Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 26 27 28 ··· 32 33

Original poster

To think Prince William and his wife are lacking appreciation of their position

806 replies

fideline · 02/03/2014 21:16

and good fortune?

He just seems a bit of an over-privileged posh boy?

I know everyone says he has lovely manners, but we can expect a bit more than that, surely?

They have just hired a 'forrin' nanny a) after making an enormous PR fuss about not having one b) at a time of high UK unemployment.

The list of god-parents for their baby was a bit multi-barrelled and No foreign royals, as is traditional, but Not the slightest whiff of any demographic diversity either.

There seem to be a LOT of luxury holidays going on with these two.

The uni course he is doing has been especially designed for him and seems designed to prepare him for inheriting the enormous (private) Duchy of Cornwall. Not exactly public-spirited?

In the much-hyped first post-baby interview, he was keen to promote a charity saving Kenyan Rhinos. Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but the line between animals he shoots for fun and animals he wants to save is unclear and anyhow a charity for under-privileged (UK?) children would have been the nice, publicity-shrewd thing to do, maybe?

For a couple with a great deal of expensive PR expertise at their disposal they seem to be slightly missing the mark a bit too often.

OP posts:

kim147 · 09/03/2014 22:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

adamb123 · 09/03/2014 22:50

Why should we have a Monarchy?- Because we have one, it is part of this country and they do the job like an elected head of state would.
Why should we be expected to kow tow and support this family forever?why should we be expected to help the millions that live of benefits for ever, or pay for council houses for ever? Who said anything about supporting them, you live in a country you can have your own thought in.
To listen to their views without being allowed to challenge them face to face? Can you do this to everyone in this country? can you to MP? PM? Local councilors? any other person in this country? Why should you be allowed to see them face to face? we all have lives to live and based on some peoples actions why would they want to?
To have a family whose affairs cannot be discussed in Parliament?like yours and mine cannot be?

adamb123 · 09/03/2014 22:54

If it is not about their wealth, then do not mention it; do not moan about them going on holiday.

and jealousy comes into a lot.

Concept of monarchy- this is up front unlike republics, which hide behind fake values and words.

Given everything we do for them.- That is hardly anything.

adamb123 · 09/03/2014 22:56

and yes I do, it is theirs. who are you to say what someone should deserve or not. Who is anyone to do that.

FreudiansSlipper · 09/03/2014 23:04

a bristish tax payer

at least I get to vote which government I want to see running the country

I have no choice to but to fund this family thankfully I can speak out against them without no longer fearing them

FreudiansSlipper · 09/03/2014 23:06

not that in our life time we have lived in fear of speaking out against the royal family

Original poster

fideline · 09/03/2014 23:06

"her parents, you do not think they give her money? You do not think she has bank accounts that produce interest rates? You do not think she would have some investment someone?"

Just supposing for a moment you are right, however; do you think this argument is really an effective refutation of the idea that KM is rather spoilt and parasitical?

OP posts:

adamb123 · 09/03/2014 23:22

not really, many have spoken out about the royals and still do. You have no choice about paying for a lot of things so that line of argument does not work. You pay for the Mps and PM whether you vote for them or not, you pay for the EU etc etc whether you not to do not. Yes you partly fund this family, a few pounds a year.

FreudiansSlipper · 09/03/2014 23:26

but my vote is still counted as to who is in power

i may not like what tax money at times is spent on but being able to vote allows me the along with others to maybe make a change

i have no choice but to fund this family, and it is about time we had the choice

FreudiansSlipper · 09/03/2014 23:29

i do not want to fund this family at all because i do not believe we should have a royal family i do not care how much it is a year

i support and vote for a party that i agree with on many issues, not all at times they are in power and make changes other times they are not

but it is still a choice I as part of this country have to vote in a government

adamb123 · 09/03/2014 23:31

No actually I don;t think the Middletons have made such an enormous fortune from a kitchen table party favour business. A fortune yes, but not the kind of mega-fortune that allows them to hand multiple spare millions to each of three children.- well her parents only need to give each of them a million, perhaps the business that has been going for over 20 years. Besides this is not there only incomes. Then add all the other stuff into the mix.

