To think that the planned Diamond Jubilee celebrations are ridiculously extravagent and a kick in the teeth for those of us facing difficult times?

[LifeHope11]

I am not saying that we shouldn't mark the occasion but seriously:

A decorated barge plus flotilla of 1000 boats?
500 horses to be shipped into the UK from around the world?
A 'Jubilee' concert and a thanksgiving service?
A vast jolly of free holidays - sorry, 'official visits to the four corners of the globe' of dozens of 'royals' with their attendand flunkeys?

I don't know how even the most dedicated royalist can justify all this ridiculous extravagenceat a time of looming recession, austerity measures and squeezed households, cuts on the vulnerable and disabled etc, rising unemployment, homelessness and poverty. I think this could backfire on them very badly indeed as they are showing themselves up as being completely out of sympathy with people's concerns and fears

Quite right Christine. Bloody scroungers and dysfunctional and foreign to boot

Shiny Dave should sent in one of his marvellous new family troubleshooters

It wasn't this Government which approved the level of expenditure.

So I don't think you can hold them responsible for the cost/profile, any more than you can for the previous government pledges to Olympics funding.

HMQ wouldn't ever overturn governmental decisions.

Once the programme had been agreed during 2009, and announced by the government in Jan 2010, there was no turning back, really.

But yes I suppose there might have been a smaller cut somewhere if this expenditure commitment had not been made.

:o WinterWonderland

I don't really care which individual/s authorised the expenditure, nor do I have anything against the royals personally - it is what the monarchy represents that I object to.

'HMQ wouldn't ever overturn governmental decisions' but she is consulted on and rubber stamps them. If she had expressed concern about expenditure plans for the Jubilee it is hard to believe she would have been disregarded. One must conclude that she is quite happy for large quantities of public money to be spent on this event. Nor do I believe that the plans once made were cast in stone; revising project plans in changing economic circumstances is the kind of thing that is done every day.

There will always be inequality and I would much prefer a monarchy than an Oligarch.

And, I think Charles was misguided and ill advised as a young man and married the wrong woman. I think when the time comes he will do the right thing and pass the throne directly to William, exactly as he should because to do otherwise would be constitutionally incorrect because the Head of the Church of England cannot be divorced. Now there's a hot debate for Mumsnet.

Roll on the Jubilee - the horses exist already and it will be soupcon in comparison to the Olympic fiasco. Long live the Queen.

'There will always be inequality' - that's true but it does not follow that we should have a system that underpins and celebrates it.

'Better a monarchy than an Oligarch' - why does it have to be either/or? I would like as far as possible a democracy/meritocracy, the best kind of system we know how to make.

'Charles was misguided and ill-informed as a young man' - he was 32, old enough to know his own mind. Diana may have been the wrong woman for Charles but even her worst enemies never claimed she was not a success in her role.

'The Head of the Church of England cannot be divorced' - oh yes s/he can. The monarch is Supreme Governor not Supreme Head, very different thing. Nothing to stop a divorced person being monarch or indeed any person who has openly not abided by Church teachings. It remains to be seen whether Charles will stand aside for his son, he certainly doesn't have to.

'Long live the Queen' - I would wish a long life and good health to the queen as I would for any other person. Beyond that the phrase is meaningless.

I am continuing to post here because I have always been impressed by the quality of debate and the contributions. If there is a good reason for continuing with monarchy I would be pleased to hear it & am honestly open to having my mind changed. But I am not convinced by any of the counter arguments I have heard so far.

I am not so sure that the Head of the Church of England can be divorced and that Charles' accession to the throne would not create a constitutional crisis. I will check this with DH in the morning and come back to this thread.

Life of Hope - at 51, 32 does seem awfully young. I was nearly as old as that when I got married and had a long way to go. Diana was a lovely young girl and a successful young woman and a brilliant mother. I'm not sure, however, that she was successful in her role as Princess of Wales or as the wife of the Prince of Wales. She was far too young - she and I were the same age and I don't believe my parents would have encouraged me in embarking on a relationship with a man 12 years my senior. Not saying big age gaps can't work but when the younger partner is barely 20 it is a much bigger gap than when the younger partner is 35.

I would prefer a democracy or a meritocracy. Are you honestly suggesting the UK is not democratic and if so please provide some examples. How also is it not a meritocracy? Kate Middelton was a commoner - one of her relatives runs a fish a chip shop and her mother (incredibly beautiful and well cultured) was an air hostess. My DH has working class roots but is incredibly successful and although you won't like it, we are worth a mint - entirely due to DH's success and intellect and the opportunity in the UK to succeed.

I thought the Queen was a net contributor tax wise? She handed over the income from the Crown Estates and got the Civil List (a lower amount) in return. I can't beleive ANYONE would say she has never worked a day in her life!!! What do you think she does all day? Not fecking MNetting and eating biscuits certainly!!! And she is in her 80s and hasn't retired yet.

