Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Camilla to be Queen

470 replies

Thanksfor · 05/02/2022 22:04

I think I’m happy with this (not that’s it’s any of my business). She’s clearly made Charles very happy and has fitted into the family well.
Good for her, it’s deserved.

OP posts:
DaisyChains3 · 07/02/2022 23:32

They serve no real purpose at all. They have no power, they are supposed to be figureheads d the country. The Queen is supposed to be head of the Church.
We are meant to bow and curtesy and call them by special titles. That infers that they are special people. They aren’t.

Blossomtoes · 07/02/2022 23:35

That infers that they are special people

It doesn’t imply anything. If you infer that, you’re wrong.

Lockdownbear · 08/02/2022 00:30

We are meant to bow and curtesy and call them by special titles. That infers that they are special people. They aren’t

You bow and curtesy to the positions they hold not them as individuals.
A bit like military saluting higher ranks its the rank rather than the individual.

The Queen possibly has more power than you think - who knows what gets said in her weekly PM discussions.

Monopolyiscrap · 08/02/2022 00:31

But if it is about the positions and not the people, why not just advertise and appoint people to it as a proper job?

Benjispruce5 · 08/02/2022 07:00

One President that is voted in, is a world away from a whole family given privilege due to a birthright.

Monopolyiscrap · 08/02/2022 09:32

Also it would be easy to have a government-appointed panel that selected suitable applicants that the public can vote on. That means you always get someone suitable. So Andrew would never be selected.

LittleBearPad · 08/02/2022 09:33

@Monopolyiscrap

Also it would be easy to have a government-appointed panel that selected suitable applicants that the public can vote on. That means you always get someone suitable. So Andrew would never be selected.
You mean like the panel that chooses who goes to the Lords?

They agreed to Lord Ahmed

Lockdownbear · 08/02/2022 09:38

But there are some seriously questionable PMs & First Ministers.

Both who think the law doesn't apply to them, one with crazy parties, and one who seems to think chopping legally required fire doors to increase covid ventilation is a good idea.

Give me HMQ and Charlie any day!

Monopolyiscrap · 08/02/2022 09:44

@LittleBearPad No not like the Lords. The Lords is basically a backhander for supporting the "right" people.
And I would not want a panel deciding the President. Just doing screening against set criteria e.g. criminal offences or under investigation - rules Andrew out. No financial scandals or accusations of them - rules Charles out. No history of public drunkenness or shocking public behaviour - rules Boris Johnson out. That kind of criteria. The criteria would be publicised. The aim is not to choose someone, simply to make sure we don't get someone who will bring scandal and disrepute to the office of President. Of course it wont be foolproof, nothing is. But we should have less scandals than with the current Royal Family.

I would open up the Palaces to tourists. People would pay a lot to see the bed the Queen slept in and the sofa she sat on. You could make more by hiring the Queens own ballroom out for very expensive weddings. Wood Farm Cottage could be rented out as a very expensive holiday cottage. Give notice to the very many people living in grace and favour apartments. It would all boost the countries financial coffers.
For the President keep one London apartment and one country house - as the Prime Minister has. And an apartment, not a large part of a palace with many rooms called an apartment. If it is good enough for the Prime Minister, it is good enough for our President.

Blossomtoes · 08/02/2022 11:58

Wood Farm Cottage could be rented out as a very expensive holiday cottage.

I don’t think so. Along with the rest of the Sandringham estate, it’s the Queen’s personal property.

Monopolyiscrap · 08/02/2022 12:12

Sandringham was bought with money given by the taxpayers. I would take it all back. Or simply apply inheritance tax. That would reclaim a lot of stolen money.

Monopolyiscrap · 08/02/2022 12:16

And if you don't believe me, read How do you do, by Norman Baker. He breaks down the finances in forensic detail.

Blossomtoes · 08/02/2022 12:40

Sandringham was bought with money given by the taxpayers

I don’t think it was. Sandringham’s purchaser Queen Victoria, like the present Queen, was independently wealthy. Every republican that ever posts here urges a reading of that book. It’s the best reason I can think of not to bother.

Monopolyiscrap · 08/02/2022 12:44

The Royal Families independent wealth has increased massively even when having no official job outside of being a member of the Royal Family. Where do you think it comes from?

Blossomtoes · 08/02/2022 12:45

@Monopolyiscrap

The Royal Families independent wealth has increased massively even when having no official job outside of being a member of the Royal Family. Where do you think it comes from?
Investment. Just like every other very wealthy person in the world.
Monopolyiscrap · 08/02/2022 12:48

Then they have been the most successful investors in history.
In reality, they use their positions to pay no or little tax, to use taxpayers money for anything they can, to pay no inheritance tax, and even do things like try to claim the warm home grant.

ralanne · 19/02/2022 06:20

WTAF. Live in a smaller house then if you can't afford to heat it.8

New posts on this thread. Refresh page