Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to show this link to everyone who complains about the cost of the Royal Family?

117 replies

Tuggy · 21/04/2011 18:27

Well... great YouTube link (also like his other videos)

So Happy 85th Birthday for today Queen Liz if you're reading this... I found it pretty interesting as someone who always gets pissed off at the people who go "oh blah blah the royals sit on their arses all day costing us money and give nothing back - my taxes pay for their life"

OP posts:
SpeedyGonzalez · 21/04/2011 21:20

How many homeless folks could we fit into Buckingham Palace if we turned it into a hostel? That would be a much better use of the place.

Al0uiseG · 21/04/2011 21:23

They don't interest me or impress me but my biggest bugbear is the lack of philanthropy. The Queen is the richest woman in the world. Most people with that level of wealth are serious about philanthropy.

I don't think that being patron of charities is good enough these days. Modernisation is needed, hangers on need to move on.

southeastastra · 21/04/2011 21:31

did anyone watch meet the natives where they were desperate to meet prince philip Grin

i have nothing at all against the royals think it's great to have such a rich history

garlicbutter · 21/04/2011 21:42

VERY good point, Alouise! Much better rich folk than she have followed the "learn, earn, return" rule of life.

southeastastra; rich history indeed Hmm

PrincessFiorimonde · 21/04/2011 21:46

But, UnfitMother, both issues are apparently being debated at the moment.

See here, for example

PrincessFiorimonde · 21/04/2011 21:49

ALouise, I agree.

Southeastastra, surely we would still have our 'rich history' whether or not we retained the royals?

BelleDameSansMerci · 21/04/2011 21:54

Be nice if they all paid the full whack of income tax. That might help the economy a bit and thus benefit the whole country.

southeastastra · 21/04/2011 22:00

can't be bothered to argue with Hmm faces

i just don't see the hate myself

enjoy yourselves

PrincessFiorimonde · 21/04/2011 22:15

Southeastastra, I didn't pull a Hmm face (I reserve that face strictly for myself) and I don't actually 'hate' the royals, because they are just people, aren't they? I don't think for a moment that anyone here really 'hates' anyone. I don't 'like' the institution of royalty, but that's not the same as 'hating' anyone, is it? We just have different opinions, but that's life, eh?

Have a lovely weekend.

And if you're going to watch/cheer on the happy couple next week, I hope you have a nice time and lots of sunshine. Smile

onagar · 21/04/2011 22:25

The Royal Family help the economy. Yes.... if you sell mugs and flags, but then serial killers help the economy by selling more newspapers. That's not really the point is it.

They could help the economy more by saving us the cost of looking after them, by paying their taxes and perhaps giving back the land their ancestors stole.

As for tourism I think people would pay to see the place where the queen used to live and pay even more to stay there.

worraliberty · 21/04/2011 22:32

Yeah of course the Queen's going to be logged in to Mumsnet Hmm

PrincessFiorimonde · 21/04/2011 22:45

Worraliberty - didn't you see that thread 'AIBU to keep my crown in place with Kirby grips'?

unfitmother · 21/04/2011 22:49

Jesus Christ if you're going to quote the fucking Daily Mail at me at leat read the article! Angry

"the Deputy Prime Minister, who is responsible for constitutional reform, is looking into the possibility of removing 'male primogeniture'"

"However, a bid to allow Catholics take the throne may be more tricky."

As I have said repeatedly they are seperate issues so the ignorant suggestion from a previous poster that they would be dealt with at the same time is wrong!

Bashes head against keybord and refuses to debate furher with DM readers

PrincessFiorimonde · 21/04/2011 23:25

I do not buy the Daily Mail. That was just the first article that came up when I Googled the Act of Settlement issue which you suggested that I research.

This article states:
'David Cameron said Catholics should be able to become King or Queen, or marry the heir to the throne, but warned that changing the 1701 Act of Settlement would take time.

'He has said he would also like to scrap the law giving preference to male heirs, which has come under increased pressure with the upcoming wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton.'

This report suggests to me that both these issues (Act of Settlement and primogeniture) are indeed under discussion. Which is all I said in the first place - that these issues are being debated. I did not say that they will definitely be dealt with together - so please do not put words into my mouth.

Hope your head and keyboard have recovered from the bashing.

Good night and best wishes.

RedbinD · 21/04/2011 23:33

They're a bunch of parasites. They exist at our expense. why do we put up with a political elite AND a "royal" family. I'm not a great fan of the French but they did have some good ideas about dealing with their aristocrats.

fedupalready · 21/04/2011 23:45

agree with RedbinD, yep bunch of parasites, and I'm sick to death with Will & Kates faces in every shop window, on biscuit tins, egg cups,mugs , plates, flags, hairbands, you name it their faces are on just about everything, how much commission are they getting for this load of shite, and another 8 days to go! we're not all worshippers, why should we be.

Abr1de · 22/04/2011 07:25

I'm sorry, Unfitmother, but there are numerous articles about discussions on reforming both issues, whether separately or in unison. MPs were discussing it on the TV a few nights ago too. I suppose it depends on what you interpret 'discussing' as meaning.

Don't know what you're so cross about, tbh. Have a Royal Wedding digestive and chill. BTW, if you're accusing another poster of being ignorant you might wish to note the spelling of separate.

TandB · 22/04/2011 08:07

I'm in two minds about the value or otherwise of the royal family so not really wading into that discussion.