I pay tax but cannot vote
Liz and Phil the Greek ferked up all their kids
but boy oh boy have they paid the price for the wealth (which in the hedge fund days is no longer off the scale)

we knew the jubilee was coming
my problem is that the destruction of London businesses (the donkey rides man on Blackheath is one of the worst) will go on LONG beyond the jubilee and then those EFFING games

The Royals HAVE to separate out from that crap

Hallo married, thank you for your responses. I hope you believe me when I say that I genuinely appreciate them.

I don't think that there is anything to stop Charles being king and that no constitutional crisis need ensue. The role of Supreme Head of the church - as of Defender of the faith - began with the twice-divorced Henry the Eighth (he would have called them 'annulments' though plenty disagreed with him).

32 may seem young at 51 (and I am only a few years younger than you) but I got married at that age and would stand by my claim that it is old enough to know one's own mind and take ownership of one's own mistakes. I think that Charles at 32 had a great responsibility to his then 19 year old fiancee. Obviously nobody was sufficiently looking out for her interests at the time. Also, if one is to judge a person by results then the positive response she generated lead one to conclude that she in fact achieved considerable success in her role and should not be viewed as some kind of failure now.

I don't think the UK is devoid of democracy but no I don't believe that the nation is as democratic as it should be. I think that a fundamental entitlement of a nation is its right to choose it's own head of state, the person/s who represent the nation. I think that what is missing in the UK is the sense that the country truly 'belongs' to us, rather than to a privileged elite. People get the opportunity every 4 years or so to vote among a limited number of candidates and there is a lot of tactical voting on the part of voters to avoid a worse evil. But true democracy - where people are completely free to vote for what they want - still eludes us. Our system has been called an 'elective dictatorship' for a reason.

Again, I have never claimed that it is never possible in the UK to prosper through merit, or that this is a bad thing -again, there are shades of grey. I am sorry that you think that I 'wouldn't like it' that your DH has been successful; on the contrary I think that people like him deserve to do well in life through hard work and talent. But I hope you will understand that it is getting harder and harder for many to get the proper rewards for what you put into life, for a variety of reasons (unemployment rates, property prices which make it very difficult to afford a home) there is a lot of pressure on the next generation. My DH and I have found it tough to prosper because we have a severely disabled DS who to a great extent is dependent on the best his country can give him. Although I would not exactly say we are worth a mint, our hard work has brought some rewards and we do fine. But I really fear for the next generation.

I am not so sure about your other example of 'meritocracy'. I hate the phrase 'commoner' anyway & happen to think that the Middletons absolutely outclassed the Windsors at the 'royal' wedding. But do we really want to think of meritocracy in terms of marrying into wealth and privilege?

yabu

the queen has been doing her job for almost 60 years!!!!
How many of us will be able to say the same
good on her I say,she deserves a lot of credit for what she has done over the years

Thinking, I really don't want to rake over the same ground again. Never said she didn't deserve credit - but plenty of people work hard and long and deserve respect as she does! As I have said before, have the celebration just not an extravagant one, otherwise you will inevitably upset a lot of people.

Married ''..I think when the time comes he will do the right thing and pass the throne directly to William..''

Surely not, having prepared for the role of King throughout his whole life - unless he is too elderly/infirm by the time Her Maj dies.

I don't believe he has prepared for the role of King throughout his whole life.

The Queen has sacrificed her entire family life for her country. She bloody deserves some respect. There must be half a dozen evil MIL threads here daily. Imagine being her!!!!

"he Queen has sacrificed her entire family life for her country. She bloody deserves some respect!!!!"

I'm not convinced by that argument, there are thousands of families that have sacrificed their entire life for the country, loosing limbs and some of them even life. Leaving behind a vulnerable families who will never had such a comfortable life as the royals have, who will continue to depend on whatever crumbs they can get from the country they donated their relatives to, and who will be the one hardly hit by the day to day raising costs and budget cuts.

So no, she is not sacrificing her life, she is just working, it is just a job, she smiles and waves and receive annoying people several times a week, damn she cannot go hunting when she is not in holiday, but most of us don't either anyway, and we are not paid such humongous salary (and benefits)

she could abdicate and live off her enormous personal wealth. No-one makes her do anything.
I' sure there would be quite a few takers if the job plus salary and perks were advertised.

receives annoying people several times a week? More like every single day. Heads of State, the Prime Minister, etc etc She get a mountain of documents to review and sign. Formal dinners. It was only this year that the DOE dropped a lot of his charity commitments for example - so kind of retired. Most people would have done this 25 years earlier. They are OLD! Fair enough they still have their limbs but their life has not been their own since 1952. 60 years of working for the country. They cost us a teeny amount.

Poor woman, damn, how much she should be suffering... nah... I still can't bring myself to think of her in any other way that an immensely rich individual, getting a fantastic pay. Sorry.