Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
Maisyblue · 09/09/2014 08:25

I agree polo....... If the royals were gone the palaces would be even more accessible to the public. All the old private rooms laid bare for all to see. Really this "tourist" thing is just about the only thing the royalists have to defend having a monarchy but it's all nonsense, like you say the tourists would still come. We're in the 21st century now, it's time the "royal family" and all it stands for were consigned to the history books.

WitchWay · 09/09/2014 08:32

They need at least an heir & a spare - it's in the job description.

DoctorTwo · 09/09/2014 08:35

Waltermittythesequel Mon 08-Sep-14 11:19:40

I wonder how much the royal family pull in with tourism?

A lot I reckon!

Not really, especially when compared to Versailles. I wonder what happened to their royal fambly...

I'm sure they're lovely people we shouldn't be wishing ill upon, let alone hoping they'll be having their noggins lopped, but why should we pay for their lifestyle?

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 08:39

Doctor
We don't pay for their lifestyle.

Maisyblue · 09/09/2014 08:46

unclet..... William was trained at great expense by the RAF. The opportunity to train as a pilot in the RAF is not offered to everyone. William was allowed this privilege because of who he is. He and Harry who is still in the forces are indulged in ways that the ordinary squaddies would never be. They have both been allowed to treat their "careers" in the forces as a type of hobby. Nobody else would get the amount of leave that those two had.
Now, after all the thousands spent on his training William decides to leave the army and is now to become an air ambulance pilot. Who else in the real world gets to decide what they want to do and the opening is there waiting for them. Somebody said up thread that he will be treating this job like a hobby because he's not doing it for the wages.....well maybe not quite a hobby but it won't be far off. You can guarantee that events such as football finals and Wimbledon will take precedence when called for. There will be different rules for him......let's not pretend otherwise.

whatsthatcomingoverthehill · 09/09/2014 08:48

If you don't like having a constitutional monarchy then campaign for it to be abolished. Write to your MP, go and hand out pamphlets on the streets etc. That is positive action.

But no, instead people just bitch about Kate being pregnant again, or complain about them not being good role models. Can't you make your mind up? If you don't want a monarchy then surely what they do is completely irrelevant? The vitriol spouted about individuals who happen to have been born into this system is ridiculous and mis-targeted.

And I find the idea of a monarchy anachronistic.

UncleT · 09/09/2014 08:51

Actually no, it's been no kind of hobby. They do get time away for engagements, but for lengthy periods have done great work. Ask those plucked out of their sinking boats what they think of William's old 'hobby'. You can't fake being a top-notch SAR pilot. Obviously training costs money, yes, but you don't get to do it if you're not good enough. He actually has two jobs effectively, but that doesn't mean he's not highly skilled and saving real lives.

NoWayYesWay · 09/09/2014 08:52

I still don't understand why people adore them? Confused They are just people who happen to have been born (or married) into a family. What can anyone see in them that is so good or admirable. They are not clever people and they don't do anything particularly constructive with their lives. Sure, they do a bit of charity work but with all the support that they get it's not exactly difficult.

I can't hate them as individuals because I don't know them - I just hate Royalty as an Institution.

CariadsDarling · 09/09/2014 08:54

Harry has been described as one of top Apache pilots of his generation. It means he is one of the best amongst a group of very elite pilots.

William is to fly air ambulances.

Are we really to believe they were eased into these jobs because of who they are. That people lives are being put at risk just for the sake of a public relations exercise?

I think not

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 08:56

Maisy
William wasn't allowed to train as a pilot because of his eyesight. The rules are such that he was allowed to fly helicopters.
He served 7.5 years (same as my DH) before coming to the end of his term, and not signing on for longer. The same option is open to all service men and women, who equally have had thousands spent on their training.
The allowance was made that he could split his time between the services, so that he could gain hands on experience of all - which would be helpful in his possible future role as head of the armed services.
Inevitably there will be different rules for him, as he has a part-time unpaid job - supporting his grandmother.
Don't like him - fine - but don't make up stories to fit with what you want to belive.

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 08:58

I can spell - honestly - *believe Grin

whatsthatcomingoverthehill · 09/09/2014 08:58

So much hypocrisy and judgmentalism on this thread.

NoWayYesWay · 09/09/2014 08:59

Wouldn't it have been better to train pilots who were going to work full time rather than take lots and lots of breaks. (Skiing, Seychelles, Maldives, the Olympics etc etc etc) It would be far more effective use of all the training facilities.
I'm sure they are good pilots - the training process would ensure that but why train part timers?

UncleT · 09/09/2014 08:59

Not clever, nothing constructive? Oh dear. Perhaps you could ask some major charities whether they do nothing constructive. Or those who have had their lives saved by William or Harry (in their respective professional contexts). Are you clever enough to fly an Apache? Before you answer that, read about it.

Maisyblue · 09/09/2014 09:00

Are we really to believe they were eased into these jobs because of who they are........well people who don't put them on a pedestal and think they're some kind of super beings would believe that yes.

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 09:01

And of course, Harry going off to fight in Afghanistan is a hobby - what an insult to all servicemen! Angry

UncleT · 09/09/2014 09:02

I don't see anyone considering then to be super beings. If you can't make the point without unnecessary, insultingly-inaccurate hyperbole and misrepresentation, you probably know you're on fairly weak ground.

CariadsDarling · 09/09/2014 09:04

Being in the armed forces does involve time away in other countries doing things that could look like a jolly but are in fact valuable experiences for the people concerned.

My husband served for 30 years and travelled the world extensively doing things that had nothing to do with his actual military job but were part of being in the military.

Maisyblue · 09/09/2014 09:06

unclet......if it wasn't them saving lives it would have been someone else. Someone who was perhaps denied the opportunity because the young princes were deemed more worthy of the job and the money spent on training them. What exactly is it about them both that makes you so devoted, or do you happen to know them personally?

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 09:06

NoWay
You're writing like the Daily Mail! 'Lots and lots of breaks' - really specific that. Yes - they have some very good holidays - some ill judged - and I'm very jealous! But that doesn't make everything else they do worthless.
I can imagine what people would have said if they hadn't turned up to Olympic events - 'biggest event in London for years and they can't bother to support it'. They really can't win.
And Maisy - if you think anyone is eased into anything in the services, you're really showing your total lack of knowledge of the Forces. They have to be professionals, and work effectively as part of a team, otherwise the lives of others would be endangered.

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 09:10

All conjecture Maisy - where are the facts to back up your theory.

I am not adoring or devoted, but I am a Royalist as in my (reasonably educated) opinion, they bring more positives than negatives to the UK.

I accept that others think differently, but don't find it necessary to make feeble attempts at insulting them.

CariadsDarling · 09/09/2014 09:12

Putting them on a pedestal?

No, it's nothing to do with a pedestal but everything to do with having been a military family and knowing if they are pilots it's because they are good enough to be a pilot.

Maisyblue · 09/09/2014 09:13

Ajand...... It's a well known fact that Harry was never allowed to be in any danger in Afganistan. He was pulled back at the first sign of trouble. Him being there often made his troop more of a target. There is no insult to Harry, the insult is to all the brave service men and women who didn't get special treatment and weren't whisked away when it was thought their lives were in danger. To even suggest that at any time Harry's life was in any real danger in Afganistan is laughable. It just wouldn't happen.

ajandjjmum · 09/09/2014 09:16

Could you give me the source for your 'well known fact' please Maisy?

CariadsDarling · 09/09/2014 09:18

I think it's common knowledge that Harry did indeed engage with the opposition and as a result was top of Al Qaedas most wanted list.

Swipe left for the next trending thread