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.

Original poster

Bbc headline Princess Kate passes PADI In Mustique is not news

297 replies

elizadolittlechoc · 02/08/2015 17:24

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.

OP posts:
WorktoLive · 03/08/2015 09:46

I've also heard it as 'Pay and dive in'.

BertrandRussell · 03/08/2015 09:50

I do know what "pouring vitriol" means (the poster immediately before me used it, by the way)

It's just that on mumsnet it seems to mean "not agreeing with me about something or someone".

BertrandRussell · 03/08/2015 09:52

It's a very extreme phrase- used for very minor things. Which is a shame becUse in context it's useful but it has become completely devalued.

LazyLouLou · 03/08/2015 10:01

Ah! I fully agree with both of those posts, BT.

This post has been more venting of spleen, but previous royal threads have been truly vitriolic. Maybe the other poster was referring to those?

Either way, I really should know better than to pile in. Such threads are quite depressing!

StitchingMoss · 03/08/2015 10:22

Why are they depressing? We live in a democracy, we're totally entitled to be thoroughly pissed off about the whole thing and "vent our spleen". It's insane that so many people in this country can't see what utter bullshit it is to have a hereditary monarchy in 2015 - my 7 yr old can understand the unfairness of it, why can't so many adults see it????

RedDaisyRed · 03/08/2015 10:24

Ego - I do know the foreign royals (I read Hello magazine - they are all over them every week). I have no problems with republicans expressing views at all. I just don't agree with them and I'm a Prince Charles fan.

keepitsimple0 · 03/08/2015 10:40

Most of us support the royal family in the UK

like the building of the pyramids and whether there is extra-terrestrial life, I regard that as one of life's greatest mysteries.

LazyLouLou · 03/08/2015 10:43

Depressing because of the repeated misinformation, snarking and personal jibes and insults.

Depressing because if, instead of merely venting, more people, on here or off, could rationally discuss the pros and cons then there could be a much more productive and meaningful outcome. Your cries of 'insanity' and 'utter bullshit' are one example. Such cries simply leave you open to being judged as jealous. It doesn't add to any meaningful debate. Both sides of the Royal Question are equally emotional and lacking in considered thought, evidence and workable proposals for change. T

Until that changes whinging abut the unfairness of it will be all there is in almost every anti-royal thread. Why is fairness so valued? It is a totally fallacious construct, meaningless in the way it is often applied here. What do you mean by it? Oh, they have more than I do just because they were born into that family Well, no shit Sherlock. And you have a lot more than a family born in, say, Burundi.

Do you really want everything to be fair? A wholly homogenised planet? I doubt it! And how would you achieve it? As well to rail at the moon for shining in the night!

rabbitstew · 03/08/2015 10:52

On this thread, it has been asked what she needs a holiday for, whether we'd ever know when she comes off maternity leave, she's been described as a waste of space, and nothing but a clothes horse. I don't think those sorts of comments are necessary in talking about whether or not we need a Royal Family. I seriously doubt she asked for her scuba diving experience to be reported on the BBC. Reserve your comments for the publicity machine, don't make them so personal to the individual (and vitriolic) and if you are not one of the people who made it personal, then don't assume I'm talking to you. Asking why someone's holiday antics are being reported by the international media is not really a good way to start a debate about the purpose of the Royal Family, anyway, precisely because their holidays should not be a matter of public discussion. Fair enough to question the BBC about why it reported it, but not really to use it as an excuse to say you think Princess so and so is a waste of space.

keepitsimple0 · 03/08/2015 11:06

Such cries simply leave you open to being judged as jealous.

what does this even mean?

Why is fairness so valued? It is a totally fallacious construct, meaningless in the way it is often applied here. What do you mean by it? Oh, they have more than I do just because they were born into that family Well, no shit Sherlock. And you have a lot more than a family born in, say, Burundi.

it's not about how much they have. It's the british fascination with giving them more when the rest of us are supposed to be experiencing austerity. Also, giving them anything while getting almost nothing for it seems to be what a prudent government and population should avoid.

LazyLouLou · 03/08/2015 11:15

I thought that first was entirely clear... you sound jealous. No matter how much you try not to, you do!

And your last paragraph includes some of that oft spouted misinformation. The history of the civil list is quite clear. The financial bottom line is less so. This has allowed some to feed all sorts of crap to us all.

It is because of that I find this all very depressing. Clear information and less emotional rhetoric is needed.

EponasWildDaughter · 03/08/2015 11:17

Debating the need of having the royal family will include looking at the daily lives of it's members though Rabbit. And the funding for it.

I'm not surprised about how many holidays they have because i'm under no illusions of their 'normality'. They're not 'normal'. Their lives are not 'normal'. Nothing about their lives can be compared to your average struggling family. Why be surprised that they're constantly only a few weeks away from another luxury holiday? What honest difference would it make if they both just went on a permanent holiday from now on? None. At all.

As for 'poor woman' ... ? She made an informed choice to become royal.

BertrandRussell · 03/08/2015 11:19

"anyway, precisely because their holidays should not be a matter of public discussion."