Just supposing for a moment you are right, however; do you think this argument is really an effective refutation of the idea that KM is rather spoilt and parasitical? Certainly not parasitical. As for spolit, so what? she has grown up with money, who cares. You say it is not jealouly yet your post has just proved other wise.

adamb123 · 09/03/2014 23:34

You have a choice, like all of us do. Voting is not they only factor that decides a choice. The Royals do not rule, we will have one regardless of whether you want one or not. In a republic they will always be know as the royals. I do not want my taxes spent on a lot of thing but i do not get a say in how my money is spent. We allow are goverment to do that.

Well most of us do not want a vote on this issue, and you do know you do not have to vote at all?

Original poster

fideline · 09/03/2014 23:44

Adam you are making no sense.

This 'jealousy' accusation from all the arch-monarchists is getting rather old.

Why should tax-payers feel happy about subsidising people who behave in such a crass way. Why should taxpayers obediently swallow all the 'we are so ordinary' PR without demur?

Why do you think we should not be allowed to disapprove? And why do you interpret the disapproval as jealousy?

OP posts:

Original poster

fideline · 09/03/2014 23:47

Adam the difference between funding parliament and funding royalty is as follows;

Parliament is supposed to be useful.
Royalty is supposed to be ornamental.

W & C are turning out to be neither.

OP posts:

Original poster

fideline · 10/03/2014 01:35

Adam, are you James Middleton?

OP posts:

gertiegusset · 10/03/2014 01:49

Wow fideline, I think you might just have poked a sore point.

Adam, why do you think the French no longer have a royal family?

Original poster

fideline · 10/03/2014 01:58

"well her parents only need to give each of them a million, perhaps the business that has been going for over 20 years. Besides this is not there only incomes. Then add all the other stuff into the mix. "

This^^ coming after the confident assertion that Kate has her own millions (plural) struck me as interesting.

Ach, time I track my bed down.

OP posts:

gertiegusset · 10/03/2014 01:58

I would rather like to have a vote on whether or not we keep the royal family in their place or just get shot.
I said before, let them keep their palaces and most of their land but let them also bog off and get a job and pay their own taxes.

And in return they can keep their heads.

Seems fair to me.

gertiegusset · 10/03/2014 01:58

Yerp, me too.

Night.

adamb123 · 10/03/2014 11:30

fideline Mon 10-Mar-14 01:58:08

This^^ coming after the confident assertion that Kate has her own millions (plural) struck me as interesting.

Ach, time I track my bed down.

Do you not know how, the transfer of money works? If Kate has a trust fund, which is her parent’s, create for her, it is her parents money up until the point that it goes into her bank account. So therefore this would be Kate's own millions.

Also, as I pointed out Kate’s parents also had other incomes, which would mean they could give more to Kate. Also I said Kate would have other incomes, which would then make her have millions as an overall income.

Disapproval and jealously, are two different things. When you say you do not like the monarchy because you would rather have a vote or say in being head of state, or that you do not think they are needed for x or we have moved on from monarchs. Then that is disapproval not jealously. Jealously, is based on the wording you use and the argument’s against the monarchy. E.g dismissing comments by saying they make no sense, when actually the do, if you understand the topic at hand. Keep referring to the income of the Royals as tax-payers (which it no longer is in terms of paying for official duties, while there other incomes are not from the taxpayer) Using Phrases and questions such as “people who behave in such a crass way”, “Why should taxpayers obediently swallow all the 'we are so ordinary' PR without demur?”, “spoilt and parasitical” ,“over-privileged posh boy?”,“ There seem to be a LOT of luxury holidays going on with these two.”,“prepare him for inheriting the enormous (private) Duchy of Cornwall. Not exactly public-spirited?” Show traces of jealousy because of the wording. When you mention wealth and the phrasing of it, it crosses the line from disapproval to jealously. It is all in the wording.

Royalty is not supposed be ornamental they are also meant to be useful and Prince William and Kate do both. They will become more so later on when there time is needed.

As for being James…. No if I was I would be on holiday in the Sun or in a nice expensive food place eating. Not on here.

adamb123 · 10/03/2014 11:43

gertiegusset Mon 10-Mar-14 01:49:18

Adam, why do you think the French no longer have a royal family?
Well because of the Franco-Prussian War 1870 and the capture of Napoleon III and the capitulation. The French people where in uproar over it and therefore created a third republic. But did you know that the families that can claim the throne still live to day? And that they have wealth and land?

