of E, Charles and Camilla, William and family, Harry. Now Harry is down to being no 5 and sinking I expect he will quietly drop off the radar except that at the moment he's popular.

Haven't they also changed the rules so that the equivalent of Beatrice and Eugenie born today wouldn't get the title Princess (didn't it require special permission to make it Prince George and Princess Charlotte I read at the weekend) - and B and E are the exceptions of that generation of cousins anyway.

Buxhoeveden · 05/05/2015 16:29

I don't know about Charles. He's seems savvy but also comfortable (and he's past retirement age now).

You know, there are things William could do to signal a change of pace/tone/style/grandeur, without causing a constitutional crisis.

Announcing that the DC would receive the first part of their education in a state primary, for example. Even if they then moved on to prep later.

OP posts:

Theknacktoflying · 05/05/2015 16:29

Unfortunately sometimes the best interets gets in the way of a bunch of palace officials who seem to pull the strings as to just what everyone is doing.

i think the palace is full of bottom feeders ensuring their positions are safe.

I don't want to get rid of the royals - they are a nice archaic throwback who can do a lot of charitable work and saves us from the media and cult worship of self made celebrities

Flip

1 2

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.