Why not? I'm paying for them, after all.

rabbitstew · 03/08/2015 11:25

To get anything visible out of them beyond waving and putting their name to things would be hugely expensive, though. The cost of security sending them anywhere that needs help and attention would be colossal, and they aren't democratically elected, so can't safely express their own opinions. Their sole purpose is to act as a figurehead. Yes, I think it scandalous that so much is spent on this, but they are doing all that is expected of them and all that they are permitted to do. I was under the impression that Kate's family's great wealth was what paid for most of their holidays, though.

rabbitstew · 03/08/2015 11:27

You don't own the Royal family any more than they own you, BertrandRussel so no need to talk like a slave owner.

BertrandRussell · 03/08/2015 11:29

I don't own Waitrose either, but I expect the hummus I buy to be up to scratch.

LazyLouLou · 03/08/2015 11:32

Are you, BT? That's kind of you.

That may not be as true as is often said. It depends on how you see The Sovereign Grant. It consolidates the funding previously provided through the "Civil List and the Property Services, Communications and Information and Royal Travel Grants-in-aid" so the burden on us as individuals is far less than some people think. And, as that money is used to pay for official engagements, we aren't paying for their holidays.

Then again you get into the arguments about how they got their private wealth, always stolen way back in the mists of time.

Then you get into all the republican stuff, according to whom they cost 3 or 4 ties more than they tell us they do.

There are so many sources of partial truths and flat out lies that we don't really have any faith in any of it.

But some will always be happy to believe the worst and feel free to vent. I'd rather finding a way of getting to the real information and evaluating the costs / benefits from there.

I suppose I could come over all conspiracy theory and assume that the newspapers are in cahoots and are either distracting us all from the real issues or shoving them under our noses to cause a rebellion... but I can't as I suspect they are just selling newspapers.

WorktoLive · 03/08/2015 11:32

I wonder if they had to have scuba diving close protection officers with her during the course?

Can you imagine the pressure on the instructor looking after such an important client?

Am a bit surprised at the criticism of Kate though. The consensus on here is very much that being a mother of two LOs is very much more than a full time job, especially if your partner works away and even if you have help.

LazyLohan · 03/08/2015 11:43

I don't think this is being reported as a positive puff piece for the Royal Family. They're not openly saying it, but the subtext is 'she's too busy to do any work but she's got plenty of time for holidays and leisure'. They're reporting it and leaving it for the public to make up their own minds when they know it's not going to play well with the public.

I mean, we're being told that she's far too busy with her kids to do anything constructive, but she's at Wimbledon, yacht races, diving on Mustique. She is taking the piss basically. I'm generally a monarchist but I have big reservations about her.

She seems to spend an awful lot of time in Mustique, she might want to think about how much good lazing about Mustique did for the reputation of Princess Margaret, who ended up massively unpopular.

I think she is playing a dangerous game and could find herself very unpopular. I also suspect unless she bucks up her ideas and starts to do some work William may begin to see her as a freeloader. I suspect their marriage could end up going the way of his parents. I don't think they look very comfortable together. He looks impatient with her, and she has a false almost manic rictus grin.

rabbitstew · 03/08/2015 11:48

BertrandRussel - you aren't telling Waitrose that hummus is a waste of space and shouldn't be on the shelves, though, are you? And you aren't the only person to shop in Waitrose, so I fail to see your point.

BertrandRussell · 03/08/2015 11:51

"I also suspect unless she bucks up her ideas and starts to do some work William may begin to see her as a freeloader." Grin Oh, the irony!

There used to be a joke about the cavalry officer who was so stupid the others noticed.........

LazyLohan · 03/08/2015 11:55

WorktoLive, to a certain extent that's true about having two small children. But she undermines that argument by constantly doing things which are fun for her without the children, like diving, going to Windsor or watching yacht races, swanning off to Mustique. But she's too busy to do any less boring things like meeting plebs in grotty hospitals. That argument is really undermined.

I was actually supporting her on a thread last week. This week I think she's taking the piss.

LazyLohan · 03/08/2015 11:59

Haha Bertrand. But at least the others seem to at least do something in return, even if it's not very taxing. I think if she carries on at this rate the rest of the royal family will raise eyebrows, because she will be drawing more and more attention to freeloading suggestions, which will mean there is more danger they'll be tainted by the accusation too.

fancyanotherfez · 03/08/2015 12:52

Exactly Lazylohan My issue with her is that you either risk the 'Let them eat Cake' attitude and swan off as much as you want and face whatever consequences there may be, play the ordinary family, and live accordingly, without the priveledges, or you take the cash and priveledges but actually do some public duties, children or no children, especially when you have help, and your work mostly consists of not very taxing visiting hospitals and looking concerned. She seems to want the 'let them eat cake' option and the ordinary family version.

SoupDragon · 03/08/2015 12:59

Why not? I'm paying for them, after all.

I was under the impression that, I n the case of William & Kate, you actually aren't paying for them.

Swipe left for the next trending thread