Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To not want to pay for another scrounger?

500 replies

weatherall · 08/09/2014 10:38

Poor Kate's with child again.

When will these scroungers stop pumping out sprogs they expect all the rest of us to pay for?

OP posts:
Bogeyface · 09/09/2014 00:20

It never ceases to amaze me how the British seem to fall for the crap of "Our Royal family makes us speshul" no it doesnt! France has a roaring tourist industry, the palace at Versailles doesnt suffer because it hasnt got a King or Queen in situ.

There are hundreds of monarchs throughout the world but none are worshipped and adored the way ours are. They are very expensive ornaments that the UK chooses to keep on its mantelpiece because it cant bear to throw them away. They serve no purpose and yet somehow they have gained sentimental value. As a minimalist I would suggest that they have outlived their usefulness and should be quietly be rehomed.

FreudiansSlipper · 09/09/2014 00:25

the monarchy would have to be replaced with an elected head of state

yes someone we could vote for to be head of state

I want the option to have a choice in who our head of state is I have no choice in the matter I support the monarchy

I do not care if I only pay 75p a years towards their upkeep (mmm really yet security costs millions) I do not agree with having an extremely privileged family being our head of state, I do not like what it stands for privilege, not hard work, intelligence, simply who your parents are and who you marry. I want for the public to have that choice ffs it is 2014 we have moved on in society

PhaedraIsMyName · 09/09/2014 00:44

What a nasty little thread. The question of whether or not there should be a monarchy is a valid one. On the whole and logically I can't see a need for them. It bothers me slightly that The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Denmark who regularly top the nice place to live lists do, so maybe there is something to be said for being a monarchy.

However if that is the debate you are after start a proper thread on it, not this snide and unfunny attempt at a parody.

mammuzzamia · 09/09/2014 00:44

Well said, Bogeyface.

And Freudian!

PhaedraIsMyName · 09/09/2014 00:55

yes someone we could vote for to be head of state

Well I suppose in Scotland we might in 10 year's time have President Eck elected by just enough people to get him the job and loathed by a very sizeable minority.

Or the Queen, loathed by a small minority, adored by a small minority with everyone else largely on the whole not that fussed but someone has to turn up at state functions and she does it quite well.

Bogeyface · 09/09/2014 01:26

Phaedra I dont think anyone is saying that Team Kate n Will shouldnt have a child if they choose to. The issue for many of us is that we have to pay for it! I would far rather pay for a family without a working parent who is there by circumstance (and that includes those who have been brought up to believe that work is an option rather than the key to true independence) than those who dont need any state help at all and yet accept it.

If the Windsors are not scroungers then neither are any who spend their time on hobbies rather than get paying work. If Wills can donate his salary for his Air Ambulance job then that means he doesnt need it, its a hobby. Far better that he leaves that job open for someone who would use the salary to support a family, I am sure that he has worked with many such people during his helicopter training.

PhaedraIsMyName · 09/09/2014 01:32

You misinterpret what I am saying. I am not an idiot.

My point is this is a valid topic for debate- there is no need to do it in such childish and spiteful manner.

Bogeyface · 09/09/2014 01:40

It isnt childish or spiteful, the OP was asking a valid question. ignoring the "i am not an idiot" comment

DaddyBeer · 09/09/2014 06:36

Be honest Bogey, the OP was just being snide.

ContentedSidewinder · 09/09/2014 07:04

France is the number one tourist destination but it is because 15+ million people visit DISNEYLAND

Yes they may swing by something cultural whilst there but unless you actually look at how many people are visiting the old royal palaces then it is a crap comparison.

Have a look at about how much revenue is paid from royal lands therefore reducing our taxes.

LovleyRitaMeterMaid · 09/09/2014 07:08

Get rid of them all!

Uptheairymountain · 09/09/2014 07:22

There would be more revenue from "royal" (or crown - they do not actually belong to the royal family) lands if the royals weren't taking so much money from it.

mateysmum · 09/09/2014 07:24

Freudian Your point is entirely valid. What pisses me off is the personal bitching that started this thread.

Maisy There is a big difference in the civil list which is a single chunk of money passed between the crown and the government and the tourist £'s that are spread widely through the economy. The tourist money is largely not going into foreign aid.

thomasinathetankengine · 09/09/2014 07:26

I'm sure that an elected head of state wouldn't come from a privileged, moneyed background in the same way that none of our current elected representatives do. Oh wait...

If there is sufficient strong feeling on the matter, lobby for a referendum on the matter. As long as people are clear on the costs that would be incurred regardless of whether we have a monarch or some other head of state (security, although less of it, building maintenence, travel, entertaining) then it's fine by me. I can't quite envisage the logistics of just stopping the monarchy but that's just because I've never really considered it. Personally, though, I'd prefer to address the imbalance in background of our current political cohort and the systems that appear to ensure the ongoing old boys' network nature of our political system first.

