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.

Original poster

To think the 21st century is the time for a slimmed down Monarchy?

48 replies

Buxhoeveden · 05/05/2015 13:20

I was browsing a few of the many royal baby threads at the weekend and it struck me quite forcefully how many mentions of the baby's future career choices there were.

Surely, as DD of a King and then sibling of another King, she won't get a fully fledged 'career' (if any) and certainly not a free choice of one. I thought that was very sad.

Isn't it time we scaled it all back quite a bit? Or made plans to do so? Or Charles and/or William indicated his/their inclination to do so? Either Scandi-style or otherwise?

What would be the downside?

OP posts:
Original poster
Buxhoeveden · 05/05/2015 16:32

Perhaps watching such a young generation do all these antiquated things is what has hammered home the oddness of it all.

OP posts:
TheCraicDealer · 05/05/2015 16:32

I read somewhere that Anne knew that giving her children titles would be millstones around their necks and make it difficult for them to lead relatively ‘normal lives’. So she declined a title for Peter and Zara. Seems strange that she had this degree of insight when her DBrother did not in respect of his two children ten years later.

Original poster
Buxhoeveden · 05/05/2015 16:33

and saves us from the media and cult worship of self made celebrities

I beg your pardon Theknack? Confused

OP posts:
Original poster
Buxhoeveden · 05/05/2015 16:39

I think quite a lot of sleb-worship DOES go on (fed by media)... Doesn't it?

You think it would be a lot worse then, if RF were lower profile?

OP posts:
Theknacktoflying · 05/05/2015 16:40

Sorry for my clumsy wording - it is just that if push comes to shove, I would rather have the whole royal thing than the whole manufactured, stage managed 'celebrity-dom' like they do in the States ...

IssyStark · 05/05/2015 16:43

Craic indeed re Anne, although she had the benefit of marrying someone without a title and who refused to take a title, so titles for her children would have had to be new creations.

Edward is also interesting in that he hasn't got a dukedom, which is unheard of as the son of a reigning monarch (although it could be that he'll inherit DoE's title) and he also refused to have his children called princess and prince, which as grandchildren of the reigning monarch they were entitled to be called. Instead they are 'just' known by the courtesy titles given to children of an earl. He might be a bit of an idiot, but he could see the writing on the wall like Anne and in a way that Andrew has entirely failed to grasp.

Original poster
Buxhoeveden · 05/05/2015 16:43

Oh, I see what you mean Smile

Well they would still be there, in the slimmed-down scenario, just cheaper and with fewer parades and cannons Grin

I get the feeling William would like that. He seems quite retiring to me.

OP posts:
Original poster
Buxhoeveden · 05/05/2015 16:46

What jobs do Anne's DC do Craic? Have they managed 'real normal'?

OP posts:
The80sweregreat · 05/05/2015 16:48

Nice idea Bex, but considering the royal children will have a bodyguard outside their nursery/ school or classroom door, probably not practical! Imagine them having to spend time with 'peasant 'kids would be unthinkable to them. I dont hate them all, but when you see the wealth on display, then pictures of others with nothing, it just reinforces how we live in an unfair world. I think theres trouble a head when our present Queen dies. Charles n Camilla are not as popular..

YaTalkinToMe · 05/05/2015 16:52

Urghh Prince Andrew and his two hideous daughters. Have those two lazy over privileged brats ever done a days work in their lives

Yep they have.

squoosh · 05/05/2015 16:52

I think Anne's children had/have a more or less normal life. Zara does all the equestrian stuff, no idea what her brother does but you never hear about him in the media.

grovel · 05/05/2015 16:54

Peter Phillips works in Marketing. He's MD of SEL UK. A real job.

grovel · 05/05/2015 16:54

And Zara does not have a nanny.

SenecaFalls · 05/05/2015 16:55

Haven't they also changed the rules so that the equivalent of Beatrice and Eugenie born today wouldn't get the title Princess (didn't it require special permission to make it Prince George and Princess Charlotte I read at the weekend) - and B and E are the exceptions of that generation of cousins anyway.

This hasn't changed. Children in the male line who are grandchildren of the reigning monarch are HRHs and Prince/Princess. Further down the line they are not. A special exception was made by the Queen for William's children, who otherwise would have been Lord and Lady. Edward's children are known as Lord and Lady, but they are technically HRHs and Prince/Princess.

worridmum · 05/05/2015 16:59

you do know prince andrew "statory rape" would not be so in most other nations / states in the USA she was 17 /18 and he would only be charged if he had sex with her in her home state (florida i think cannot remeber) but he had sex with her in a place were she was old enough to conset so in fact he commited no crime (no mater how sleezy he is)

Its like saying you all are statory rapists if you had sex in the UK at 16 (age of conset in most states in USA is 18) and so in the eyes of the Americans everyone having sex at 16 (or even 15 in some european nations) are rapists.....

Original poster
Buxhoeveden · 05/05/2015 17:11

They have protection officers in the kindegartens, pre-preps, preps etc. Surely they could do exactly the same for state primary?

Either in Kensington or maybe a small Norfolk village school?

OP posts:
Original poster
Buxhoeveden · 05/05/2015 17:45

Hmm. Maybe just less pomp would do it. I don't suppose they can be dissuaded from spending like Onassis, in any case.

OP posts:
TattyDevine · 05/05/2015 18:46

PercyGherkin - Any child of a son of the reigning monarch can be a HRH Princess or Prince. As Beatrice and Eugenie are daughters of a son of the queen, they can be princesses. Edward's children are entitled to call themselves princes and princesses too, but don't, and are known as Lady, etc by choice of their parents. Anne's children are not because she is a woman (sexist much?!). The next generation again, William's children, are different yet again but it has recently changed for this generation.

It was also Princess Anne's choice not to give her children royal titles (as opposed to the Princess Prince type thing) (so the Countess of Skegness or whatever)

butterflyballs · 05/05/2015 21:41

Edward apparently gave up a promising "career" to do royal stuff. I thought he did its a royal knockout and then his career died a death so he was forced to go begging to mummy again?

I like Charles and his boys, I love Anne, she's a fabulous lady. Edward and Andrew and Andrews kids are a waste of space.

applecatchers36 · 05/05/2015 21:48

YANBU

YY to the queen being the last Monarch & the boys getting jobs & Kate being a SAHM

Maybe flog some of the minor royals stately homes to pay off all this debt that is apparently sinking the country....

professornangnang · 05/05/2015 21:56

Slim it down to zero. What a load of bs.

amothersplaceisinthewrong · 05/05/2015 22:03

Andrew and the Ugly Sisters are for the chop once Charles becomes King.

I do like the Countess of Wessex and the Princess Royal. Edward wimped out of the Marines (although contrary to popular rumour he is NOT the gay son.....)

Harry needs the love of a good woman and he will be OK! With someone like the dreadful Fergie however he will become another Andrew.

balletnotlacrosse · 05/05/2015 22:16

What a nasty comment amother. Care to post a photograph of yourself so we can all post whether we think you're ugly or not?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page