But I don't really understand the argument about the Crown owned lands, and whether they have the right to that land. You could make that argument about almost any land ownership given the hugely complex history on that issue. Any piece of privately owned land has come to its current owners through a long and complicated process which almost certainly involves someone arbitrarily deciding "This is mine" at some point.

There is no "new" land so it isn't a case of the current royal family simply saying "right, that bit of land is hanging about unused so let's have it". There is no mileage in saying that the Crown land should be given "back to the people" any more than there would be to say that a wealthy family's estate should be handed over to local people, or that any individual family's house should be given to their neighbours. Any one of those pieces of land could have a contentious history.

We are surrounded by Duchy land where we live and the Duchy has the same rights and responsibilities as any land owner. It is actually extremely well-managed, productive land and a lot of research is put into the best use of the land - there are various surveys and reports available into all sorts of aspects of the land usage and maintenance.

What would the alternatives be for Crown land? Who would take responsibility for it? Who would decide on its use? Would it just become common land up for grabs? In which case you just re-set the land ownership cycle.

SauvignonBlanche · 22/04/2011 09:45

I think once you start quoting the DM or correcting a poster's typos it's a sign you're losing the argument. Hmm
unfitmother is right that these will not be resolved together, what DC would like to do and what he will do are quite different, whatever the DM says. Wink
I think that dis-establishment (please feel free to correct me if I have spelt that wrong) is a priority.

onagar · 22/04/2011 10:01

kungfupannda, I know what you mean, but many societies have indeed decided that the elite 'owning' the majority of the land had only a weak moral claim to it and took it away. In the case of the French aristocracy they held onto it so tightly it was necessary to perform surgery to make them let go.

Your argument is sensible, but if we stick too firmly to that it means that for example Gaddafi gets to keep Libya because it was once his .

There is no "new" land so it isn't a case of the current royal family simply saying "right, that bit of land is hanging about unused so let's have it".

Not the current royal family, but that's more or less what did happen with the common land.

Anything they did was legal by definition since they made the laws, but is that the last word? it's highly unlikely that our current government would pass a law next month making all private houses the property of the state, but if they did I doubt we'd simply accept it.

In any case for me this is less about the money than it is about removing them from their position. If we just did that and let them keep all their estates that would have to do. If we believe in democracy and equality we can't also believe that one family is superior by right of birth.

fedupofnamechanging · 22/04/2011 10:27

I take the view that you have a right to own your home, or a farm but not the right to own the whole of Cornwall for example. Am sketchy on the details but believe our current landowners acquired their vast wealth because of the Enclosures Act (which basically stole the land from the people) and the dissolution of the Monasteries (Henry VIII shared the wealth amongst the wealthy of the time).

If you buy or inherit something which turns out to be stolen, is it still yours?

sue52 · 22/04/2011 10:37

We live in a democracy yet we have an unelected head of state. The monarchy has outlived it's purpose.

TandB · 22/04/2011 10:49

It was the enclosures legislation, among other things, that's true. But the way in which land came to its current owners is so spectacularly complicated that it is simply not possible to look back into history and say "you are not entitled to this". If you did it to the Crown lands then you would have to do it to everyone - you could finish up with someone living in a fairly modest home who suddenly becomes morally non-entitled to own that home because of the way it came into their possession.

You would also have to choose a pretty arbitrary point in history to re-set the land ownership from. The enclosures laws weren't the first time that someone took land that they had not previously owned. Ownership of land has been a pretty fundamental driving force throughout human history and it remains so. There are situations where you can look back and say "this was wrong" - the Native Americans and the Aborigines spring to mind, but you are never going to be able to entirely undo what was done, particuarly where things have moved on so massively in terms of the ownership and make-up of the land. You would inevitably be committing injustices to try to rectify injustices. And you can't say "only x group of people should be affected" because you lay everyone else open to legal challenge.

The question also remains - what do you do with the land? If it is given "back to the people" and becomes common land, who will maintain it? Who will pay for work that needs doing on that land? Who will make decisions about its usage? If it is to be redistributed, who will have a right to it?

There are many injustices throughout history - some can be rectified but many others can't. They become part of our history and part of what shapes us as a nation. And sometimes trying to put things right leads to massive unforseeable problems.

burgerclub · 22/04/2011 11:10

"Happy 85th Birthday for today Queen Liz if you're reading this"

PMSL.

Niceguy2 · 22/04/2011 11:28

I'm no royalist. I don't really care about them. But I do care that they bring in billions in revenue each year. I do care that they earn more than they cost (unlike successive governments). As I've said before, if only our government ran their books like our royal family have done. Perhaps we wouldn't be as in the shit as we are now.

Let's face it, they are nothing more than a tourist attraction and removing them serves us no purpose except costing us money.

As for the land issue. Well given it's been their land for hundreds of years, before records were reliably kept, it would only be fair if it ever came to it that they keep it. You might not like the fact its land the size of cornwall but then I don't like many things yet they still happen. I think it would be difficult to argue that land someone has owned unchallenged for hundreds of years should be given up to the state on a whim.

I do find that anti-royalists are usually the left wing socialist idiots who hate anyone who has more money than they do. In short, the politics of envy.

Plus I get a day off in bed next Friday, so cheers Will & Kate! Result! I doubt I'll watch the wedding though, I'd rather take the kids out.

Swipe left for the next trending thread