As for the criticism of William for taking a job someone else could do, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Presumably the poster who holds that view thoroughly approves of Kate, then, because apparently she's never had a job.

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 07:32

Bogeyface - we don't have to pay for it. Love them or hate them, with the exception of the Queen, we don't pay for them. How you can say being an air ambulance pilot is a hobby is beyond me - let's hope no-one you love ever needs to be rescued by any of these guys!

Funny how Kate's pregnancy is on all of the foreign news channels, when no-one is interested in our Royal Family.

written - there's a hell of a lot of money spent on things that I object to, at least I get some pride from the Queen - as do many others. Those who don't, fair enough, but don't being silly enough to think that yours is the only view. And how can you say the Queen does nothing. She's 88 and yet still gets dragged out to perform various duties. There's a difference between not liking/wanting the monarchy, and being totally blinkered.

my2centsis · 09/09/2014 07:34

Seriously?! OP you should be ashamed! Disgraceful attitude! A married couple who despite what you say does work are having their 2nd child and you have all these awful things to say about them! I would be ashamed if my children spoke the way you do

ClockWatchingLady · 09/09/2014 07:47

YANBU, OP.

Very happy for them as individuals. But the whole set-up's fucking ridiculous, and I hardly think people should censor their views on it just because there's an ickle baby involved.

KEGirlOnFire · 09/09/2014 07:53

YABU

NoWayYesWay · 09/09/2014 07:55

I imagine how I would feel if I were in their shoes. I would feel embarrassed for people fawning over me simply because I was born into the royal family. I would be so self concious of all the dozens of luxury holidays they take and all the other ridiculous privilidges.

I would abdicate.

There isno place for 'royalty' in a modern society.

UncleT · 09/09/2014 08:01

No place for royalty?? How strange, an awful lot of people clearly think very differently. I suppose what you meant was that YOU think there isn't, but the crowds who still love royal visits and those who attend related events obviously think otherwise, not to mention many others who support the monarchy from afar without necessarily chasing them about. Then there's the tourists, many of them clearly think otherwise too. Whether you like them or not, you can't just present your opinion as established fact when the truth is that many out there think the complete opposite.

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 08:03

No way - what 36 or 48 (dozens?) of luxury holidays have William and Kate had? They've had a few but dozens is just silly talk! Privileges - yes, but disadvantages too. The fawning must be embarrassing.

The Queen is the only person who can abdicate - she hasn't been on holiday out of the UK for years!

You're entitled to you opinion - as am I.

LovleyRitaMeterMaid · 09/09/2014 08:03

I agree, no place at all.

poolomoomon · 09/09/2014 08:04

They don't help tourism that much though do they. Let's be realistic here. When people come to visit London it's for the whole experience. They love Camden, London dungeons, London eye, Trafalgar Square and ALL of the sights there are to see. Buckingham palace is just one of many but it would still stand and still be a source of interest even hundreds of years after the royals had vacated. It's hardly like people visit and the old bint invites them all in for a cup of tea and biscuits. They go and gawp at the outside of it and take pictures, they'd still do this after the Royals had gone. And a lot of people visit the UK for the countryside, Liverpool etc. We are a country of great interest putting the Royals out of the picture.

People have only recently become interested in the Royals again since Will and Kate got married. The cynic in me thinks they were pretty much forced to do it to get people interested in them again. I mean it was all timed so perfectly wasn't it? 2011 they get married, 2012 jubilee and Olympics, 2013 they have their baby and now towards the end of 2014 another baby is announced... So they've been on the agenda for three years and the new baby provides another couple of years again. Perhaps that's just too cynical of me but...

We just can't be called a democracy when our head of state was not democratically elected and we've had zero choice in the matter. It's time for a referendum me thinks although no doubt a lot will vote to keep them because change is so scary and they're sentimentally attached to them, especially to Kate and Wills 'fairytale romance' Hmm.

UncleT · 09/09/2014 08:05

Any criticism of William's job is just nasty. He's flying air ambulances because, brace yourselves, he's proven himself to be an excellent pilot. I suppose people think that's either not worth anything, or that great helicopter pilots with exactly the right kind of experience just grow on trees by the bucket-load.

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 08:22

I have no problem with people not liking the Royals - we disagree - that's life. But why the nastiness?
Calling someone's 88 year old grandmother an 'old bint' - says more about you poolo than her.
We are a democracy because our Head of Government was elected - the Head of State is a more ceremonial role.
I hate people presenting their opinion as fact.

Swipe left for the next trending thread