Bbc headline Princess Kate passes PADI In Mustique is not news

[elizadolittlechoc]

Or is it that I am so proud of my own daughter for working lots of shifts in student bars whilst studying for end of year exams, to pay for her PADI in UK waters, as well as passing the theory, supporting small Britsh businesses, seems slightly worthier? There is bigger news in the world this weekend.

I guess more people would be interested to know exactly how much the Royal Family cost the tax payer and how much provable financial benefit they give in return, if they didn't like what they are contributing towards. The Royal Family has always waxed and waned in popularity. I personally don't have a problem with Prince Charles, though. At least he has a personality. I have no idea whether or not the Queen has any personality at all as she has never been allowed to express any personality or any opinions. And, hereditary monarchy or not, Prince Charles is not going to be allowed to become King if the rest of the Establishment decide he wouldn't be good PR. Funnily enough, the Royal Family are not suicidal - they have a centuries old knack of reinventing themselves when the old formula doesn't appear to be working any more.

And, hereditary monarchy or not, Prince Charles is not going to be allowed to become King if the rest of the Establishment decide he wouldn't be good PR.

instead of letting "the establishment" decide, why not let us decide?

keepitsimple0, I know the Labour Party (and probably the other parties) do polling on the subject of the monarchy. If the polls suggested that we wanted a change they would probably propose a referendum.

If the polls suggested that we wanted a change they would probably propose a referendum.

I am well aware I am in the minority.

Then this isn't any more of an issue than any of the other things the Establishment decide without asking "us" first...

Well, as already pointed out, we probably would have that opportunity if enough people cared about it, as the suggestion that we need constitutional reform pops up quite regularly, but it's never proved a vote winner.

I wonder what got the French so rattled up to have a revolution?

the french monarchy was more oppressive.

that's the key. Ours are pretty low profile, have little power and take enough from the public purse to be incredibly wealthy, but not enough to be oppressive (it's between 50p to 200p per person. not much).

i for one would rather do just about anything else with that pound.

I LOVE Yes Prime Minister .

I suspect if people were asked who they thought the Head of State actually was, lots would say they didn't know and a large number would say they thought it was the Prime Minister, and if asked what they thought the Queen's role was, they would say the Queen's just an eccentric old lady who does what the Prime Minister tells her to do, reads speeches someone else has prepared for her, owns corgis, smiles and waves and has an embarrassing family. And that's why they wouldn't press for change, because the only change they would expect to get would be the replacement of someone who provides a bit of occasional entertainment with another awful politician who expects them to get off their bottoms to vote for him or her, but who doesn't actually do anything useful, isn't half so good at pomp and circumstance, who is annoyingly opinionated and who probably fiddles their expenses. Until people stop being so impressed by over-the-top ceremonies put on at vast expense, and massive displays of wealth, they will continue thinking the Royal Family are good value for money.

@rabbitstew if that's what people thought the Queen role is, why do they support giving the RF so much money?

They don't think about it, probably. I doubt many people have any more interest in how much the Royal Family receives from the taxpayer than they have in whether the amount of tax they pay will actually result in them getting the essential services they think they deserve.

What a horrible thread. Wish I'd never opened it.

I know. Talking about democracy, a written constitution, a Head of State, our national broadcaster and its sycophantic support of the Monarchy.
That's all absolutely fine but I don't agree with personal attacks on DoC. I don't like her much but she seems to attract much more vitriol here than other more questionable members of the 'royal family'.

I agree, derxa that the personal attacks on the DoC were unpleasant (it's why I first entered this thread, to comment on exactly the same thing), but those posts stopped a very long way back. Now it's more about what the Royal Family actually represent, why so many people support the notion of a monarchy or don't object to it, and what, if anything, might replace it.

I wish Mumsnet HQ would put up a ROYALS section just underneath AIBU on the Popular Talk Forums.

It's the same stuff going round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and rand round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round

This is what you pay the BBC for...

But look on the Education threads, Health threads, Relationship threads... anywhere on Mumsnet, and it's the same stuff going round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round

I cut and pasted more than you, rabbitstew - I win!

Did you know that the world goes round and round?

Debate often seems to be circular. But there's nothing to be gained from saying you can only have a conversation once, or that a point can't be made more than once within a debate. Who is to say something has been discussed 'enough'? Or that no one else need speak? Or that there is no point?

Not everyone is a MNer. Not every MNer clicks on every thread. Not every MNer reads the whole of the threads they do click on. Nothing wrong with repetition IMO. If you've read RF threads before and you're bored, don't click on any more.

No one would go on to the Relationships board and request there be no more posts by abused women and that they should instead to look up old threads for the sake of avoiding repetition!

Humph.

It's the first time I've ever clicked on a RF thread. If they were all in a separate RF section, I would probably never click on them, as it's not normally a subject I find interesting! This one was a work avoidance click. Very successful, too.

And it has made me think more about the subject.