If they keep there lands which they would in today world and there money then they would not bog off any where. they would still live in the UK and they would not need to get a job like we do as they have money to live off. Oh they pay their own taxes anyway.

And in return they can keep their heads.- They would anyway, like the last French monarch did.

crazyspaniel · 10/03/2014 12:38

It is not jealousy to speak out against the royal family - that is just a lazy accusation made by monarchists who don't like people to have a different opinion to themselves. I believe it is infantilising and, frankly, embarrassing for a supposedly mature democracy to define its population as subjects rather than citizens. There is an assumption of basic human equality (in rights, if not in wealth) within a democracy, and this is being undermined by the expectation that the public will somehow revere one family because of an accident of birth. It makes me cringe and despair of the intelligence of people when they turn up waving flags and thrusting flowers at people who actually don't give a shit about them in return. It's like a modern day "opium of the masses" (though it's clear that there is now declining support for them). If Kate was genuinely of a charitable disposition, she'd have been involved in such activities before her marriage, and would be doing more than simply "working" by going to movie premieres and gala dinners once a month. I completely disagree that royals like her and William are "not just ornamental but useful". There are certainly other royals, like Princess Anne, and even Prince Edward, who do their fair share of public engagements, but it is unfortunately the case that the succession is in the hands of people who reward themselves with a holiday (and, yes, this does have a significant security cost to the taxpayer) every time they undertake a couple of hours "work" for a charity that they support for no other reason than because they know that they'd go the way of the French monarchy if they did bugger all.

adamb123 · 10/03/2014 13:29

crazyspaniel Mon 10-Mar-14 12:38:17

Jealousy is clearly shown when mentioned wealth and there lifestyle. As I have all ready said. Nothing to do with not liking other people’s opinion. You could argue it is equal as lazy for a republican to dismiss monarchists as sheep or refer to the Royals as parasites.
What I find funny is those that do not like the monarchy; try to make a point by using the phrase citizens not subjects, yet they seem to forget that we are both. What does subject mean? And what does citizen? What is on our passport?
Democracy does not mean republic nor does it mean vote in head of state. As long as everyone of age has a say in how they are governed, whether that is taking a more direct role in or voting someone to represent them. This is will accordance with human right laws and ideas.
In a democracy wealth does not have to be equal it does not have to be shared out. Inheritance is in part of every day life everywhere. And this is where the jealousy issue comes in. So they inherit wealth and most of us do not, get over it please.
Equality, has not be achieved anyway. As it cannot work in practices.
You have no idea what the Royals think of others, you assume they do not care about the people because of there status and wealth which is purely based on your own weird views.
Declining support for them? Hardly republicanism has not grown over the recent years it is still around 20% of the country as most still support the monarchy. Republicanism is becoming more vocal and they are being seen more. This does not mean it is growing. Even if it were, this would not change the lifestyles of the Royals.
You do not know if she did charity or not before hand, she was not a patron of charities as she was unable to do this. How do you know she does not do more? The media only report what they want you to see and, lets be honest they do not report everything.
Princess Anne and even Prince Edward have been brought up doing public work and they did not start doing more public work until they where 38 well Prince Edward was, while Princess Anna has always done Royal events on and off since she was old enough too. However, they both had too, this is the nature of monarchy. Once the Queen dies, Prince William Harry and Kate and Harry’s future wife will have to take on far more then they do know. But they do not have to.
No on denies the security costs for them, even when they go on holiday. But they can go on holiday whenever they want, it does not matter.
They support the charities because they care about the causes they do not only support charities they have created some.
Go the way of the French monarchy? Mmm well as I pointed out the third republic same peaceful and the first one did not. But then they did bring back the monarchy after. And the families of the old French crown still have wealth, and land and status. But do you really not understand the French revolutions? As doing nothing was not the reason for it, LOL

antiabz · 10/03/2014 13:37

That's funny, I could have swore that the republic campaigns member numbers shot up after the wedding / baby mania.

FreudiansSlipper · 10/03/2014 13:40

I have mentioned wealth and lifestyle as it is something I do not wish to find for the royal family

why because I do not think we should have one

how can that be considered it is because I am jealous. I simply do not want to be the queens subject, a family imo and many other who hold no inspiration to the general public, achieved little and take advantage of their positions time and time again

Flip

1 2 ··· 26 27 28 ··· 32 33