Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to wonder why the whole country has gone completely bloody Royalist?

793 replies

Hullygully · 31/05/2012 10:36

Erect the scaffold.

Up the Republicans.

We are ADULTS we don't need a feudalistic Divine Right of Kings addled parasitical bunch of halfwits to live off our taxes.

OP posts:
TheOriginalSteamingNit · 31/05/2012 14:58

Still no answer from the republicans as to why a republic is better. I'm off to AIBU for some more fun!

I thought quite a lot of people had said why it is better! It's fairer and it's democratic, for a start. But you go ahead!

loveisagirlnameddaisy · 31/05/2012 15:00

Sorry Nit, not very clear - my original request was upthread. I asked for quantifiable benefits which aren't subjective (such as 'its fairer') Grin

And the other threads on AIBU aren't nearly as good as this one...

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 31/05/2012 15:02

I take your point, but I don't think you have to be able to list quantifiable tangibles (other than the obvious 'more money') to think something is right. I think the more democratic nature of a republic is intrinsically worth having.

loveisagirlnameddaisy · 31/05/2012 15:04

Aren't we a democracy in all the ways that matter? We vote in our leaders and they decide how the country is run. The Queen doesn't have a say in that anymore. Or am I missing something?

loveisagirlnameddaisy · 31/05/2012 15:04

And there are countless republicans which are not democratic at all - take Syria.

loveisagirlnameddaisy · 31/05/2012 15:05

Sorry, republics, not republicans!

Psammead · 31/05/2012 15:05

Loveis, I have already said why. The queen is unelected. Her and her kin are automatically our head of state, whether we, or indeed they, like it or not. She also represents the very pinnacle of our class system with is unutterably out dated, and I think harmful.

An elected head of state would be a representative of British democracy, chosen from the people, by the people. Not without its drawbacks, I am not naive, but most certainly a step forward. These people represent you and me to the world. I know how I would prefer to be represented.

If you are asking purely about the financial difference, I haven't a clue. And I've no time to google it for you, but I cannot imagine an election every ten years or so and a spot of new wallpaper in a fancy house would equate to more than the upkeep of several palaces and pointless parties.

squoosh · 31/05/2012 15:06

The republic was successful in ways while it lasted, the problem was Cromwell was a dictator (democracy not really a concept in these days) and his natural successor Cromwell Jr wasn't really up to the job which left a bit of a power vacum.

Although Christmas was banned in the republic and Cromwell was an awful God botherer I think a British republic could do a bit better these days.

Kewcumber · 31/05/2012 15:07

"the republic was hardly a roaring success and only lasted a few years before the monarchy was restored" absolutely - a bit late for the original Charles though

DashingRedhead · 31/05/2012 15:07

Correct merrymouse, nobody is a 'subject' any more. We are British citizens and have been for some time now.

And grimbletart - have you read '1066 and all that':
Cavaliers = Wrong but wromantic
Roundheads = Right but repulsive

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 31/05/2012 15:08

We are a democracy in most of the ways that matter, yes - that's why I think it's so flipping daft to have a house of lords and a wealthy family at the top of the tree! Yes, the Queen doesn't necessarily have much say, but look at Prince Charles for goodness sake, forever mouthing off about architecture and building little towns out of ticky-tacky for the proles to live it!

I just think it's silly and wrong.

grimbletart · 31/05/2012 15:09

The republic was successful in ways while it lasted, the problem was Cromwell was a dictator

Squoosh I agree. But it just goes to show that all systems from left to right have an elite. And all we ever do is exchange one elite for another.

I believe North Korea is a republic.....Grin

squoosh · 31/05/2012 15:09

Loveis British republicans abhor the idea of revering someone who happened to be born into a particular family, revering a role that has nothing to do with merit.

It's quite simple.

loveisagirlnameddaisy · 31/05/2012 15:10

Okay, last post on this issue as I know it gets dull, but for me, the fact she is unelected means nothing. I don't consider people view me as an individual any differently to how they would if we abolished the monarchy. She is the head of state in name only and I cannot think of one way in which the RF are harmful. The class system would not suddenly crash down around our ears if we were a republic - it's human nature for many people to want to feel they are better than others (not saying I feel that way, just saying...)

And an elected head of state may well be preferable for some, but I'm sure if some goon was elected, there'd be far more people bemoaning that than there are bemoaning the royal family.

Aboutlastnight · 31/05/2012 15:10

Ach it's not like I go round all day seething with resentment Grin I think we should scale down the pomp and ceremony and I think there are better things to celebrate about being us than the Royal Family. No one ever suggests we celebrate the Magna Carta.

Original poster
Hullygully · 31/05/2012 15:10

I do think Di was bumped off btw. And I know someone wh was involved in her autopsy who says she was deffo preggers.

The royals and the establishment HATE Mo Al Fayed. That's why they'd never give him a passport, especially when he owned Harrods.

Neither am I being deliberately provocative, I don't think mine are by any means unusual or extreme views (or rather didn't before this!)

And for the ninety millionth and last time:

The reason I said they were German is to illustrate the nonsesne of celebrating centuries of "Britishness" and "Glorious Tradition."

I don't give a flying fuck beyond that.

OP posts:
loveisagirlnameddaisy · 31/05/2012 15:12

Oh squoosh you made me post again...

I don't revere her. I don't think of her as my superior. I am not her subject. But I still respect her as an individual and feel the Royal Family brings many benefits to the UK from a foreign aspect. Why do so many foreign tourists lap up the royal stuff??

Psammead · 31/05/2012 15:12

Well we do love a good moan.

Seriously though, I also do not want the UK to be represented by the head of the Church of England. I do not think religion and the state make for good bedfellows. Especially in a fairly diverse country like the UK.

squoosh · 31/05/2012 15:12

Yes and as an Irish person I'm certainly not holding up Cromwell as a figure to be admired. I think the head of state should be elected, not someone who happens to be born into a particular family nor someone who bullied their way to the top.

Democratically elected.

Kewcumber · 31/05/2012 15:13

"upkeep of several palaces and pointless parties." - you don;t think this would continue in a republic?!

I'm not pro or anti monarchy or republic btw - elected or unelected head of state would make not one sod's bit of difference to anyone except the reigning monarch or the president (delete as appropriate).

The big benefit of having had the monarchy restored after a civil war it is firmly established that the monarchy can only exist with the approval of parliament - that was firmly demonstrated most recently by the (forced) abdication of Edward.

I beleive that the monarchy will continue to be slowly marginalised and the civil list will shrink further by the end of our lifetimes. Then we will have a cheap royal family (along the lines of the Netherlands) and no expensive bureaucrat with pretensions of adequacy as President. Win win.

MmeLindor. · 31/05/2012 15:14

Your theory of centuries of Britishness doesn't hold up, Hully, because the German side of the family is just one side of the family.

How far back does the English/Scottish side of the Royal family go?

loveisagirlnameddaisy · 31/05/2012 15:17

Well if it makes you feel better, apparently hardly any schoolchildren in London know why we're having a Jubilee or what the relationship is between Prince William and the Queen. It would seem their influence is not as powerful to the future generation as some might think.

Kewcumber · 31/05/2012 15:17

Sorry Hully - I made the Half a brain comment because I really believed that you did have half a functioning brain and were joking. Apologies.

squoosh · 31/05/2012 15:17

Because tourists love the perceived glamour that surrounds Royalty. Why else?

Although I'm not sure the glamour factor will still hold after today's 'revelations' in which we are told the Queen's favourite food is Special K and jam sandwiches. If I had the royal kitchens at my disposable I think I could dream up better snacks than a jam sandwich. :)

Psammead · 31/05/2012 15:17

Kew, not in my republic, it wouldn't.

I would not, for example, expect that a president or similar would have a state funeral for his mother, or a massive wedding for his granddaughter.

State occasions are a matter of course, obviously - that's the whole point of a head of state. But we wouldn't be paying for his or her Kodak moments.

As regards palaces, well, one would be enough. If he or she needed more residences they would be open to the public and funded by tourism. In my republic.